An Anniversary with Change

This Friday, September 25, 2020, marks the three-year anniversary of Progressives Chat.

This blog site was created, and with the help of cathyx, in the aftermath of The Far Left Chat having ended at some point during September 2017.

In the early period of Progressives Chat, I published blog topics five days per week, which included ones on Fridays titled “Open Weekend.”

I later reduced blog topics to three days per week.

Afterward, I brought them down to two days per week.

Last month, it was suggested by cathyx—and the comment received a consensus of Likes—that publishing a blog topic [thread] just once per week may be better for Progressives Chat.

I agree.

In fact, I thought of making this change effective with the start of 2021. (That would have been the date of January 4, 2021.) But, timing it with the beginning of this month, September 2020, also works with respect to this anniversary.

A concern I did have was a second issue, happening in a given week, which may be necessary for its own blog topic. I realize the solution is to maintain one thread which is in effect for the period of one week. And if anything more comes up, I will revise that applicable week’s blog topic by adding an entry. In such case, I will note the date and time of an addition.

The weeklong blog topics from Mondays, August 31 as well as September 7 and 14, 2020 should be considered a segue to making this move. August 31 (“Election 2020: Two Months Out”) was timed closely with both its topic as well as the beginning of September and Labor Day on September 7, 2020. (Memorial Day and Labor Day have people normally often thinking of Holiday Weekends. The extended time. For those who still get that.) And then there was last week’s blog topic—on the television-premiere anniversaries of two classic sitcoms (CBS’s The Mary Tyler Moore Show and NBC’s The Golden Girls)—to further help with the timing of this “An Anniversary with Change” for Progressives Chat.

We can take this current month, September 2020, and note it as the beginning of Progressives Chat having switched to a regular schedule of one blog topic thread per week.

The regular posting schedule will continue to be on Mondays at 06:00 a.m. ET. 

‘Mary Tyler Moore’ and ‘Golden Girls’

It was 50 years ago this week which marked the premiere of the groundbreaking CBS comedy series The Mary Tyler Moore Show. 

Saturday, September 19, 1970.

It was 35 years ago on this blog’s publishing date which marked the debut of another timely situation comedy series, NBC’s The Golden Girls. 

Saturday, September 14, 1985.

I was born in 1971. I could not at such a young age watch The Mary Tyler Moore Show, with it being able to resonate for me, because I was too young. It went off the air in 1977. So, I played some catchup on TBS, in 1985, and was more focused when Nickelodeon’s Nick at Nite premiered the classic in 1992.

I was there for The Golden Girls when it premiered. I was 14. I was newly in high school. The series carried for me—meaning, I followed it regularly—throughout the rest of those years.

The Mary Tyler Moore Show ran seven seasons, with its finale on March 19, 1977.

The Golden Girls also ran seven years, with its finale on May 9, 1992, before CBS picked it up, re-titled it The Golden Palace, sans one of its stars, and broadcast it during the 1992–93 season.

They were both socially relevant. 

Mary Richards, a competent single woman of age 30, found a career and a lively personal life which included important friendships in 1970s Minneapolis, Minnesota. 

The three females leads—divorcée Dorothy Zbornak and widows Rose Nylund and Blanche Deveraux; along Dorothy’s 80-year-old widowed mother Sophia Petrillo—shared living expenses in a house in 1980s Miami, Florida.

The casts were remarkable. Mary Tyler Moore—along with the star herself—was aided by superb cast mates Edward Asner, Valerie Harper, Gavin MacLeod, Ted Knight, Cloris Leachman, John Amos, Georgia Engel, and Betty White. And White was likewise golden on that other Golden sitcom, with her and fellow leads Beatrice Arthur and Rue McClanahan backed in support by a sublime Estelle Getty.

Both series won their share of Emmys, with The Mary Tyler Moore Show winning the top Emmy for Outstanding Comedy Series in each of its last three seasons (1975, 1976, and 1977) and The Golden Girls winning that top prize in each of its first two seasons (1986 and 1987).

I nowadays don’t watch the current era’s television comedies, certainly not as much as I did in the past, because I really don’t make a point of following too many television series from any genre. And, frankly, I am not young. I like not giving so much of my time to watching many television series on a regular basis. These two series brought intelligence to the genre. They elevated the medium.

Here are five memorable episodes each from both series (listed in the order of their broadcast):

The Mary Tyler Moore Show

“Love Is All Around [‘Pilot’]” (S01E01; 09.19.1970)—Mary’s move to Minneapolis, Minnesota includes apparent obstacles in a cranky new boss, Lou, and a combatant neighbor, Rhoda.

“The Lou and Edie Story” (S04E04; 10.06.1973)—Lou is devastated as his marriage to Edie (guest star Priscilla Morrill) is ending and, despite his efforts, she wants a separation.

“Will Mary Richards Go to Jail?” (S05E01; 09.14.1974)—Mary has an anonymous source she refuses to reveal.

📺 “Chuckles Bites the Dust” (S06E07; 10.25.1975)—After WJM’s Chuckles the Clown is killed in a strange accident, Mary is appalled by the behavior of her co-workers.

“The Last Show” (S07E24; 03.19.1977)—With new management, everyone’s job is on the line. And the overall outcomes are sure to change the lives of employees Mary, Lou, Murray, Ted, and Sue Ann.

The Golden Girls

“The Engagement [‘Pilot’]” (S01E01; 09.14.1985)—Home owner Blanche rushes to marry a man she shouldn’t trust, and Dorothy juggles between her mother Sophia’s arrival and Rose protecting Blanche.

“A Little Romance” (S01E12; 12.07.1985)—Rose is challenged by prejudice in her relationship with a short and kind man (guest star Brent Collins).

“Isn’t It Romantic?” (S02E05; 11.08.1986)—Following the arrival of Dorothy’s recently widowed friend, Jean (guest star Lois Nettleton), a complication happens.

📺 “Twas the Nightmare Before Christmas” (S02E11; 12.20.1986)—The Girls have plans to go away for Christmas; they exchange gifts (most memorable comes from Blanche); and they suffer mishaps. 

“Old Friends” (S03E01; 09.19.1987)—A new and unexpected friendship develops between Sophia and a likewise blunt Alvin (guest star Joe Seneca).

Here are two videos—one scene each—from The Mary Tyler Moore Show and The Golden Girls:

Labor Day Week

I wish everyone a pleasant and safe Labor Day.

Election 2020: Two Months Out

With this blog topic published Monday, August 31, 2020, one day before the beginning of September, we are at a point that is good enough to say we are two months from the general election that is scheduled for Tuesday, November 3, 2020.

I perceive no change in the status of the race of which I had previously written and published. Oh, sure—there are some people saying the race is tightening. But, I have looked at the polls from those indicating it is “tightening” and they report national margins that are Democratic +4 or +5. 

The problem: Even though I haven’t lately monitored state-to-state polls, in recent times the indication is that Republican incumbent U.S. president Donald Trump is underperforming possibly everywhere. In presidential elections which switch the White House party, there are typically more than 40 states which shift away from the incumbent and toward to the opposition party. (1980 Republican pickup winner Ronald Reagan, 1992 Democratic pickup winner Bill Clinton, and 2000 Republican pickup winner George W. Bush each saw 49 states shifted their prior presidential-election margins in their direction.) In Trump’s case, all 50 states may shift their 2016-to-2020 margins away from him and toward Democratic nominee Joe Biden. (That actually happened with 1976 Democratic pickup winner Jimmy Carter.)

In the Top 10 populous states, a 2016 Donald Trump carried seven. Three were 2016 Republican holds. Four were 2016 Republican pickups. In the 2012-to-2016 Republican states—Texas, Georgia, and North Carolina—he carried them by a collective +1.25 million or more raw votes. And he may lose them all. (Texas is his best potential narrow hold here in 2020.) In the 2012-to-2016 Democratic-to-Republican pickups—Florida, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Michigan—he carried them by a collective 600,000 or more raw votes. He may lose them all. (Ohio is his best potential narrow hold here in 2020.) These are 7 of the 30 states he carried. 54 percent of the nation’s people live in a state which ranks among the Top 10. (This includes me.) For those living in a state with ranks among the Top 20—New Jersey, Virginia, Washington, Arizona, Massachusetts, Tennessee, Indiana, Missouri, Maryland, and Wisconsin—they comprise 75 percent of the nation’s residents. And Trump—who in 2016 also carried Arizona, Tennessee, Indiana, Missouri, and a Republican pickup of Wisconsin (that year’s tipping-point state)—he is underperforming in each of them as well, and is likely to lose Arizona and Wisconsin. So, a 2016 Trump carried 12 of the nation’s Top 20 populous states. Here in 2020, polling for Trump shows him underperforming in all of them. (Note: It has been said, many times, that no Republican has won the presidency without carrying Ohio. Well, for states 100 years or more in age—and this is also applicable to North Dakota—this is also true with Arizona.)

My point is that these numbers—these shifts—tend to add up faster than some people realize. In 2016, Donald Trump’s Republican pickup of the presidency did not include the U.S. Popular Vote. His raw-vote margin was –2.8 million. His percentage-points margin was –2.09. So, for 2016 losing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton, her margins were +2.8 million (raw votes) and +2.09 (percentage points). It would not be surprising, with a 2020 Democratic pickup of the presidency, from 140 million votes cast (up from the 138 million in 2016), to see the raw-vote margin hit +10 million with a percentage-points margin in the high single-digits (perhaps even +10).

Election 2020 is shaping up to become a Democratic wave—pickups for U.S. President and majority-control of the U.S. Senate, and a party hold for U.S. House—and it is a matter of estimating (some would prefer to use the word guessing) the percentage-points margin. They help to determine states count. I think 2020 Democratic nominee Joe Biden is liable to win with a margin between +8 to +10. (Meaning, I would estimate Donald Trump gets 44 or 45 percent. Joe Biden would receive 53 or 54 percent. In 2016, Trump received 45.93 to the 48.02 percent for Hillary Clinton.) Given this period’s electoral structure, and that since 1960 (except 1992 Bill Clinton) prevailing Democrats tend to carry +21 or +22 states in excess of their percentage-points margin in the U.S. Popular Vote, this would indicate carriage of 29 to 32 states. (In 2016, Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton carried 20 states.) Very possibly this could result in carriage of all of the nation’s Top 10 populous states. (Which is rare.) And this would be in line with an ongoing pattern since 1992. That presidential winners have averaged 29 carried states. The range has been 26 to 32 carried states.

Republican incumbent Donald Trump is in position to become the eleventh unseated president in United States history, with what would become a Democratic pickup of the presidency for Joe Biden, due to COVID–19. This pandemic crisis, particularly here in the United States, is the focus of the people. The voting electorate. COVID–19 will make election of Biden happen. And for those who are wanting Trump out, COVID–19 is what will make that happen. 

I am not supportive of Joe Biden. I will not vote for him. But, I am one who likes to be aware, for as much as I can ask myself to be, and no matter how I may think and/or feel, of what is likely to happen.

In an early-August 2020 report in New York Times, Allan Licthman, a professor known for being accurate since the 1980s and for his book The Keys to the White House, went ahead and predicted Joe Biden will unseat Donald Trump. (Warning: There is a paywall.)

He Predicted Trump’s Win in 2016. Now He’s Ready to Call 2020.

There is something more I want to mention.

At another discussion site, a person asked, What can Trump do to prevent losing? I wrote, “Medicare for All.” (I wanted to make my answer short and direct.) Due to the fact that this was not at a site exclusively for people of one particular political ideology, my suggestion received no response. But, there was one person who later wrote and posted that what would help Trump is if he were to tweet less on Twitter.

⁜ ⁜ ⁜ ⁜ ⁜

In the meantime, I want to share another excellent piece by Black Agenda Report’s Glen Ford. It was published last Thursday, August 27, 2020. I think Progressives Chat readers may appreciate it.

Biden Offers Nothing But More War, Austerity and White Supremacy – Without Trump

⁜ ⁜ ⁜ ⁜ ⁜

Note to Readers: Given the fact that Progressives Chat blog topic threads will now run a full week, we do have a holiday weekend coming up. Labor Day Weekend. May it be a safe and pleasant one for us all.

Darling Lily

Emmy, Tony, and Grammy winner Lily Tomlin turns 81 next Tuesday.

She was born September 1, 1939, in Detroit, Michigan.

Lily Tomlin—who has been married to longtime collaborator Jane Wagner since 2013—has experienced, over the last several years, a career resurgence. This includes Tomlin’s Emmy nominated work on Netflix’s Grace and Frankie—also starring Jane Fonda, Martin Sheen, and Sam Waterston—and she came close to a 2015 Oscar nomination for her performance in Grandma. (Tomlin received a 1975 nomination for Robert Altman’s groundbreaking Nashville.) In 2014, Tomlin was one of the Kennedy Center honorees.

I was thinking of a political comment by Tomlin, which I heard a good forty years ago, which has stayed in my memory after all this time. But, before I quote it, there are more insights by Tomlin which are also worthy.

“Just remember—we’re all in this alone.”

“After all…in private, we’re all misfits.”

“Man invented language to satisfy his deep need to complain.”

“Reality is the leading cause of stress among those in touch with it.”

 — A joke about her relationship with her mother… —

“When I was growing up, my mother told me a lot of things which later turned out not to be true. She told me: … The men in Washington wouldn’t be there if they didn’t know what they were doing.”

⁜ ⁜ ⁜ ⁜ ⁜

Note to Readers: Beginning next week, on Monday, August 31, 2020, at 06:00 a.m. ET, Progressives Chat blog topic threads will run for a full week. I will address this in the September 21 Progressives Chat.

The 2020 Democratic Ticket for…‘Relief’

On Tuesday, August 11, 2020, it became official: Joe Biden chose Kamala Harris to be his 2020 vice-presidential running mate on the Democratic ticket.

Last week was the 2020 Democratic National Convention.

I did not watch the convention.

I did not timely write and publish my reaction to Biden selecting Harris.

Until now.

This blog topic is my belated reaction. (And, frankly, my delay is appropriate.) 

I may surprise readers.

I may not.

My reaction is…relief.

I am relieved the 2020 Democratic ticket will be Joe Biden, of Delaware, and Kamala Harris, of California, and I will explain why.

My last vote for the Democrats, in a general election, was the 2014 midterm elections. That was during the presidency of Democrat Barack Obama with the Republicans having won that year a majority-control pickup of the United States Senate.

I denied the Democrats after the DNC rigged the presidential primaries for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

I denied the Democrats after they likewise shoved more corporate Democrats in the primaries and, eventually, the general in the 2018 midterm elections. (They knew, based on historical voting pattern, they would be the party to win the overall gains in the midterm elections of 2018 off Republican incumbent U.S. president Donald Trump.)

Here in 2020, I will once again deny the Democrats even while they are favored to win—thanks to COVID–19—pickups for both U.S. President and U.S. Senate. 

Since 2016, the masks have come off the faces of the Democratic Party. It has also come off the faces of many of their self-identified Democratic voters. And, in its current form, I will not vote for Team Blue. I will not vote for it because they are not on the left, are not moderate, and are actually right-wing. 

I do not self-identify with the Democratic Party. I do not self-identify with either major U.S. political party. To self-identify means to take that on—that is, as a self-identified Republican or a self-identified Democrat—as part of one’s identity. It is pride for many who do self-identify. They are very proud. But, the funny thing is, in elections—especially U.S. President—won by one’s preferred party, the one question that stumps a Loyal Republican or Loyal Democrat is,“What, to be specific, did you win?” No matter the words they use, that Loyal Republican’s or Loyal Democrat’s answer—that one’s team color has the presidency (while the other political party does not)—is all they have. 

This ticket—Biden and Harris—is one by and for the rulers of the Democratic Party who are among the oligarchs. Those involved intend to make sure, as they have for at least four decade, no real progressive (at least by U.S. standards)—not anyone who can take the country truly to the left (again, by U.S. standards) on economics and on a single payer healthcare system and on the Military Industrial Complex—will reach meaningful power. That is designed to prevent nomination to the higher and/or highest levels of office for anyone who they consider a threat. Biden/Harris is a Dream Ticket for the oligarchs and those who serve them under the banner of the Democratic Party. 

It is very good, after my previous willingness to vote for them in general elections, to be able to move past this point and consider myself divorced from the Democratic Party. It is a strong feeling of…relief.

⁜ ⁜ ⁜ ⁜ ⁜

Note to Readers: The next blog topic will be published Friday, August 28, 2020, at 06:00 a.m. ET. I will also have a “Note to Readers” regarding Progressives Chat.

‘Unapologetic’ and ‘Obvious’

Unaplogetic has a video titled “Kyle Kulinski & Krystal Ball Keep Pushing Failed Takeover Of Dem Party.” 

I found myself, while viewing it, reading some comments from viewers.

It turns out both Unapologetic and a commenter named Captain Obvious are really perceptive.

The video is by Unapologetic.

Here are a couple comments (with some editing for clarification) by Captain Obvious:

Kyle Kulinski claims that he and Cenk Uygur did extensive research into the question of whether Leftists/progressives should attempt to take over the Democratic Party or start a 3rd party back in 2016 before starting the Justice Democrats. However, the 1st problem with this claim is that neither one of them has shared this “research” with the public so that we might all look at it. Both of them have only claimed to have done the research—so, just trust them on the correctness of the conclusion. The 2nd problem with all of this is that both Cenk and Kyle acted fairly surprised about the Donna Brazile ‘revelations’ in her [2017] book [Hacks…] about the DNC rigging of the 2016 Dem primary. Bear in mind that the timing of the Brazile revelations were after the forming of the Justice Democrats. So. if the rigging of the 2016 Dem primary was news to Cenk and Kyle when Donna Brazile published her book, then how could it have been a factor they considered in their “research”?

The 3rd problem with all of this is Kyle makes no adjustments in his outlook based on new evidence. Kyle has told Niko House that he is now agnostic towards the idea of election fraud particularly pertaining to the differences between the exit polls and vote results. However, this apparently never causes him to reconsider the conclusion of his supposed extensive “research into the matter. So, even when Kyle seems to be leaning into believing that the Dems might be outright cheating in their primaries, as indicated by the exit polls, he still never says a word about what all of that could mean in regards to taking over the party vs. building a new one. So, what Kyle does instead is what Cenk Uygur does—and that’s just [to] ignore it all. Since there were no WikiLeaks reveal or Donna Brazile book this time, in 2020, just pretend all the same issues of election fraud that happened in 2016 didn’t just happen again this time in 2020—and run with the MSM narrative that Sanders lost, fair and square, in a mostly free and fair primary. Ignore the widespread election integrity/election fraud issues in the Dem party because, if you do focus on it, it’s pretty apparent that Cenk and Kyle reached the wrong conclusion in their supposed “research” that they never published for others to see. In fact, I’d bet money their “research” was nothing more than a conversation in which Cenk told Kyle that starting a 3rd party would be too hard and Kyle agreed with little to no pushback.

⁘ ⁘ ⁘ ⁘ ⁘

My stance is that the Dems are no longer a real political party at all and, therefore, must be destroyed and replaced by 3rd party—or no change will ever happen except for the change of things getting even worse. 

When I say the Dems are not a real political party, I mean that they don’t function as one. A political party is a collection of people with a shared worldview and a policy agenda. That policy agenda is stated in the party platform. That the Democratic Party platform is utterly meaningless, and bears no resemblance to the reality of how Dems operate in office, proves my point about the Dems not being a real political party. What the Dems are is a fundraising corporation and a mechanism of control designed to flush away all of the Left’s efforts to obtain progressive policy. The main function of the Dems is simply to maximize fundraising profits which therefore makes them, first and foremost, a fundraising corporation. The Dems are more than willing to lose elections, even thousands of seats nationwide, if they squeeze out even more money from corporate donors. While that doesn’t necessarily mean that any one particular Dem wants to lose a race they are running in, it does mean that fundraising is more important to Dems than winning elections as a whole. The policy the Dems produce in office is simply a function of the perpetual effort to maximize fundraising profits. This model happens to work because Democrats know the Republicans will also, when in office, only produce the same corporate policy which will inevitably cause a voter backlash. This is known as The Seesaw Effect. Both corporate “parties” are simply continually trading places as the party with the temporary majority share of power as Americans are so conditioned and brainwashed against building new parties that voters flip-flop back and forth between two ever-worsening choices. And all of this is why I have come to believe that Lefties/progressive who run in the Dem party, even if they win, are doing more harm than good. Because of how badly the Dems cheats the Left in their rigged Dem primaries, every progressive Dem who makes it through the gauntlet of a rigged Dem primary creates false hope in other Lefties that change is just right around the corner—and the DemEnter strategy is correct—when none of that is true. While a pitiful handful of progressive Dems might make it through the rigged Dem primaries, the vast majority won’t and can’t. This makes the ones who do make it through a sort of mirage the Left is spellbound by. And that mirage will keep the Left crawling forward like a dying man in the desert, achieving nothing, for decades.