We've all been pleasantly surprised by the drop in gas prices lately. It's now in the $2.90/gallon range and that's a good thing.

CBS News reported on a recent Morgan Stanley analysis. "Morgan Stanley predicted that sustained low gas prices could mean households could have as much as $40 billion extra to spend this quarter." Merry Christmas!

This report was issued in October, before the midterm election, yet never touted by a single democrat. Why?

Well, industry experts claim that increased oil production, mainly domestic, coupled with waning demand due a sluggish world economy has created a supply glut driving prices down, which is great for American voters' wallets.

Now, does everyone remember Tom Steyer, the enviroweenie billionaire? His super PAC was the single largest campaign donor this election cycle, and every cent went to the democrats.

He wouldn't have been pleased if democrat candidates all started touting lower gas prices and increased oil supply, due mainly to domestic production. My guess is he would have pulled funding from anyone who tried. Talk about a rock and a hard place.

It's actually amusing when you think about it. The economy improved due to lower gas prices, and those on the left couldn't utter a word about it.

But there may be another reason for such a precipitous drop in oil prices, and it is conspiratorial.

Yes, it's fun with conspiracy time again. Won't you join me?

Before the election, some speculated that the Obama administration may have made a deal with the Saudi's to drive oil prices down thus decreasing domestic gas prices. This could have been one positive thing the Democrats could point to, but they never did.

CBS news reported that, "A former aide to Senate majority leader Harry Reid, Jim Manley, echoed that point. 'While the economy has gotten much better in recent months, a lot of people are feeling it quite yet, so anyone who tries to claim credit for the economy is doing so at their own peril.'"

All right, so, apparently, there was no election advantage to be gained this time.

So if a deal with the Saudi's was made, who would be the winners, and, more importantly, who might the losers be, longer-term.

Winners: How about the environmentalist wackos who hate domestic drilling and donate gazillions of dollars to the Democrats. How about the Democrats who might benefit by an economic downturn in a red state like say… Texas. Let me explain.

Two of the most booming economies in the United States are Texas and North Dakota. The Kansas City Star reported that, "State economies that have benefited the most from the country's rebound in oil production, such as Texas and North Dakota, are vulnerable to an economic slowdown. North Dakota, with its high oil production costs, could be among the first to feel the impact. One state official recently said that the state should prepare for a downturn."

These two states are extremely vulnerable to a relatively sudden drop in world oil prices. If the Saudi's unilaterally keep dropping the price of oil, it will be cheaper and more advantageous for the United States to just buy from Saudi Arabia.

Not that North Dakota isn't politically important, but it isn't. The largest red state and key electoral state, Texas, would suffer mightily from an oil production slowdown and thus the Democrats might calculate that disillusioned Texas voters may spurn the Republicans and look to Democrats for answers. If this were to happen, most pundits agree that if Republicans lose Texas in 2016, they can never prevail. Loser: Texas and the Republicans.

Yeah, it's a long shot conspiracy but I would put nothing passed the democrats to do anything and everything to win in 2016.

Don't forget to Like Freedom Outpost on Facebook, Google Plus, & Twitter. You can also get Freedom Outpost delivered to your Amazon Kindle device here.