‘Story in the Public Square’

Professor and economist Mark Blyth is interviewed by The Pell Center.

I don’t want to say much about the video, here with this blog topic, because I want to leave it to readers of Progressives Chat to take their own time viewing it.

‘… Where are the Democrats? …’

Last Monday [October 1, 2018], a live stream of an insightful interview—discussing Brett Kavanaugh days before the U.S. Supreme Court voted to confirm him to the U.S. Senate—took place on The Real News. There was so much to it. I don’t recall any reader posting it in the comments of Progressives Chat. So, here it is.







UPDATE: Last week, I added to the “Recommendations” list a link to uploaded YouTube videos of Joe Rogan’s program, The Joe Rogan Experience. I have been familiar with Rogan since he was a cast member of the 1995–1999, NBC comedy series NewsRadio, one of that decade’s most unheralded yet excellent series. After that, Rogan hosted NBC’s reality-competition series Fear Factor (2001–2006; 2011–2012). Rogan has, of course, been very involved with the UFC. His podcast is very popular. But I think Rogan (b. 08.11.1967, in Newark, New Jersey) is worth being on the “Recommendations” list because he has a very open program in The Joe Rogan Experience; a talent for interviewing his guests; and people of different political viewpoints appreciate him.

The Pretenders

In 2016, after what went on with the Democratic presidential primaries, and as the general election kept unfolding, I knew not to let the Democratic Party receive any of my votes.

During that period, numerous “progressives” revealed how they were either desperate or dishonest. A common example was smearing Green Party nominee Jill Stein. (I voted not only for Stein but, from my home state Michigan, I also voted for a straight-ticket Green Party.) Anything that could get thrown at her—whether it was about wi-fi or about Russia—was used to prop up Hillary Clinton. 

It is actually good numerous Pretenders have exposed themselves. One of them, and this goes back to the summer of 2016, was David Pakman. In fact, shortly after he did that, his sidekick Louis Motamedi left his program. This week, Pakman and Sam Seder and Benjamin Dixon went after one who dissents, Jimmy Dore. Pakman, in particular, made a broad comment aimed at people who are in agreement with Dore.

Some actual progressives—those who are not sucking up to the corrupt, corporate, Democratic Party Establishment—struck back.

The Pretenders—those political people who make their living, such as with having a program (radio, podcast, et al.), telling viewers and listeners who are progressives they are with them on politics and policies but are liars and party shills—need to become more and more exposed.

Thank you, Niko House, Jamarl Thomas, and Tim Black!

Here are some of their videos:

Remembering Mae Brussell

This Wednesday, October 3, 2018, marks the 30-year anniversary of the death of Mae Brussell.

Brussell, above, was a conspiracy theorist. She was a conspiracy theorist in the good sense; not the kind who feels like a possible con artist but one who was a thinker—and one who did extensive research—and she helped those who paid attention to also do some thinking.

In fact, I find myself wondering what Mae Brussell would think of today’s political climate—and, well, it doesn’t take me long to realize she would have had some of this figured out. I think, from many of her findings, she would not be surprised.

Born May 29, 1922, in Beverly Hills, California, Mae Brussell had her own radio program, Dialogue: Conspiracy. She was known to have read, researched, and reviewed many of the events that struck over recent years—and ones from past generations—and she theorized what and why, and even how, they happened. She was concerned about and covered the history of fascism. That is apparently captured in the book, The Essential Mae Brussell: Investigations of Fascism in America, published by Feral House, edited by Alex Constantine, and released in 2014. (I used the word apparently because I don’t have the book let alone have I read it. But, I am now considering buying it.)

A standout with Mae Brussell was the 1963 assassination of 35th U.S. president John Kennedy. She did not, not surprisingly, buy into the Warren Commission’s report. In fact, I will provide a link to an uploaded YouTube of Mae Brussell connecting JFK’s assassination to Nazis. It was from November 22, 1981, eighteen years to the date. Due to page layout, I will present that video at the bottom of this blog entry topic. In the meantime, following this paragraph are some quotes by Mae Brussell.

“The word terrorist has become as American as apple pie.” —Mae Brussell, The Essential Mae Brussell: Investigations of Fascism in America

“I am against the planned political assassinations by our intelligence and defense agents. The CIA–FBI–DIA and DISC (Defense Industry Security Command) were set up originally to protect citizens of the USA. They became their own judges and juries, private servants of corporations with investments at home and abroad. I am against the constant destruction of evidence in criminal matters and political assassinations. Prime witnesses are murdered before or after testifying. Diaries are forged and planted in obvious places. Doubles are created to confuse. The Police Departments manipulate facts in cooperation with conspirators. I am outraged that our judicial system since 1947 has been patterned after Nazi Germany. Patsies are dead or locked away. The assassins walk the streets or leave the country—‘home free.’ I am against using the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Earl Warren, to cover up the assassination of President Kennedy. When the highest court is corrupt, there is no hope at local levels.” —Mae Brussell

“Propaganda is an important weapon of the fascist state. TV and the media are filled with clandestine agents, some posing as liberal writers, whose purpose is to break the credibility of researchers or discredit evidence that would confirm conspiracies. Colleges and academic institutions offer no courses on agents provocateurs or how to recognize covert operations. When an accurate history of the violence in the 1960s and ’70s is written, facts will reveal that government provocateurs created most of it. A series of our own Reichstag fires was the justification for a sweeping domestic operations program designed to deny liberties guaranteed by the Constitution.”—Mae Brussell, The Essential Mae Brussell: Investigations of Fascism in America 

30th Anniversary • Anita Baker’s ‘Giving You the Best That I Got’

This past Monday [September 24, 2018], I mentioned the one-year anniversary of Progressives Chat. That was exactly one year this past Tuesday [September 25]. Today [Thursday, September 27] is the 30th anniversary of the release of Anita Baker’s “Giving You the Best That I Got.”

This is a personal thing with me because of timing. 30 years ago, this month, I entered my senior year in high school with the 1988–89 season. When one thinks back to some particular points in time, one can also think about the music from that period.

I took an immediate liking to Anita Baker with her 1986 album Rapture. It included memorable songs “Sweet Love,” “Caught Up in the Rapture,” and “Same Ole Love (365 Days a Year).” Her follow-up, Giving You the Best That I Got, included “Just Because,” “Good Love,” and the LP’s title track. While “Sweet Love” won Baker the 1986 Grammys for R&B Song, the entire LP won her Best Female R&B Vocal Performance, and she repeated winning those same categories, for the year 1988, for “Giving You the Best That I Got.” She went further than that. Heading toward those 1988 Grammys, which were broadcast February 22, 1989, it was obvious Bobby McFerrin’s “Don’t Worry, Be Happy” and Tracy Chapman’s “Fast Car” were frontrunners for slots in Record of the Year and Song of the Year. As expected, they landed nominations. But, only one more recording also received nominations for both prizes. It was “Giving You the Best That I Got.” (The other four combined slots for Record and Song went to separate titles.) Credit for writing this tune, along with Baker, also goes to Randy Holland and Skip Scarborough. (Both categories were won by McFerrin.) And I will share the song’s video posted above.

Relating this to politics: I had this unintentionally funny conversation with another person in 2016. As I was mentioning my disgust for David Brock, I asked the person, who was a supporter of Hillary Clinton, “Doesn’t it bother you that Hillary Clinton hired for her campaign the man who smeared Anita Baker in the early-1990s?” I meant to say Anita Hill. I tripped. And it was too late. I walked right into the following response: “He was…Giving Her the Best That He’s Got.”

First Anniversary for ‘Progressives Chat’

Hello, Readers!

Tuesday [September 25, 2018] marks one year from the first official blog entry of Progressives Chat.

So, 52 weeks have passed.

Thank you to readers and participating commenters for this site where we can loosely post about whatever springs to mind and is especially relevant.

—Candy83

Coming Up: U.S. Governors

2018 Gubernatorial Elections: With a national shift for the Democrats, these are the competitive states.

The 2018 midterm elections includes 36 gubernatorial elections. So, 72 percent of the nation’s states will have governor races. From that, 9 of the Top 10 populous states are on the schedule. The exception is North Carolina, on the schedule in leap/presidential years, and a Democratic pickup in 2016. The Democrats have 3 of the other Top 10: California, New York, and Pennsylvania. For the 14 states not on the schedule, they are equally 7 each in the Republican and Democratic columns. (Republicans have 33 to the 16 governorships with the Democrats.) On the maps, that *7 is noted by 270 to Win.

If 2018 turns out to be a national wave of a midterm elections for the Democrats, off Republican incumbent U.S. president Donald Trump, that national wave is not going to avoid flipping a number of Republican-held governorships to Democratic. It wouldn’t surprise me, for example, if all six of Trump’s 2016 Republican pickup states—Florida, Iowa, Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin—end up, in January 2019, with Democratic governors. (Pennsylvania delivered a Democratic pickup on that count in 2014 with Tom Wolf.)

The above map leaves beige (which would normally be yellow) for states in position to potentially flip. Alaska is independent and favored to flip Republican. But, the Democrats, after winning a 2017 pickup of New Jersey, have 16 and need a net gain of +10 to win over a new majority.

If the 2018 Democrats succeed, here is my estimated order of likely flips:

(17) Illinois

(18) New Mexico

(19) Michigan

(20) Maine

(21) Nevada

(22) Florida

(23) Wisconsin

(24) Ohio

(25) Iowa

(26) Georgia — Tipping Point State

(27) Kansas

(28) Arizona
(29) Oklahoma

For No. 30, that is between Tennessee and Maryland; but, they are highly likely to end up Republican holds. For the 2018 Democrats to flip one or both of them, they would likely have to have a midterm elections in which the Republicans are being more thoroughly repudiated.

Since following the 1994 midterm elections, when Republicans (off Democratic incumbent U.S. president Bill Clinton) flipped new majorities of the U.S. House, U.S. Senate, and the nation’s governorships, the party which has had the majority in the U.S. House also held the majority of the nation’s governorships. The latest polls suggest that pattern will get broken; that the Democrats will not flip a sufficient number. But, it is a pattern effective since 1995. And, depending on the next month or so, and Election Night, it could end up held.

In 2014, the Republicans won the U.S. Popular Vote, for U.S. Governors, by +4.09. The result: Republicans 50.33% vs. Democrats 46.24%. 

Here was the list, in descending order, by their margins (* party pickup):

2014 GOVERNOR — REPUBLICAN (24)
• Tennessee (Bill Haslam, term-limited) +47.47
• Nevada (Brian Sandoval, term-limited) +46.70
• South Dakota (Dennis Daugaard, term-limited) +45.04
• Ohio (John Kasich, term-limited) +33.61
• Wyoming (Matt Mead, term-limited) +32.14
• Alabama (Robert J. Bentley, resigned; 2018 nominee: Kay Ivey) +27.32
• Iowa (Terry Branstadt, in President Trump’s administration; 2018 nominee: Kim Reynolds) +21.72
• Texas (Greg Abbott) +20.37
• Nebraska (Pete Ricketts) +17.92
• Oklahoma (Mary Fallin, term-limited) +14.80
• South Carolina (Nikki Haley, in President Trump’s administration; 2018 nominee; Harry McMaster) +14.48
• New Mexico (Susana Martinez, term-limited) +14.44
• Idaho (Butch Otter, term-limited) +13.97
• Arizona (Doug Ducey) +11.80
• * Arkansas (Asa Hutchison) +11.25
• Georgia (Nathan Deal, term-limited) +7.86
• Wisconsin (Scott Walker) +5.67
• Maine (Paul LePage, term-limited) +4.81

[U.S. Popular Vote: +4.09]

• (26) Michigan (Rick Snyder, term-limited) +4.06 — Tipping Point!

• (27) * Illinois (Bruce Rauner) +3.91
• (28) * Maryland (Larry Hogan) +3.78
• (29) Kansas (Sam Brownback, in Trump’s administration; 2018 nominee: Kris Kobach) +3.69
• (30) * Massachusetts (Charlie Baker) +1.86
• (31) Florida (Rick Scott, term-limited) +1.07

2016 GOVERNOR — REPUBLICAN (02) — Two-Year Term
• * Vermont (Phil Scott) +8.74
• * New Hampshire (Chris Sununu) +2.27

2014 GOVERNOR — INDEPENDENT (01)
• * Alaska (Bill Walker) +2.22

2014 GOVERNOR — DEMOCRATIC (09)
• California (Jerry Brown, term-limited) +19.94
• New York (Andrew Cuomo) +13.95
• Hawaii (David Ige) +12.37
• * Pennsylvania (Tom Wolf) +9.86
• Minnesota (Mark Dayton, term-limited) +5.56
• Oregon (Kate Brown) +4.76
• * Rhode Island (Gina Raimondo) +4.46
• Colorado (John Hickenlooper, term-limited) +3.35
• Connecticut (Dan Malloy, not running; 2018 nominee: Ned Lamont) +2.57

The last three gubernatorial majorities pickups were in 1994 (Republican, off Democratic president Bill Clinton); 2006 (Democratic, off Republican president George W. Bush); and 2010 (Republican, off Democratic president Barack Obama). The national shifts in those elections, compared four years earlier, were:

• 1990 to 1994 Shift: R+17.12 divided by +11 = 1.55 seat gains with each nationally shifted percentage point
• 2002 to 2006 Shift: D+11.16 divided by +6 = 1.86 seat gains with each nationally shifted percentage point
• 2006 to 2010 Shift: R+6.84 divided by +6 = 1.14 seat gains with each nationally shifted percentage point

It is not easy to nail down. But, I figure, taking averages from those three, about +1.51 governorships may be gained with each nationally shifted percentage point for the Democrats. (It may be a little less.)

Here is a guide:

The National Margin (after –04.09) = Yielded Pickups (increments +xx.09 x 1.51 avg.)

• R+3 = +1 [seat gains]
• R+2 = +2 to +3
• R+1 = +4
• D+0 = +5 to +6
• D+1 = +7
• D+2 = +8 to +9
• D+3 = +10 — Tipping Point!
• D+4 = +11 to +12
• D+5 = +13
• D+6 = +14 to +15

That is based on the U.S. House polls showing a potential 2016-to-2018 national shift of around +10, for the Democrats, and if U.S. Governors, based on their 2014 U.S. Popular Vote, were to also shift as much as +10 in the direction of the Democrats.

While I have +3 as the tipping point, in my estimate, I keep in mind that the number of governorships gained with each nationally shifted percentage point may be more like +1.33. So, a national margin of +4 would be even more assured the 2018 Democrats would win over a new majority of the nation’s governorships? 

It is really strange to see any polls, even now, tell me only the states listed between Nos. 17 to 20 are poised to flip—leaving the rest as tossups—when the point of a midterm elections wave is that it does not pertain to only one level of office. (Some have even Nos. 19 and 20 as tossups.)

It is also not sensible to think that Democrats may not flip beyond +4 when there is a constant showing that Republican-held states, particularly those that were 2014 Republican holds, are apparently underperforming their 2014-to-2018 margins in the polls. (Tennessee, in particular, and with connection to its open U.S. Senate election, is a conspicuous underperformance for Republicans. Its governorship will not be won, by a 2018 Republican, with that 2014 margin of +47.47.) 

Another Perspective

With 9 of the Top 10 populous states on the schedule, the 2014-to-2018 margins shifts in California, Texas, Florida (if it gets flipped), New York, Illinois (which will get flipped), Pennsylvania, Ohio (even if it doesn't get flipped), Georgia (even if it doesn’t get flipped), and Michigan (which will get flipped) will go in the direction of the Democrats. 

You can take that to nearly all of the populous states which rank between Nos. 11 to 20, which also have on the schedule: Arizona, Tennessee, and Wisconsin. These Democratic shifts were also applicable to both Nos. 11 and 12 New Jersey and Virginia in 2017. (That is, the 2013-to-2017 margins shift from those states—with New Jersey having flipped from 2013 Republican to 2017 Democratic.) Three such Top 20 populous states—Washington, Indiana, and Missouri—are also not on the schedule for 2018. (Their elections are in leap/presidential years.) So, with 14 of the Top 20 populous states scheduled for 2018, just two of have a strong chance to shift more Republican: Massachusetts and Maryland. And those states are in that position because they were 2014 Republican pickups whose incumbent governors, Charlie Baker and Larry Hogan, are polling as popular. (By the way: In between 66 and 70 percent of the nation’s people reside in a Top 20 state.)

It is highly likely the Democrats will win a 2018 pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote for U.S. Governor. One reason, in addition to Republican-held states underperforming, is that I would anticipate the 2014 Democratic-held states, which will end up 2018 Democratic holds, which would be all of them, will overperform their 2014-to-2018 margins. Another reason is that I am positive that just five of states would shift in the direction of the Republicans: Alaska, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Vermont. And two of them, Idaho and Nebraska, are possible. Just for cover, I can go with two more. (Whichever two.) So, from the 36 scheduled, only between 15 to 25 percent states are in position to shift more Republican.

After the 1994 Republican, 2006 Democratic, and 2010 Republican majority pickups of governorships, they all ended up with at least 6 to the Top 10 in their column (listed in order of their electoral votes from the presidential election two years earlier):

1994 GOVERNOR — REPUBLICAN MAJORITY PICKUP

• California

• * New York
• * Texas
• * Pennsylvania
• Illinois
• Ohio
• Michigan
[New Jersey — 1993 Republican pickup]

2006 GOVERNOR — DEMOCRATIC MAJORITY PICKUP

• * New York
• Illinois
• Pennsylvania
• *Ohio
• Michigan
[New Jersey]

2010 GOVERNOR — REPUBLICAN MAJORITY PICKUP

• Texas
• Florida
• * Pennsylvania
• * Ohio
• * Michigan
[* New Jersey — 2009 Republican pickup]
• Georgia

Will the 2018 Democrats win a new majority of the nation’s governorships? 

At this time, I am not predicting. In fact, I don’t feel the need to predict. This also has nothing to do with how I, or anyone else reading Progressives Chat, may vote in November. The point of the prior blog entry topics, “Coming Up: U.S. House” and “Coming Up: U.S. Senate,” and now concluding with “Coming Up: U.S. Governors,” is to be able to get a good sense of what may come.

Effective September 21, 2018: The light shaded states are leaning as pickups.

Potential: This is a scenario map for a majorty pickup winning 2018 Democratic Party.