Required for Democrats: Medicare for All

I don’t want to be loose with predictions. But, I do get the sense that the White House opposition party, the Democratic Party, is faced with this one issue they will not be able to get around when it comes to their wanting to win back power at that level.

The Democrats are not going to win back the presidency without a nominee specifically supporting Medicare for All.

A 2020 Democratic presidential nominee, not specifically supporting Medicare for All, will not unseat Republican incumbent U.S. president Donald Trump.

In the midterm elections of 2018, with the usual historical pattern of the White House opposition party winning the overall congressional gains, the Democrats were able to get away with that. That is because a midterm election will have around a 30-percentage dropoff, for example, with those voting for U.S. House by comparison to those who do so likewise in a presidential cycle. (The 2018 midterm had more participation. So, it wasn’t quite a 30-percent dropoff. It was a 12-percent drop-off. The U.S. House is the best comparison given that 100 percent of its members are on the schedule for both presidential and midterm election cycles.) From 1914 (think 17th Amendment) to 2018, there were 27 midterm elections from which 24 were won with overall congressional seat gains by the White House opposition party. From those midterms, the president’s party saw one or both houses of Congress flip to the opposition party in 1918, 1930, 1946, 1954, 1994, 2006, 2010, and 2014. This has been more frequent over the last 25 years. (Each of Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, Barack Obama, and Donald Trump—two presidents from the Republican Party; two presidents from the Democratic Party—held same-party majorities when they entered office and ended up losing them with the midterm elections of one or both of Years #02 and/or #06 of their presidencies.) So, the 2018 Democrats were able to capitalize: by their message of Republican incumbent president Donald Trump and Russia and his being horrifying (and so are the Republicans in Congress); and, with the fact that he and his Republican Congress did not get rid of the Affordable Care Act, Trump depressed motivation of participation by his party base to prevent the Democrats from flipping the U.S. House. (In 2018, people did #VoteBlueNoMatterWho.) But, midterm and presidential elections are not one in the same. Not the same in participation. If people vote in just one type of election cycle, they vote in a presidential election.

The 2020 Democrats cannot unseat Donald Trump running on how badly he behaves and/or how dangerous he is without the Democrats having a bold and progressive agenda.

Medicare for All is required.

If the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries voters vote the nomination to anyone who does not specifically support Medicare for All—and support it convincingly—those 2020 Democratic presidential primaries voters will be saying they are okay with re-election for Donald Trump.

Keeping it ‘Real’ with ‘House’

In the first of two videos for this blog entry, titled “Clinton-Era Official Says Left Should Lead Following Center–Right Failures,” published to YouTube on March 7, 2019, this Real News segment is described as follows: “Bill Black analyzes Assistant Secretary of Treasury [Brad DeLong’s] statement that [neoliberals] should get out of the way and let the [actual] left lead [the Democratic Party] since [the corporate Democratic Party Establishment’s] coalition with Republicans did not work.”

In “Breaking: ‘Progressive’ Broadcaster David Pakman Smears Tulsi Gabbard,” published to YouTube on March 6, 2019, Niko House recognizes that David Pakman—whose program I used to watch on Free Speech TV until I tuned him out, after he lied and smeared against Green Party nominee Jill Stein (circa August 2016)—is smearing U.S. Rep. and 2020 Democratic Party presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard (D–Hawaii #02) for a key reason: to align himself with the corporatism of the Democratic Party Establishment in case it could lead Pakman to more money and a bigger career. Despite any claims to the contrary, David Pakman is no progressive.

Election 2020: An Apparent Tossup

On Friday, February 22, 2019, Gallup reported its latest polls for approvals and disapprovals for the job performance of current and 45th U.S. president Donald Trump (R–New York).

The report consists of state-to-state polls for where there is approval-vs.-disapproval for Trump.

Gallup has Trump’s national approval at 42 percent.

Here is a link to that report: Trump Job Approval 50% or Higher in 17 States in 2018.

In 2016, Donald Trump was elected with 30 states, plus Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, and an original 306 electoral votes. Among them were his six pickup states, four of which rank among the Top 10 in population, and which combine for +99 electoral votes: Florida, +29; Pennsylvania, +20; Ohio, +18; Michigan, +16; Wisconsin, +10; and Iowa, +06. Trump also won a Republican pickup of the 2nd Congressional District of Maine, +01, to give him 2012 Mitt Romney’s 24 carried states, and their 206 electoral votes, with the combined net gain of +100 electoral votes, to arrive at an original 306 electoral votes. (There were two faithless electors.)

Gallup reports there is indication that none of the states from the 2016 column of losing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton would flip to the 2020 Republican column to carry for re-electing Donald Trump. To date, there has been no single U.S. presidential election’s electoral map’s results which were later duplicated; and, of course, that means exactly. It would become a historical first if a 2020 Trump won re-election with exactly the same map from his first election of 2016. 

I recognize Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan will be the most instrumental states for deciding the winner of Election 2020. In fact, I wrote about the topic here: Election 2020’s Key Bellwethers: The Rust Belt Trio Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. In 2016, and with looking at the percentage-points margins by which this Rust Belt trio carried, Wisconsin, his No. 28 best state with a margin of +0.76, was the tipping point state and the 270th electoral vote for Trump. Pennsylvania, his No. 29 best state with a margin of +0.72, was his 290th electoral vote. And Michigan, his No. 30 best state (of a carried 30 states) with a margin of +0.22, was his 306th original electoral vote.

My conclusion is this: In 2016, Donald Trump received 45.93 percent in the U.S. Popular Vote to the 48.02 percent for Hillary Clinton. That was a margin of Democratic +2.09. Trump, in order to win re-election, cannot see his –2.09 decline. If he does, he cannot lose by more than –3 percentage points in the U.S. Popular Vote. (He would have to hope to lose no more than Michigan and Pennsylvania while keeping Wisconsin for its 270th electoral vote. Over the last ten elections, from 1980 to 2016, they have carried the same in all but one—in 1988.) It would be much more likely that, should he win re-election, Trump would gain from his –2.09 popular-vote margin—even if he did not increase enough to flip the U.S. Popular Vote. While Gallup talks about a 50-percent threshold, and that is commonly cited elsewhere as being supposedly necessary, re-election for Trump would likely see him follow 42nd U.S. president Bill Clinton (D–Arkansas): Trump, like Clinton, would win both his elections with a plurality in the U.S. Popular Vote. Since 2016 Trump-vs.-Hillary combined for 93.95 percent—go ahead and call it 94 percent—it is more likely the major two-party matchup, in 2020, will combine for more than that 94 percent, It would typically end up in the 97 to 99 percent range, which would leave the remainder to combine for candidates outside the two major political parties. I would say that, should he win re-election, Trump would have to receive at least 48 percent in the U.S. Popular Vote. He could lose the U.S. Popular Vote 48–49 percent, or 48–50 percent, but, likely, not worse than 48–51 percent.

Above is a map. This keeps in mind, from the report by Gallup, the apparent status of the race. I rate the U.S. presidential election of 2020 generally a Tossup. For Trump, in any state he is down by –13 or worse…I color it in blue. Why? Because at 42 percent, he would need to gain six more percent; not to be confused with six percentage points, he would need to gain, where he is down, at least +12 percentage points. Given he is the incumbent, in any state he is above…I color it in red. In Ohio, where is even, I leave it in yellow. (Margins wise, the long-established bellwether is trending toward the Republicans.) What we have is a map in which all of 2016 Hillary Clinton’s Democratic states, worth 232 electoral votes, are in blue. For the states, and congressional districts, worth 125 electoral votes, and which are currently looking good for Republican incumbent Trump—those are in red. The ones in yellow, to indicate Tossup, speak to the potential of Election 2020 ending up either a Republican hold or a Democratic pickup. They combine for 181 electoral votes.

I am listing all 50 states, plus applicable congressional districts, in order of Gallup’s reported poll margins, with each state, and with a tracking of their cumulative electoral votes. Those on the following list which were 2016 Republican pickups, for Trump, will have an asterisk. Since Trump is the incumbent president of the United States, the list will begin, and go in descending order, of his positive [+] to negative [–] percentage-points margins.

Here are the states with Gallup’s numbers, followed by their polling margins, as well as a tracking of their cumulative electoral votes. They are listed in order of favorability for Trump. (States take higher ranking, for Trump, based on their percentage-points margins from 2016. For those not favorable to Trump, a state that was closer to him in 2016 will be listed first. For those with the same percentage-points margin, I list the one closest to Trump based on its percentage from Gallup.)

REPUBLICAN [TRUMP]

— Nebraska #03 — No Numbers; Statewide Polls Only! — (Cumulative 01; Reverse 538)

01. West Virginia | 62–36 | +26 | (Cum. 06; Rev. 537)

02. Wyoming | 61–36 | +25 | (Cum. 09; Rev. 532)

03. North Dakota | 58–36 | +22 | (Cum. 12; Rev. 529)

04. South Dakota | 58–41 | +17 | (Cum. 15; Rev. 526)

05. Alaska | 56–40 | +16 | (Cum. 18; Rev. 523)

06. Mississippi | 56–41 | +15 | (Cum. 24; Rev. 520)

07. Alabama | 55–41 | +14 | (Cum. 33; Rev. 514)

08. Tennessee | 54–41 | +13 | (Cum. 44; Rev. 503)

09. Arkansas | 53–41 | +12 | (Cum. 50; Rev. 494)

10. Kentucky | 53–43 | +10 | (Cum. 58; Rev. 488)

11. Missouri | 52–43 | +09 | (Cum. 68; Rev. 480)

12. Oklahoma | 51–44 | +07 | (Cum. 75; Rev. 470)

13. Idaho | 51–44 | +07 | (Cum. 79; Rev. 463)

14. Montana | 51–45 | +06 | (Cum. 82; Rev. 459)

15. Utah | 50–45 | +05 | (Cum. 88; Rev. 456)

16. Kansas | 50–46 | +04 | (Cum. 94; Rev. 450)

17. South Carolina | 50–46 | +04 | (Cum. 103; Rev. 444)

18. Louisiana | 49–45 | +04 | (Cum. 111; Rev. 435)

19. Nebraska [statewide] | 49–47 | +02 | (Cum. 113; Rev. 427)

— Nebraska #01 — No Numbers; Statewide Polls Only! — (Cum. 114; Rev. 425)

20. Indiana | 48–47 | +01 | (Cumulative 125; Reverse 424)

TOSSUP

21. * Ohio | 48–48 | Even | (Cumulative 143; Rev. 413)

22. North Carolina | 45–50 | –05 | (Cum. 158; Rev. 395)

23. * Iowa | 45–51 | –06 | (Cum. 164; Rev. 380)

24. Georgia | 44–52 | –08 | (Cum. 180; Rev. 374)

25. * Florida | 43–51 | –08 | (Cum. 209; Rev. 358)

26. Arizona | 43–52 | –09 | (Cum. 220; Rev. 329)

— * Maine #02 — No Numbers; Statewide Polls Only! — (Cum. 221; Rev. 318)

— Nebraska #02 — No Numbers; Statewide Polls Only! — (Cum. 222; Rev. 317)

27. * Wisconsin | 42–53 | –10 | (Cum. 232; Rev. 316)

28. Texas | 41–52 | –11 | (Cum. 270; Rev. 306) — Suggested Tipping Point State

29. * Pennsylvania | 42–54 | –12 | (Cum. 290; Rev. 268)

30. * Michigan | 42–54 | –12 | (Cumulative 306; Reverse 248)

DEMOCRATIC

31. Nevada  | 40–55 | –15 | (Cumulative 312; Reverse 232)

32. Oregon | 40–56 | –16 | (Cum. 319; Rev. 226)

33. Minnesota | 39–57 | –18 | (Cum. 329; Rev. 219)

34. Virginia | 40–57 | –17 | (Cum. 342; Rev. 209)

35. Delaware | 40–57 | –17 | (Cum. 345; Rev. 196)

36. Colorado | 39–56 | –17 | (Cum. 354; Rev. 193)

37. New Mexico | 38–55 | –17 | (Cum. 359; Rev. 184)

38. New Hampshire | 35–58 | –23 | (Cum. 363; Rev. 179)

39. Connecticut | 36–59 | –23 | (Cum. 370; Rev. 175)

40. Washington | 36–59 | –23 | (Cum. 382; Rev. 168)

41. Maine [statewide] | 37–61 | –24 | (Cum. 384; Rev. 156)

42. Rhode Island | 36–60 | –24 | (Cum. 388; Rev. 154)

43. New Jersey | 35–59 | –24 | (Cum. 402; Rev. 150)

44. Illinois | 35–61 | –26 | (Cum. 422; Rev. 136)

— Maine #01 — No Numbers; Statewide Polls Only! — (Cum. 423; Rev. 116)

45. New York | 32–62 | –30 | (Cum. 452; Rev. 115)

46. Maryland | 31–65 | –34 | (Cum. 462; Rev. 86)

47. California | 29–65 | –36 | (Cum. 517; Rev. 76)

48. Massachusetts | 29–67 | –38 | (Cum. 528; Rev. 21)

49. Vermont | 28–49 | –41 | (Cum. 531; Rev. 10)

50. Hawaii | 26–69 | –43 | (Cum. 535; Rev. 07)

— District of Columbia — Statewide Polls Only! — (Cumulative 538 | Reverse 03)

‘Why Democrats Should Ignore the Chatter About Moving “Too Far Left” and Go Big’

Link: Why Democrats Should Ignore the Chatter About Moving ‘Too Far Left’ and Go Big.






Considering a Change

I am considering a re-design of Progressives Chat.

I would like to ask for readers’ opinions before I make any change.

What I am looking toward is a current white background (my camera pic of my iMac screen doesn’t do justice), with a level of gray to the sides, and with black background for the blog title and description area. The typeface for body text, and links, would be Verdana. And the posted headline, in Rock Salt, would be colored in red to further help it stand out.

The following pictures show much of what I am considering:

UPDATE 03.01.2019 @ 02:15 p.m. ET: In Blogger, which is the program used to make possible Progressives Chat, there is a template called “Dynamic.” It is the one you see from the above pictures. The problem with using “Dynamic,” even though it is attractive, is that it does not support Disqus comments; at least not yet. So, for the time being, I just kept the current template, “Simple,” and made some color changes. If necessary, I can always change some colors again. But, what no one here wants is to lose the Disqus comments. —Candy83

UPDATE 03.01.2019 @ 02:45 p.m. ET: I changed some colors. The background color on the header, for Progressives Chat, plays a role in the color that is used for readers’ names in the comments section. As for the Disqus comments, there are some sites which use a sans serif typeface. (This one uses a serif.) I am not sure how to change that—or whether I really should. For the time being, I will leave that as is. Readers’ names, in the comments sections, are now in black. The changes, when looking at Progressives Chat from a desktop and from mobile, may be for the better. People can let me know. Thank you, to every person, for your input! —Candy83

Bernie Sanders Enters the Race

Last week, Vermont U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders made it official: He is seeking the 2020 Democratic Party nomination—and to win in the general election—for president of the United States. (Video announcement is above.)

When I think about this, I want to respond in at least two ways: 1) He and Hawaii’s Tulsi Gabbard are the only two candidates I am interested in from that party; 2) He and Gabbard are the only two who have an agenda, and can provide the leadership, that is necessary to persuade the voting electorate to unseat Donald Trump by electing one of them. In Gabbard’s case, it is because she is now against more wars. So, she is the anti-war candidate. In Sanders’s case, it is because of domestic policies for which he was the first to offer them and, of course, that he has the base of support.

The reason why Sanders and Gabbard are being smeared is because the Democratic Party Establishment, with help from their allies in the Deep State and in mainstream media, are threatened by the actual change a Sanders or Gabbard presidency promises to bring. (I say “promises” because I can’t say guaranteed.) So, of course, all sorts of narratives get tossed around. Ultimately, it is a con of Democratic Party machine politics, yes, but also the political establishment as a whole.

No way would a “socialist” get elected president of the United States? Well, Brexit was unthinkable. This is about capitalism failing—and its greed. And the powers that be want to scare people about the evils of socialism. But the thing is—when people are being drowned economically, socialism isn’t the scary thing about which a former president like Ronald Reagan or the current president who is Donald Trump warns. After all, we have forms of socialism anyway. If this was 1999 looking forward to 2000, I would agree—Bernie Sanders could not get elected. But we are in 2019 and are looking toward 2020. The oligarchs are destroying this county. So, we are in a different time indeed. This is what I recognize to be an example of realignment.

I have in mind writing, in a future blog entry, more about this. In the meantime, I am pleased Bernie Sanders is running for president of the United Sates.







Remembering Bill Hicks


This Tuesday, February 26, 2019, marks the 25th anniversary of the death of comedian Bill Hicks.

Born December 16, 1961, in Valdosta, Georgia, Bill Hicks, who died February 26, 1994, in Little Rock, Arkansas, was a comedian of great promise. He was edgy. He was daring. He was insightful.

If you want to read more on Bill Hicks, here is source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Hicks.

Bill Hicks, when it came to politics, was able to distinguish how people think and react here in the United States: [Speaking mockingly] “I believe the puppet on my left is more to my liking. I believe the puppet on my right is more to my liking.”

Some more quotes:

 • “Listen—the next revolution is gonna be a revolution of ideas.”

 • “I hate patriotism! I can’t stand it! It’s a round world last time I checked.”

 • “If you’re so pro-life, do me a favor: Don’t lock arms and block medical clinics. If you’re so pro-life, lock arms and block cemeteries.”

 • “If you don’t think drugs have done good things for us, then take all of your records, tapes, and CDs…and burn them.”

 • “We are the facilitators of our own creative evolution.”


A stand-up comedy performances:

Happy Birthday, Ralph Nader!

This Wednesday, February 27, 2019, will be the 85th birthday of consumer advocate and former United States presidential nominee Ralph Nader.

I posted a thread, last year, and will provide a link: http://progressiveschat.blogspot.com/2018/02/happy-birthday-ralph-nader.html.

• SPECIAL • The 91st Academy Awards

This Sunday, February 24, 2019, ABC will broadcast live the 91st Academy Awards.

I watched the Oscar ceremonies from 1983 (honoring 1982 film achievements), at which time I was 11 going on 12, and continued doing so through 2015 (honoring 2014 film achievements), at which time I was 43 going on 44. So, I was at it a long time.

I became tired. I also lost a lot of interest in films. They haven’t been as good as the ones I grew up with. I also felt like I may have lost touch. Some of the people we are told are our stars—well, I don’t see why. Back in the 1970s, there was an old Hollywood star who looked at the actors and actresses who had arrived or were coming up. I don’t remember if he or she named anyone specific. The old Hollywood star had an observation which has stayed in my memory.

“They look like my neighbors!”

That is a feeling I get with a good number of today’s supposed stars.

I anticipate, on Sunday night, two actresses I do like will win Oscars: Glenn Close, with her seventh nomination for performance in Björn Runge’s The Wife, as Best Actress; Regina King, with her first nomination, for her performance in Barry Jenkins’s If Beale Street Could Talk, as Best Supporting Actress. (The above photo, which included several other actresses, was edited and comes from Hollywood Reporter.)

Close was first nominated for the year, and for a film, when I first started watching the Academy Awards. That was 1982 and The World According to Garp. She had five of her seven nominations in that decade alone: 1983’s The Big Chill and 1984’s The Normal, each time in the supporting category and, moved up to lead, in 1987’s Fatal Attraction and 1988’s Dangerous Liaisons. (Close was nominated as well for 2011’s Albert Nobbs.) And if she wins, Close will become the 25th person to have won the Triple Crown of Acting: Oscar, Tony, and Emmy. This has been a trend this decade with the likes of Frances McDormand, Jessica Lange and, last year, Glenda Jackson having complete the trio.

For King, she has won three Emmys over the last four consecutive years—two for ABC’s American Crime followed by Netflix’s Seven Seconds. So, the television academy really digs King. I understand. Her performances are honest and humane.

If these two actresses end up winning, I may tune in in time to catch those category presentations. But, in the meantime, I would like to avoid a ceremony where more neoliberal Hollywood elites suck up precious air time basically stating that the problems with the U.S. come only from the fact that Donald Trump is its president. Oscar has a long history of controversial and political speeches. I don’t actually mind that. I’m just not interested in neoliberal Democrats preaching to the choir while not sincerely expressing concern for people who are living paycheck-to-paycheck (if they didn’t, they could go see more of the stars’ movies), are drowning from debt of health insurance or no health insurance and the need Medicare for All, as well as the continuation of more wars. But, of course, they’re not expressing concern for those issues.


In the meantime, as I did with last year’s Oscar-related thread (• SPECIAL • Oscar Weekend), here are some video clips of films and performances—actually tied in with anniversaries—honored from the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts & Science in the distant past:

50 Years Ago

In the Best Actress contest for 1968, a tie result: Katharine Hepburn, with the third of her four Oscars, for her performance in Anthony Harvey’s The Lion in Winter; and, making her big-screen debut, a 26-year-old Barbra Streisand in William Wyler’s Funny Girl.

30 Years Ago

For the year 1988, Rain Man captured Best Picture, Director (Barry Levinson), Actor (Dustin Hoffman, with the second of his two Oscars), and Original Screenplay (Barry Morrow and Ronald Bass).

25 Years Ago

Steven Spielberg, who has two Oscars for Best Director, won his first for the Best Picture of 1993: Schinder’s List. (He repeated, five years later, for Saving Private Ryan.) Schindler’s List was the first film to win the top prize from all four main film groups: National Board of Review, Los Angeles Film Critics Association, New York Film Critics Circle, and National Society of Film Critics. At the Academy Awards, it won seven, including those already mentioned as well as Best Adapted Screenplay (Steven Zaillian).

20 Years Ago

The winner of the 1998 Oscar for Best Supporting Actress was Judi Dench in John Madden’s Shakespeare in Love. It won seven statues, also including Best Picture, Best Actress (Gwyneth Paltrow), and Best Original Screenplay (Marc Norman and Tom Stoppard). Dench, who received her first nomination at age 63 for Best Actress of 1997 in Mrs. Brown, has since been nominated seven times. The number eight springs to mind because that is how many minutes she appears on screen in her Academy Award winning performance.

10 Years Ago

More than three decades after Peter Finch was posthumously awarded 1976’s Best Actor in Sidney Lumet’s Network, Heath Ledger, who died at age 28 on January 22, 2008, won the Best Supporting Actor Oscar for 2008 as The Joker in Christopher Nolan’s The Dark Knight.




If any readers of Progressives Chat feel like posting in the comments a scene from a motion picture he or she appreciates—and it doesn’t have to be from one that received Academy Awards recognition—I invite readers to do so.

Kim Iversen

I have been coming across that a recommendation for an actual progressive: Kim Iversen.

According to https://everipedia.org/wiki/lang_en/Kim_Iverson/, Kim Iversen, born March 28, 1980, in Boise, Idaho, “is a nationally syndicated American radio personality best known for United Stations Radio Network nightly syndicated program Your Time with Kim Iversen and Premiere Radio Networks nightly syndication, The Rendezvous with Simon and Kim.”

Here is the link to her website: https://www.kimiversen.com.

Although Iversen’s videos have been available only for a month, I have now added Kim Iversen’s YouTube home page to the “Recommendations” list.

Here are some videos: