The proportion of conservatives to liberals in Oregon and Washington is not nearly as small as that (okay, I understand you are joking to make a point). I grew up in Oregon in a small town about 30 miles southwest of Portland and went to Oregon State (Corvallis). I now live and work in Richland, WA (southeast Washington). In both cases, the eastern sides of each state are conservative, but the west sides are where most of the liberals are. Oregon is a slightly bigger state than Washington (by land area), but has only half the population. In Oregon, the Left is concentrated in "Fruitcake Portland." In Washington, the Left is slightly more spread out, but are concentrated in the "Seattle-Tacoma I-5 corridor." Recently, ridiculous gun control schemes were passed (60% vs. 40% by popular vote, and guess where the 60% live? King County, of course!) In the previous election, Governor Jay Inslee won re-election, and the ONLY county he carried was King County. Just like in the Hunger Games, the rest of us out here in "The Districts" don't count. Why don't I move? I was born in Oregon and I have 7 acres in the country that my mom & dad finished paying for back when I was in 2nd grade. Its our family estate and the liberal Nazis are not going to force me to leave. I also have a house here in Richland with only 2 payments left and I'll own that too. The Left is not going to force me out. By the way, most of California (by county) is also a "red state." The only "blue" areas are San Fran-freako, Los Angeles, San Diego, and Sacramento. See a pattern here? Thank God for the Second Amendment! We may need it yet.

One must make difficult choices in life. I left California and somehow survived.

Not sure there is a right move left beyond a revolution of some kind, they are starving us for their greedy looter ideas, and is getting worse every week...

Yes, we still have to limit their power by not giving them the funding at all levels. We can spend what we earn more efficiently and in our specific pursuits of happiness.

"Labelling the election as a result of the folks who elected the current president because "they just wanted something crazy and different" is demonizing a large swath of this nation's voters. "
That's not what I meant in this particular comment. I'm saying people wanted "radical reforms". Some of them (like me) think the fed gov't has gotten too large and intrusive compared to what the Constitution had in mind. Some of them sense that since the post-WWII period income disparity has increased. I agree with that, but most of it is from wealthy people generating more wealth, and I don't think it's possible or desirable to steal their wealth and share it. Other people may have other reforms/changes they want. Note that President Obama won on a slogan of Change.

The next part of the narrative says someone with the levers of power could institute the reforms but they won't because to get to that level they become beholden to people for political favors. In this view there's an obvious fix to many problems, but once politicians get the power to execute the fixes, they get pressure not to do it from people benefiting from the problems. The narrative goes that we need someone crazy and different who will go and pull the levers of power that provide high-paying jobs, make crime go down, shrink gov't, etc. (I completely disagree with this narrative because I think the problems are already getting better, and gov't needs mostly to get out of the way.)

That's what I mean by just wanted something crazy and different. I stand by that and I think the same forces as I said could lead to a Bible-thumping preacher, Sean Penn, or Oprah.

I am not demonizing people who want something different, although I think Clinton was exactly right in saying Trump intentionally appeals to a basket of deplorables, who are think are a small swath of voters.

I do not think MSM are responsible for President Trump's clownish persona. That's his shtick. That's how he gets attention. The media are getting more democratized, and Trump goes straight to the people with his lurid tweets.

That does seem to be the case, and sums it up. I cringe at some of the things he does, and sometimes, I almost think he is a facade and there are some people in the background really making things happen and fighting the fall of night.

I would note that only extreme extenuating circumstances allow the President to assume direct control of National Guard forces. And in such extenuating circumstances, the President is essentially declaring the Governor unfit and assuming his/her place in the command hierarchy. This is far from normal procedure and even the cited wikipedia article notes only one instance of this being invoked:

September 24, 1957 President Dwight D. Eisenhower federalized the entire Arkansas National Guard to ensure the safe entry of the Little Rock Nine to Little Rock Central High School. (The Governor was rebelling and preventing federal laws from being enforced.)

All other activations of the National Guard were for foreign military service which is subject to Congressional rules - not Executive ones. The exception is not the rule.