The Best of 2019

Since this blog began in 2017, I have presented a blog topic on the best of the year with regard for the videos which really made an astute observation on anything of politics. (This is influenced by a period I had of reading year-end, best-of lists, particularly in entertainment, timed near the end of every December.)

When it comes to citing particular following videos, I tend to list just one from a given program.

Here are four short form videos (typically well under an hour), as well as a long form bonus video (an “Honorable Mention” with a running time well past one hour) which stood out in 2019:




1. “NYTimes Journo Melts Down On Joe Rogan’s Show” 
(The Jimmy Dore Show; 02.04.2019)
Jimmy Dore—and kudos as well to the term smugnorant by fellow comedian Paul Gilmartin—beautifully summed up the arrogance of “received opinion” New York Times columnist Bari Weiss. She embarrassed herself—and with no sense of shame—as a guest on Joe Rogan Experience when the two discussed 2020 Democratic presidential candidates. Weiss, who was challenged by Rogan, focused on smearing Hawaii U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard, could not back up her claims because Weiss did not understand one specific term she used against Gabbard.

2. “High Powered Hollywood Agencies Push Tulsi Smear Campaign” 
(The Political Vigilante; 09.12.2019)
Graham Elwood lets us know, in part, why many of our most famous celebrities are empty. (Reason: They are connected with the Deep State.) Elwood reads Robbie Jaeger’s report (“Tulsi Gabbard Has Enemies In High Places”) on CAA and UTA celebrity clients and how CAA and UTA operate behind the scenes. It is fascinating. And revealing. It helps to get me to better understand why the performing arts—and who are our celebrities—are generally unimpressive.

3. “Saagar Enjeti: A Dire Warning for the American Right” 
(The Hill’s The Rising; 10.30.2019)
As co-host of The Hill’s The Rising, Saager Enjeti, who is a conservative, addresses and confronts the assumptions of self-identified conservatives and Republicans who assume—as if we are still living in the 1980s with then-U.S. president Ronald Reagan—that voters could and would never go for socialism (or anything remotely close).

4. “Mitch McConnell Played Democrats Like A Fiddle on Supreme Court Picks” 
(Secular Talk; 05.31.2019)
Kyle Kulinski published a terrific video that all Proud Democrats should have seen regarding what motivates U.S. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R–Kentucky). While self-identified Democrats—particularly those embracing of the corporate Democrats who like to talk about how the Old Classic Republican Party no longer exists (meaning, the Party of Abe, Teddy, and Ike)—they are delusional. And, from the Republican Party, and for their backers, McConnell delivers.

✩✩✩ HONORABLE MENTION ✩✩✩

“Joe Rogan Experience #1368—Edward Snowden”
(Joe Rogan Experience; 10.23.2019)
The above picks belong in a separate category—they are, in part, critiques. This one is an interview. And what an interview! Host Joe Rogan welcomed whistleblower Edward Snowden, timed with his book release Permanent Record, for a discussion on how the Deep State has violated our trust.

(Next blog topic will be published just as the clock strikes midnight, Eastern Time, on Wednesday, January 1, 2020. Yes, it is a holiday thread.)

Merry Christmas 2019!

I wish readers of Progressives Chat…a  Merry  Christmas! 

Christmas Eve and Christmas Day, here in 2019, are on Tuesday and Wednesday. It’s the calendar.

I recognize all people do not observe the holiday. So, I mean no disrespect. And, in such case, I wish well for people with and during the holidays.

This is a time of the year in with I like to take a little break with respect for scheduling twice-a-week blog topic entries. And it may be wise given some readers may be busy. So, this will be the only posted topic for the current week.


(Next blog topic will be Sunday, December 29, 2019, at 12:00 a.m. ET.)


I will leave this with the following Christmas-related videos (each less than a half-hour): Frosty the Snowman, the classic which was originally broadcast by CBS on December 7, 1969; A Garfield Christmas, originally broadcast by CBS on December 21, 1987; and, published to YouTube on December 21, 2019, TheBitBlock’s Josh Thomas, a video gamer, invites friends to a funny contest in “Cube Crushers—A Super Mario Christmas Game.”

Democratic U.S. House Impeaches Trump

Donald Trump became the third president impeached in United States history.

This does not mean the same thing as removal.

The Democratic-controlled U.S. House voted for impeachment on Wednesday [December 18, 2019]. 

Next up: The Republican-controlled U.S. Senate. It is likely the 45th U.S. president will receive the support from there to remain in office.

I have nothing good to say about this. It has been a waste of time. The Democratic Party Establishment, entrenched in their corrupt corporatism, and doing their best to either prevent or destroy (they want to do both) a progressive uprising, have pissed away the last three years. With the 2020 primaries coming up—and with the Democratic Party Establishment wanting to have their cake and eat it too (meaning, prevent Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard, who abstained from voting for whether to impeach Trump, from the 2020 Democratic nomination and shove through Any Corporatist Blue Will Do)—this feels like a setup for re-electing Trump. (The Democrats know damn well Trump isn’t going to get removed from office.)

I have written this around midnight on Thursday, December 19, 2019, and I will include below a video by Jamarl Thomas. (He agrees with me.) If there are many more related videos, I know readers of Progressives Chat will not shy from including them in the comments. (Thank you in advance!)

(Next blog topic will be posted on Sunday, December 22, 2019, as expected, but it will be good for the entire week. In observance of Christmas Eve and Christmas Day—which fall on Tuesday and Wednesday—I will take a break from including a second topic. So, next week, there will be just one.) 

‘Biden Parrots “Profoundly Silly” Narrative That Lesson From UK Elections Is Democrats Should Not Go “So, So Far Left”’

Link:

Biden Parrots ‘Profoundly Silly’ Narrative That Lesson From UK Elections Is Democrats Should Not Go ‘So, So Far Left’

YouTube Sucks!

Over the last couple of weeks, Google has really stepped up ads on YouTube for possibly every video I watched. This was especially so during the holiday weekend.

The ads were not just on videos with political content. They were even on videos without political content, like some video game playing. One that I enjoy watching is chuckaaconroy (YouTube — chuggaaconroy). He has a very endearing personality—very enthusiastic—with his games. I was watching him play the 2010 Nintendo Wii game Super Mario Galaxy 2. Ads were there right at the beginning. (I will post three videos at the bottom; two are from Super Mario Galaxy 2, which chuggaaconroy started publishing a month ago; one is from the Nintendo 3DS game Animal Crossing: New Leaf, released in Japan in 2012 and the U.S. in 2013, which chuggaaconroy began publishing in 2013.)

These ads are often about five minutes in length. Some ads I have come across, not just in the recent days but from months prior, are not advertisement. Some of infomercial-type content. They are inserts. I have come across, as I am sure others have, of Prager University. I have come across ones of Ben Shapiro. And those have been ads not just five minutes in duration but ones which would last around 30 to 45 minutes. (I may underestimate. Perhaps they were 50 to 60 minutes in running time.)

Google LLC has been the owner of YouTube since 2006, one year after it was founded. I thought to look into subscribing to YouTube without commercials. I forgot about this option. So, I was thinking $5 per month. Well, it is YouTube Premium (formerly Red). And it is plenty more than $5 per month. It is $11.99 per month. Call it $12 per month. For a family membership rate, it is $18 per month.

Those prices are ridiculous. They are on par with a premium-movie programming subscription from the likes of HBO, Cinemax, Starz, and Showtime. Those premium-movie programmers have costs to their programming. Content published to YouTube does not compare.

I want to see a competitor rise, catch on, and surpass Google’s YouTube.

Howard Stern Interviews Hillary Clinton

Last week was, perhaps, a surprise as Howard Stern welcomed as his guest former First Lady, ex-U.S. senator from New York, and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

I can’t say I was very receptive. In fact, I have not yet watched any of it. But, I do have the following attitude: The more Hillary Clinton speaks and puts herself out there, to expose herself, the better it is for progressives. Hillary Clinton is a gift which keeps giving—to the Republican Party and Donald Trump, yes, but also to an awakened progressive movement demanding better from the Democratic Party which is held hostage by corporatism. The politics are changing. A realignment. It is necessary.

Here are the videos, published on December 6, 2019 to YouTube, by The Howard Stern Show:

Kim Iversen: ‘Predicting The Next Democratic Nominee’

In the above video, Kim Iversen speaks to a historic pattern she observes which may determine the 2020 Democratic nomination for president of the United States.

All 50 states and District of Columbia have been participating in the two major political parties’ presidential primaries since 1976 (Democratic) and 1980 (Republican).

With exception of 1992, a Democratic pickup of the presidency to Bill Clinton (who unseated then-Republican incumbent George Bush), all general-election nominees won at least one of Iowa or New Hampshire. (Clinton came closer to prevailing in New Hampshire.)

This is recognizing Iowa and New Hampshire—the first a caucus state; the second a primary state—as the two states selected to begin the presidential primaries season because, for both the Republican and Democrats, they are well-established predictors for who will end up with a party’s nomination. (Frankly, I see Iowa and New Hampshire, specifically, as the first two chosen states as yet another way for both parties to continue exerting as much control as they can over their nominating system. By the way: In 1976, New Hampshire was not the second state scheduled. That was Mississippi.)

The point is this: Kim Iversen, as of the published date of her video [Tuesday, December 3, 2019], senses which two 2020 Democratic presidential candidates may become positioned for the nomination—and that is reason enough for me to make her video this particular blog’s topic.

✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩

Notice

During the remainder of this current month, December 2019, I will be scheduling the publishing of blog topics on Sundays and Thursdays, at 06:00 a.m. ET. This isn’t motivated by anything that may be ideal—Sundays/Thursdays vs. Mondays/Fridays—but this has played out, to some extent, recently. And it just so happens the upcoming Christmas Eve/Christmas Day and New Year’s Eve/New Year’s Day fall on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Prior to those mid-week holidays, I think it makes sense to schedule blogs on the Sundays of those particular weeks. So, it dawns on me to simply run this schedule throughout the month of December 2019.

Possibly Revising Election 2020 Predictions

On Sunday, November 3, 2019, four weeks prior to this publishing date, I wrote and posted a one-year-out blog topic on anticipating and predicting Election 2020. (Link: Anticipating and Predicting Election 2020.)

I opted to predict the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination will go to Massachusetts U.S. senator Elizabeth Warren.

I am no longer confident that possible nomination will happen. This is with recognition of Warren making recent campaign calculations, especially on Medicare for All, that may become the catalyst for her to not go on to win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

Warren was looking good for some time. But, during much of November, that changed. And several readers, and this includes me, have posted videos on Warren pulling away from Medicare for All. And, frankly, I have written it before and will do so once more: The Democratic Party will not win back the presidency of the United States with a nominee who does not truly support—and is not determined to deliver—Medicare for All.

The general take on who will win the nomination is commonly reduced to four people. In alphabetical order, they are: Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. Dark horses are: Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang. Others supposedly in contention, like Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Amy Klobuchar—and other recent candidacies, like Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrick—are not viable. Anyone else that I did not mention are each just one more number.

I may write and post a future “Anticipating and Predicting Election 2020”—more likely with attaching the word Revised—but have not yet decided. If I do come up with such future topic, it may happen either with by the end of 2019 or in early 2020.

Happy Thanksgiving!

I wish all readers of Progressives Chat a… Happy Thanksgiving! 

(Next blog topic will be published Sunday, December 1, 2019, at 06:00 a.m. ET.)

‘Why Bernie Sanders Is Missing the Moment’

A very strong and insightful opinion, on Bernie Sanders’s 2020 presidential campaign, was presented in this video, published Saturday, November 23, 2019, by Status Coup’s Jordan Chariton.

I agree with the overall message.

I hope Progressives Chat readers will give their two-cents as well.

(Next blog topic will be Thursday, November 28, 2019, at 06:00 a.m. ET.)

‘He Predicted Both Trump’s Election and Impeachment. What Else Does He Know?’

From time to time comes an expert with a considerable track record of predicting, fairly well in advance, the outcome of an upcoming United States presidential election.

One of those people is Allan Lichtman.

He is known for “The Keys”—which is really a checklist, a guide created by Lichtman, which is used in determining his prediction of a winning candidate and/or political party.

The above screen shot is the article. Just below is the article’s link.

He Predicted Both Trump’s Election and Impeachment. What Else Does He Know?


(The next blog topic will be Sunday, November 24, 2019, at 06:00 a.m. ET.)

Aaron Maté Interviews Jimmy Dore

We are used to interview–discussions in which Jimmy Dore welcomes as his guest Aaron Maté.

Now, we get the opposite.

Published to YouTube just yesterday [Sunday, November 17, 2019], and with its video above, is the host of Push Back welcoming as his program’s guest the host of The Jimmy Dore Show.

(The next blog topic will be published Thursday, November 21, 2019, at 06:00 a.m. ET.)

‘Millennials earn 20% less than baby boomers did—despite being better educated’

Link to this report:

Millennials earn 20% less than baby boomers did—despite being better educated



I do not normally like to refer to CNBC. But, this is a report worth sharing. I keep in mind that nearly 50 percent of employed U.S. citizens are earning $30,000 or less per year. I also keep in mind nearly 80 percent of employed U.S. citizens are living paycheck to paycheck. Not enough of this is being kept in mind by those who take to elections like they take to team sports. (They should care—meaning, they should care enough to be demanding better from U.S. politicians and government.) This is reality. And this report says what a good amount of us already know: The millennials get screwed the most. Not surprising, as pointed out by political scientist and Brown University professor Mark Blyth, because the young do not routinely turn out their eligible vote as much as the old. And so the beat-down goes on.

‘By trying to Silence Sanders, the Corporate Media De-Legitimizes Themselves’

This insightful piece, from November 7, 2019, was written by Glen Ford for Black Agenda Report:

By trying to Silence Sanders, the Corporate Media De-Legitimize Themselves

The 2020 Democratic Primaries Divide In Two: Bernie Sanders—Followed By Everybody Else

My previous blog topic was a perspective on the 2020 United States presidential election that was both anticipation and prediction.

It keeps in mind that, given the date, I can change my mind.

Election 2020 is an incumbent year. This means the people who will vote in the general election have the option to re-elect the incumbent president of the United States, Republican Donald Trump.

For those who actually wonder whether Trump could get unseated just failing to win re-nomination, the answer is yes. Yes—it is possible. At the same time: No—for such likelihood. Only one elected incumbent president was unseated in his effort to win re-nomination by his party: 1856 Democratic incumbent Franklin Pierce.

I see no problem with a 2020 re-nomination for Donald Trump. States like Minnesota and North Dakota are paving the way, with their primaries, for him to not be challenged. So, that helps.

This leaves it up to the Democrats.

After they failed to hold the presidency in 2016, after two terms of Barack Obama and with nominee Hillary Clinton, they say Trump is dangerous and we need him out of the White House.

Impeach the president? As if impeachment means automatic vote to remove Trump by the Republican-held U.S. Senate. Please!

If the Democrats truly want Trump out, they have to go by way of the general election.

The 2020 Democrats, wanting Trump out, have to unseat 45th U.S. president Donald Trump.

So, who should be the 2020 Democratic nominee for president of the United States?

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Before answering specifically who, let us keep in mind a few things:


While this nation has had 43 prior individual (counted as 44) presidents, there have been 10 incumbent U.S. presidents who were unseated. Five of them were during the 1800s: Federalist John Adams (1800); National Republican John Quincy Adams (1828); Democrat Martin Van Buren (1840); Democrat Grover Cleveland (1888); and Republican Benjamin Harrison (1892). Five of them were during the 1900s: Republican William Howard Taft (1912); Republican Herbert Hoover (1932); Republican Gerald Ford (1976); Democrat Jimmy Carter (1980); and Republican George Bush (1992).

There was one example, in the 1800s, in which the White House party switched over two consecutive election cycles with the unseating of incumbent presidents. (There were others; but they didn’t come with unseating an incumbent president.) This happened in 1888 and 1892, in which Benjamin Harrison and Grover Cleveland, the only president who did not win two consecutive cycles, unseated each other.

There was one example, in the 1900s, in which the White House party switched over two consecutive election cycles. This happened in 1976 and 1980, in which Jimmy Carter unseated Gerald Ford (who was never elected either president or vice president) and Carter was unseated by Ronald Reagan.

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

“Vote Blue No Matter Who,” which really means Surrender Your Mind, does not jibe with electoral reality because…Any Blue Will Not Do.

I related my observations, on August 29, to Tim Black on his live stream of TBTV.

I mentioned the five occurrences of unseated incumbent presidents from the 20th century.

I noted something similar shared by the opposition-party challengers who unseated those incumbent presidents.

What 1912 Democratic challenger and pickup winner Woodrow Wilson, 1932 Democratic challenger and pickup winner Franklin Roosevelt, 1976 Democratic challenger and pickup winner Jimmy Carter, 1980 Republican challenger and pickup winner Ronald Reagan, and 1992 Democratic challenger and pickup winner Bill Clinton had in common is this: They not only ran on change; they delivered change—not just to the nation, and its people, but also to their respective political parties.

You take the two biggest standout examples—Roosevelt and Reagan—and there is no spinning that their political parties were not the same as before following their first-term election victories.

The last three times the presidency switched White House parties—2000, 2008, and 2016—were term-limited years; meaning, we had to elect a new president. A successor, a Republican or a Democratic pickup winner, can change his party. But, it really happens especially in an incumbent year in which a Republican or a Democratic challenger unseats an incumbent president.

When an incumbent gets unseated, by the nominee of the opposition party, it is the voters rejecting the incumbent’s arguments to stay the course—and it is the nation and its voters insisting the country head in a different direction. That cannot be done without vision. That cannot be done without an agenda. That cannot be done without a change to the very political party of the nominated challenger—and one who is certainly a true leader—who succeeds in unseating the incumbent president.

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

The 2020 Democrats who are thinking they need to nominate someone in line with the 1992 period, the previous change to the Democratic Party via the corporatism of Bill Clinton, have it wrong.

I think some of them do not know this.

I think some of them do know this.

There is no one in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries—certainly not the likes of status-quo party-establishment types like Joe Biden and Pete Buttigieg and not even the progressive posturing of capitalist-to-her-bones Elizabeth Warren—who represents an individuality that is also a philosophy and form of leadership which can deliver change to how the Democratic Party operates…with the exception of the junior United States senator from Vermont.

The 2020 Democratic Party and their presidential primaries voters, if they actually want to unseat Republican incumbent U.S. president Donald Trump, have one option which speaks to the tide of history and the change in the direction in which their party’s base of young voters are heading.

The 2020 Democrats need to nominate Bernie Sanders.

Anticipating and Predicting Election 2020

I reserved this blog topic’s date, Sunday, November 3, 2019, because it is one year from the scheduled date of the Tuesday, November 3, 2020 United States presidential election.

It will be the 59th presidential election in the history of the United States. The first was in 1789. The second was in 1792. The nation has since held its presidential elections in leap years.

I am, at this point, and with use of the blog title, “anticipating” and “predicting” the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination will go to Massachusetts senior United States senator Elizabeth Warren. The first two contests, Iowa and New Hampshire, I think will go—in that order—to Warren and Vermont junior U.S. senator Bernie Sanders. These two contests, the first two on the calendar, will set the trajectory for most of how the rest of the primaries will play out in terms of the map. I suspect the Democratic Party, which wants to make sure (if they can) the nomination will not go to Sanders, will work their machine to catapult Warren to nomination. To go more deeply into that issue would require me to write a separate blog topic. But, I have listed below, in summary of “predicting” the general election, that the 2020 Democratic challenger and nominee would be Warren.

Onto the general election.

The U.S. Popular Vote has been recorded since 1824. The year 2020 will mark the 50th recording of the U.S. Popular Vote. From the 49 elections of 1824 to 2016, the winner of the U.S. Popular Vote and the Electoral College, which comes first, has aligned to the same person in 44 cycles. That is almost 90 percent. I mention this because, from what I am “anticipating” and “predicting,” this is important to keep in mind. (Except for following subheadings, this is the last I will make use of any quotations around those two words.)

⭑ ⭑ ⭑ ⭑ ⭑

Color Key: ‘Anticipating’ the Map

The above map is a broad anticipation of the potential for a Republican hold or a Democratic pickup. (Meaning, the potential 2016-to-2020 national shift and what results they can yield.) When we get more deeply into 2020, the perceived tossups may narrow. That, at the least, is what the 2020 re-election campaign for Donald Trump will want to see. If it remains broad, to an extent of what appears on the above map, that will indicate a better chance the Democratic challenger will unseat Trump. (Frankly, I could picture this if the 2020 Democratic nomination goes to Bernie Sanders. I will write about this in the next blog topic, on Thursday, November 7, 2019, at 06:00 a.m. ET.)

•  Solid Red  and  Solid Blue  are for those I estimate will end up definite Republican or Democratic holds. For the Republican side, the party will carry at least 20 states combining for 125 electoral votes. For the Democratic side, the party will carry at least 17 states, plus District of Columbia, combining for 216 electoral votes.
•  Yellow  are those which I think will back the winner—be it a Republican hold or a Democratic pickup—as they carried Republican in 2016. (Along with Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, Iowa, Ohio, Florida, the Rust Belt trio of tipping-point state Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan were the 2016 Republican pickups. In April 2018, I actually wrote and posted about that here: Election 2020’s Key Bellwethers: The Rust Belt Trio Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.)
•  Light Red  and  Light Blue  allow for a broader possibility; meaning, if Donald Trump wins re-election, and increases his 2016 popular-vote margin from –2.09 (he received 45.93% to the 48.02% for losing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton), those in Light Blue are susceptible to flip to the 2020 Republican column for re-electing Trump; those in Light Red are for a Democratic challenger and pickup winner who unseats Trump with a popular-vote margin that reaches at least +6. (That Democratic pickup winner would obviously flip those in yellow and, with Georgia, would reach a margin of +5.) Light hues show what I perceive to be the limit for either prevailing party. (At this point, I don’t think a 2020 Democratic pickup winner will exceed +8.)

If you read the color bar, in the upper area, you can total the potential electoral votes.

Republican incumbent Donald Trump can get re-elected with up to 33 states, with 3 of the 4 electoral votes from Maine, and 322 electoral votes. His estimated order of potential pickups:

31. New Hampshire (U.S. Popular Vote margin: –1; cumulative 310 electoral votes)
32. Minnesota (margin: +0; cum. 320)
33. Maine (margin: +1; statewide; cum. 322) 

A Democratic pickup winner can go from 2016 Hillary Clinton’s 20 carried states and their original 232 electoral votes to as much as 30 states, plus District of Columbia and Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, and 413 electoral votes. The estimated order of potential pickups:

21. Michigan (U.S. Popular Vote margin: +3; cumulative 248 electoral votes)
22. Pennsylvania (margin: +3.25; cum. 268)
23. Wisconsin (margin: +3.75; cum. 278)—Tipping Point State
24. Florida (margin: +4; cum. 307)
— Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District (margin: +4.25; cum. 308)
25. Arizona (margin: +4.50; cum. 319)
26. North Carolina (margin: +4.75; cum. 334)
27. Georgia (margin: +5; cum. 350)
28. Iowa (margin: +6; cum. 356)
— Maine’s 2nd Congressional District (margin: +6.50; cum. 357)
29. Texas (margin: +7; cum. 395)
30. Ohio (margin: +8; cum. 413)

Although I won’t bogged down into details, the estimated target margins for Florida to North Carolina are based on the premise that the mathematically excessive numbers from 2016 California become stabilized—meaning a 2016-to-2020 Republican shift in California—and the Democrats’ national raw-vote and percentage-points margins would get distributed into the pickup states. In 2016, Hillary Clinton carried California by +28 percentage points in excess of her popular-vote margin. Normally, a Democrat—winning or losing—carries California between +15 to +20 in excess of one’s U.S. Popular Vote margin. (Again, I won’t go into too many details. The 2020 Democrats, to flip the presidency, will need a popular-vote margin of approximately +4. Most presidential winners carry at least 50 percent of the nation’s states. I think the next Democratic presidential pickup winner will carry at least 26 states. Those listed as states 28 to 30 include target margins which are in increments of +1, shifted from 2016, in the U.S. Popular Vote. Do you want to see a 2020 Democratic presidential pickup winner flip Texas? He or she would need to win the U.S. Popular Vote by +7.)

⭑ ⭑ ⭑ ⭑ ⭑

The Three Key Levels: ‘Predicting,’ Effective 11.03.2019

I am, at this point, predicting a 2020 re-election for Donald Trump. But, I am also predicting Trump—who recently changed his home state from New York to Florida—will become the first U.S. president elected beyond more than one term who will have never won the U.S. Popular Vote.

Assuming the two-party vote returns from the 2016 outcome of 93.95 percent to the typical range of 97 to 99 percent, Trump needs to receive 48 percent in the U.S. Popular Vote to not get unseated. (He can’t lose the U.S. Popular Vote by a whole-number estimate of –4. He can get by with –3, even –3.50, with losing Michigan and Pennsylvania while holding his 270th electoral vote from 2016, the tipping-point state Wisconsin.)

I think the 2020 Democrats will push through a nominee who isn’t the right candidate to unseat Trump. (I will be touching on this in my next blog topic.) And I anticipate the impeachment potential for Trump will backfire on the Democrats—and that it would send his job approval north to the area that is good enough for re-electing to a second term the 45th U.S. president.


U.S. PRESIDENT
☑ Donald Trump (R–Florida, incumbent) 48%
☐ Elizabeth Warren (D–Massachusetts) 49%
• Winning Party: Republican (Hold)
• U.S. Popular Vote Margin: Democratic +1
• Shift (from 2016): Republican +1
• Electoral Map: Re-election for Trump includes his 2016 map—carriage of 30 states, plus Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, and an original 306 electoral votes—followed by a 2020 Republican pickup of New Hampshire.
• Electoral Summary: Trump, with 31 states and Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, and 310 electoral votes; Warren, with 19 states and District of Columbia, and 228 electoral votes.

U.S. SENATE
☑ Republican (Hold)
☐ Democratic
• Summary: After the midterm elections of 2018, Republicans retained majority with 53 to the 47 for Democrats. The Democrats’ path begins with flipping the presidency. (They have to. Since the 17th Amendment, from the 1910s, every presidential election which flipped one or both houses of Congress to a given party went to the one which also prevailed at the presidential level.) I estimate the 2020 Democrats, if they end up flipping the presidency and, with it the U.S. Senate, will need to win with a popular-vote margin of at least +5, at the presidential level, to make also flipping the U.S. Senate more feasible.
• History: Since the 17th Amendment, from the 1910s, only twice has a presidential election year seen the opposition party’s nominee unseat the incumbent U.S. president and flip the U.S. Senate to that challenger’s party. This occurred in 1932 (Democratic pickups for U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt, having unseated Republican incumbent Herbert Hoover, as well as for U.S. Senate) and 1980 (Republican pickups for U.S. President Ronald Reagan, having unseated Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter, as well as for U.S. Senate).
• Net Gain in Seats: Not Determined
• Potential For the Democrats: To flip the U.S. Senate, the party would likely lose the party-held seat in the normally Republican-aligned Alabama. That reduces them to 46 seats. To win back a 47th seat, the Democrats start with flipping Colorado. The path to winning a new majority pickup of the U.S. Senate, for the 2020 Democrats, would come with net gains as follows: 48. Maine; 49. Arizona (a special election is scheduled); and 50. North Carolina (on a pattern of having carried in presidential elections for the same party for both U.S. President and U.S. Senate since 1972). To reach 51, the tipping point would either be from Georgia (a regular and a special election are scheduled) or Iowa. The win all three would get the 2020 Democrats to a new majority of 53 seats. If Texas were to flip at the presidential level, that could also reap for Democrats a 54th U.S. Senate seat.
• Potential For the Republicans: They are highly likely to lose the Democratic-aligned Colorado and bring their current majority down to 52. But, the Republicans are in position to counter-flip Alabama to return to a start of 53 seats. But, with re-election for Trump, if he increases his 2016-to-2020 popular-vote margin, they would have the potential to go as high as 56 with the following: 54. Michigan; 55 and 56. Minnesota and New Hampshire.

U.S. HOUSE
☐ Republican
☑ Democratic (Hold)
• Summary: The midterm elections of 2018 saw the Democrats go from a 2016 U.S. Popular Vote margin of –1.08 (it was Republican 49.11% vs. Democratic 48.03%) to +8.56 (it was Republican 44.85% vs. Democratic 53.41%). The 2018 Democrats nationally shifted +9.64 percentage points. Historically, since the 1940s, a White House opposition party which flips the U.S. House in a midterm gains an average of about +4 seats with each percentage point nationally shifted in their direction in the U.S. Popular Vote. The 2018 Democrats won a net gain of +40 seats to finish with a new majority of 235 seats to the 200 for the Republicans. Barring any seat changes prior to the general election of 2020, the Republicans will need to win a net gain of +18 to flip the U.S. House.
• History: Since the 17th Amendment, from the 1910s, there has been no U.S. President re-elected to a second term, while the opposition party held majority in the U.S. House, who was able to flip the lower chamber to his party. (Not 1984 Ronald Reagan. In 1948, Harry Truman won a first full term.)
• U.S. Popular Vote: A five-point variation between Democratic +3 to Republican +2
• Shift from 2018: Republican +6 to +11
• Net Gain in Seats: Republican +6 to +15
• Perspective: Since 2000, the U.S. Popular Vote for U.S. President and U.S. House have been close to each other. Often times 3 points or less in margin spread. The 2020 Democrats, to not lose any party-held seats, will have to win by a comparable popular-vote margin to their +8.56 from 2018. To win again at that level would deliver Democratic pickups of both U.S. President and U.S. Senate—a wave election for their political party. Since I am predicting Republican holds at both those levels, likely scenario is the political party which gains seats in the U.S. House, even tough the majority will get retained by the Democrats, are the Republicans.

Happy Halloween!

I wish all Progressives Chat readers a  Happy Halloween ! 

(The next blog topic will be posted Sunday, November 3, 2019, at 06:00 a.m. ET)

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

Published to YouTube on Wednesday, October 30, 2019 is a new interview and discussion between host Joe Rogan and guest Kyle Kulinski.

Joe Rogan Welcomes Edward Snowden

Many were amazingly taken by surprise last week when Joe Rogan published to YouTube his video welcoming guest Edward Snowden.

It was posted, in the comments section, and I appreciate it. We all do.

This video is well-worthy of a blog topic anyway. Its inclusion, by me, is simply for the sake of the archives of Progressives Chat.

(The next blog topic will be posted this Thursday, October 31, 2019, at 12:00 a.m. ET.)

It’s That Time of the Year Again!

Today’s blog date, Friday, October 25, 2019, is the official kickoff date of the 2019 Hallmark “Countdown to Christmas” on, yes, Hallmark Channel.

This is an annual tradition of holiday movies running through typically the early hours of January 2 of the following year.

Lots of titles. Made on the cheap. But they are reassuring.

I launched Progressives Chat in September 2017. In October 2017, I wrote about this topic here: It’s Almost Here: The 2017 Hallmark Channel ‘Countdown to Christmas’. In October 2018, I wrote about it again here: A ‘Hallmark’ Tradition. I enjoyed the humorous responses by a few Progressives Chat readers in the comments from both blog topic threads.

This is, as you can see above, the 10th anniversary of Hallmark Channel having its “Countdown to Christmas.” Nowadays, sister channel Hallmark Movies & Mysteries also runs the marathon. Its third sister channel, Hallmark Drama, has older titles. The marathon of these movies from at least the first two Hallmarks are a lot. A whole lot. (I don’t drown myself in them.)

This blog is normally for political content. But, to be frank, one can find politics anywhere. It is the form that is not the same everywhere. At Hallmark Channel, the politics is with pushing traditional. It’s also that everyone has to have love. If they don’t have love in their lives—meaning, someone to very potentially marry (and who is of the opposite sex)—their lives are lacking; and, to no longer be unfulfilled, the lead characters will find love. They must. So, these movies are happy ones. We know what the end will be even before it begins. They are reassuring.

We are living in a terrible period, politically, in the United States. And when it comes to entertainment, I like to take a break from the cynical and welcome some feel-good stuff (even if it is fluff). I find, frankly, there to be five or less Hallmark Channel “Countdown to Christmas” titles, in a given year, that I would want to be bothered seeing a second time. That isn’t bad. At the movies, even some which receive recognition from Oscar, it is less.

Christmas isn’t for two more months. We have Halloween next week. We have Thanksgiving next month. But, Christmas is commercialized to a point in which, looking at it from the corporations’ and retailers’ perspective and objective, it is a holiday which can never get an early enough start.

Hillary Clinton’s McCarthyite Attack Against Tulsi Gabbard

The recent McCarthyite attack against Tulsi Gabbard by Hillary Clinton generated plenty of reactions.

My response was one in which I felt like expressing words which are cutting and contemptuous.

I stopped.

I gave some thought to the former First Lady having been in India circa March 2018. While reflecting on the results of Election 2016, but really just speaking ill of those who did not vote for her, she spoke of the electoral map and how Donald Trump won the places in decline and how she won the dynamic places.

I reached a conclusion.

While it is not good Donald Trump is president of the United States, it is very good Hillary Clinton is not—and never will be—president of the United States.

Her attack last week against Tulsi Gabbard was one more reminder of that conclusion.

Hillary Clinton has never been worthy of the presidency of the United States.

☆ ☆ ☆ ☆ ☆

While I was tempted to include a good number of videos, for this blog topic, there are two which I found to be especially enlightening. The first is The Grayzone’s Aaron Maté with guest Max Blumenthal. The second is TBTV’s Tim Black.

‘Tiffany Fitzhenry Uncovers CIA’s Long Involvement With Hollywood’

Graham Elwood interviews guest Tiffany Fitzhenry, a writer, about the CIA having infiltrated Hollywood. Numerous of our stars are connected.

As one whose interest in going to the movies and following television series has been generally in decline for more than ten years…it is apparent to me that one contributing reason why is because of a soullessness.

This is a fascinating interview coming days after Graham Elwood had a very different take, compared to other progressives, on why Ellen DeGeneres was hanging with George W. Bush.


· UPDATE: Saturday, October 19, 2019 @ 09:20 a.m. ET ·
A second video, a continuation of Graham Elwood interviewing Tiffany Fitzhenry, was published to YouTube one day after the original. I have included it.

Ellen DeGeneres Is…‘Offensive’

Emmy-winning comedienne and talk-show host Ellen DeGeneres recently came under fire for hanging out at a NFL game with 43rd U.S. president George W. Bush.

DeGeneres’s ABC sitcom Ellen (originally These Friends of Mine), which I watched regularly, premiered 25 years ago, in 1994, and lasted until 1998. Her character Ellen Morgan’s coming-out episode, “The Puppy Episode,” won DeGeneres and her co-writers the 1996–97 Emmy for Outstanding Writing in a Comedy Series. Oscar-winning actress Emma Thompson won the 1997–98 Emmy for Outstanding Guest Actress in a Comedy Series for the episode “Emma.” DeGeneres has hosted her syndicated talk-show entertainment program since 2003.

I have not made a point of following DeGeneres for her politics. Part of what explains this is that I do not watch her talk show. I generally don’t like to watch talk shows. So, prior to my writing and posting this blog topic, I did not research whether she has made endorsements other than knowing, from little moments I have seen of her talk show, she does endorse corporate products. In the video, from Jimmy Dore, DeGeneres does mention she is a liberal.

In the above video, which was posted in comments section last week, Jimmy Dore well-researches and -reviews Ellen DeGeneres. But, I want to add this: George W. Bush nationally exploited LGBT persons (one of whom is DeGeneres) for the purpose of political and electoral gain. And he did with a willingness to possibly bring destruction to LGBT people. My home state is Michigan. In 2004, when Bush was re-elected and won the U.S. Popular Vote by +2.46 percentage points (it was George W. Bush 50.73% vs. John Kerry 48.27%), he tried to flip Michigan with a motivator being the ballot proposal to constitutionally ban same-sex marriage statewide. While John Kerry carried Michigan with 51 percent of the vote (a margin of +3.42 percentage points), the ban passed with almost 59 percent. In fact, it passed in all of the state’s counties.

We also know Bush, with help from the likes of Colin Powell and Robert Mueller, lied to the people of the United States to get the country into war in Iraq. (The fact that there were three faithless 2016 electors from the Democratic-aligned state of Washington who cast their presidential votes not for losing nominee Hillary Clinton but for Republican Colin Powell—and the “mainstream” Democrats were also on their knees for Mueller with Russiagate—speaks as well to the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the corrupt, corporate, Democratic Party Establishment.)

Jimmy Dore uses some accurate words to describe Ellen DeGeneres. But, there is one particular word—and it is not needing to be one that is dramatic—which should also be applied. That word is…offensive. Yes, Ellen DeGeneres is offensive.

☆ ☆ ☆

In addition to the video by Jimmy Dore come related ones by Graham Elwood, Kyle Kulinksi of Secular Talk, Tim Black, David Doel of The Rational National and, as one who is out as a gay man, Mike Figueredo of The Humanist Report.

‘The Phony Liberalism of Bill Maher’

I stopped watching HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher circa January 2017. I recall it last going through a change in its production design for the set decoration. Some red was incorporated. By then, enough of a focus of the program was in going after Donald Trump.

I know this was not too unreasonable given Trump was, at the time, the incoming 45th U.S. president. But, I also knew the Democrats, with Hillary Clinton, should not be dismissed for rigging the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries and everything related to WikiLeaks’s report of the DNC e-mails, the Podesta Files, and how that political party is a sham.

I had the sense Bill Maher’s program was taking a turn for the worse. So, I bailed. It turns out I made a personally wise decision. From what I have seen from videos, and from what I have read, the nowadays Bill Maher, and his Real Time, is one I chalk up to with recognizing that who owns HBO has ownership of Bill Maher—and I find myself not drawn in to reacting with anger. I dismiss Bill Maher. He is owned. But, this has not stopped me from reading a recent take on Maher. And I will share in this blog topic.

The Phony Liberalism of Bill Maher

Remembering Diahann Carroll

The groundbreaking actress, model, and singer Diahann Carroll died last Friday, October 4, 2019, at age 84.

Here is a report: Diahann Carroll, Actress Who Broke Barriers With ‘Julia,’ Dies at 84.

Born July 17, 1935, in Bronx, New York, Carroll’s parents were a subway conductor and a nurse. She was married four times, perhaps most famously to the late singer Vic Damone.

Diahann Carroll has been described as pioneering and trailblazing, especially when you read the reports on the career of the actress and her life. She was not only the first black actress but also the overall first black actor to reach completion of receiving lead-acting nominations for the Tony (winning in 1962 for Best Actress in a Musical for No Strings); the Emmy (a 1963 nomination for Outstanding Single Performance by an Actress in a Leading Role for ABC’s Naked City; a 1969 nomination for Outstanding Lead Actress in a Comedy Series for NBC’s Julia); and the Oscar (a 1974 nomination for Best Actress in Claudine).

I came across some interesting clip interviews of Carroll; ones in which Carroll spoke at length, and with clarity and insight, of her experiences at different points in her career and her life. Although there are plenty more clips than I will post, the ones appearing below are worth sharing and viewing.



In the first clip, published to YouTube in 2011, Diahann Carroll speaks of the 1954 Otto Preminger film Carmen Jones (for which leading lady Dorothy Dandridge became the first black actress Oscar nominated for Best Actress). Carroll touches on how some actors are treated as being no better than just being actors.

In this second clip, published to YouTube in 2012, Diahann Carroll speaks of her 1963 Emmy nomination for Naked City and, as one who was reluctant to move from New York to California, of her general distrust of Hollywood.

In this third clip, published to YouTube in 2011, Diahann Carroll speaks of the controversy—and a lot of pain—with her NBC series Julia (1968–1971).

In this fourth clip, published to YouTube in 2009, Diahann Carroll speaks of the John Berry film Claudine; having replaced the actress originally cast, her Tony- and Emmy-nominated friend Diana Sands (the original Beneathea in Lorraine Hansberry’s A Raisin in the Sun who died from cancer at age 39 in 1973); and why she was surprised she received a 1974 Oscar nomination for Best Actress.

• ARCHIVE • ‘The Election March of the Trolls’

I made the decision to post a topic that was published in 2011. It was eight years ago which marked the last time the U.S. had an upcoming presidential election which was an incumbent year; meaning, the voters had the choice to re-elect an incumbent U.S. president—or unseat that president with the opposition-party nominee. Chris Hedges was not caught up in it. Here is his great piece, The Election March of the Trolls.

‘The Plan to Trip Up Trump’

Here is an excellent report from Consortium News: The Plan to Trip Up Trump.

‘FULL Story: Trump/Biden–Ukraine Corruption & Impeachment Media’

Discussing the topic are the host of The Jimmy Dore Show and his journalist–guest Aaron Maté.

Happy Anniversary, ‘Progressives Chat’!

It was two years ago this week—actually, it was the date of Monday, September 25, 2017—that marked the official beginning of Progressives Chat.

I launched this website to pick up from The Far Left Chat (and its sequel) by cathyx. I did not want to lose having a blog site for progressives—ones who were more aligned with Bernie Sanders (not Hillary Clinton) from the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries—as it is more relatable and very comfortable given we are basically on the same page for politics.

The timing coincided with the start of the 2017–18 television season. The date of this blog topic is also the first day of 2019–20 television season. It is pretty cool it worked out that way because I, a past television junkie (I now watch regularly less than five of the broadcast networks’s series), am good at recalling the calendar.

I want to thank cathyx for helping me create and launch Progressives Chat. I want to thank everyone who has posted comments. I will keep this going for however much longer it will last.

I want to leave this with a video. I am a private person. And this means I haven’t revealed much about myself. I will keep myself private, for the most part, but I will reveal the following: My name is not Candy. It is Dave. I go by Candy83 because, from 1983–1997, I had a beautiful beagle who I named Candy and have since not had any more dogs. I have never been good at creating user names for discussion forums requiring registered membership. I go with something I know I will not forget. I chose CoolBlue71, for Twitter, because blue is generally my favorite color; it is a cool hue on the color wheel; and I was born in the year 1971. I live in a suburb of Detroit, Michigan.

(Everyone should go ahead and still refer to me by Candy83, or Candy, because it is my user name.)

On Friday, August 30, 2019, I called The Tim Black Show (a.k.a. TBTV) to share a little information and insight. (He runs a live program, taking calls, on Friday nights. Duration tends to be around three hours.) In the following video, you can hear me speak around the mark of 2:26:50. Host Tim Black, when taking a call, tends to prompt the upcoming caller he/she is about to go live by referring to the person’s area code. I am in 313 (which is Detroit, Michigan). So, if you want to hear me, go ahead and play the video. (It was published to YouTube on Sunday, September 1, 2019.)

Graham Elwood, Tulsi Gabbard, CAA, and the Emmy Awards

There is a terrific video, which was published to YouTube on September 12, 2019, by Graham Elwood.

It is titled “High Powered Hollywood Agencies Push Tulsi Smear Campaign.”

Elwood, 50, has been an actor, director, a writer, a producer. Source: Graham Elwood.

In this video, he references a Medium piece, written by Robbie Jaeger, titled “Tulsi Gabbard Has Enemies In High Places”.

What is remarkable is the shaping of a Hollywood culture that has me also reflecting on why I have been turned off by a lot of what is produced today. (I rarely go to the movies. I used to love to do that. I used to be a TV junkie for first-run broadcast-network series. Now, I am down to five—and not at the same time.) Part of this is also not finding a number of today’s “stars” appealing. (I have, throughout the past few years, been questioning “Why is this person a star?”) And, yes, they have been, and they are, selected for us.

This has me noting the 71st Emmy Awards, scheduled for its live presentation on Sunday, on Fox, and which will give prizes for the 2018–19 television season. Frankly, I don’t want to be brothered. (I can get ahold of the winners’ list afterward.) Two years ago, I was turned off when the first half-hour was a Let’s Shit on Trump display. It was the 45th U.S. president’s first year in office. I understood taking shots at him. But, it went on too long. (I switched channels after I had enough.) The Emmys, while needing to provide entertainment, and the politics have its role in awards ceremonies, are supposed to be most especially focused on celebrating the excellence from a previous television season; not to become a display for a number of CAA members (like 2017 host Stephen Colbert) kissing up to authority to earn their keep.

This is, so far, one of my favorite videos of 2019.

‘Bernie Sanders and the Realignment of the American Left’

Rob Urie has written an insightful piece, published Friday, September 13, 2019, at CounterPunch. 

Here is the link: Bernie Sanders and the Realignment of the American Left.

‘Why Elizabeth Warren Would Lose To Trump’

The Jimmy Dore Show published on Thursday, September 12, 2019 a discussion welcoming guest Katie Halper on why a nominee U.S. Sen. Elizabeth Warren would not unseat incumbent 45th U.S. president Donald Trump in the 2020 United States presidential election.

I have reasons, before even watching this video, why I think Warren would not unseat Trump. They may be ones not on the minds of some people. But, I will share here.

Warren is not a leader.

In the early 2010s, while Barack Obama was in office as the nation’s 44th president, I would see Warren in interviews—including on HBO’s Real Time with Bill Maher—and she shined.

In 2016, Warren opted to not run for president of the United States. People wanted her to do that. I figured, at the time, she does not want to be president. That not every person in office wants to eventually become president.

I figured this because Warren signed a letter, circa 2014, encouraging Hillary Clinton to run for president. During 2016, while the primaries were in progress, Warren refrained from endorsing either Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders. People who follow politics knew damn well Warren is politically closer to Sanders. She waited for the primaries to end, with the last contest having played out, and then went on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC program to endorse Hillary.

After the endorsement, and while the general election was in progress, Elizabeth Warren took to Twitter to do her best to out-tweet Trump on Twitter.

I think of Trump as the U.S.’s first troll president. A troll in the sense of an Internet troll. The Internet is our most immediate access to the world. And Trump knows this. A part of the campaign approach of Trump, and here we are in his third full year in office, is to consistently demand and command attention. And it has worked for Trump.

This brings me to remembering the approaches of Warren:

· She did not recognize that she needed to step up and run for president of the United States in 2016.

· She did not endorse a candidate for nomination while the Democratic presidential primaries were in progress in 2016.

· She may have—I don’t recall whether she succeeded—trumped Trump on Twitter in 2016.

I could list more reasons. But, sometimes three bullet points are enough examples. And it leads me to this conclusion: These actions do not come across as the makings of a future leader of the free world.

iPhone 11

On Tuesday, September 10, 2019, Apple had a live-streaming presentation of its upcoming products. This obviously includes the iPhone 11.

I have the iPhone 6 Plus, which was a 2014 model that I purchased in 2015. It works fine. But, because it is my first smartphone (well, I had a prior box phone; a starter type that did not suffice), I don’t know how long I will have it before moving into a newer or new model. I anticipate keeping it at least one more year. So, I figure I will not be buying the iPhone 11.

This is what helped me avoid watching Apple’s live-stream presentation of its upcoming products. I was not available. And I have not yet bothered to watch it from either YouTube or Apple’s app.

I feel good just watching others, with their published YouTube videos, talk about the new model. I especially prefer looking to a person I generally trust for his reviews of electronics. His name is Marques Brownlee. He has been on guest on Joe Rogan’s program. And Brownlee has an approach to reviewing products that are, for his audience, relatable and insightful.

I want to also present the link to a report about a change in buying pattern. The rate in which people—people who are consumers—buy a new smartphone has become less frequent. This does not surprise me. But, the report, published August 21, 2019, was well-worthy of my having read it. Perhaps readers of Progressives Chat will agree. So, I will share it here: ‘The two year upgrade cycle is dead,’ according to new survey.

Following are the two iPhone 11 videos by Marques Brownlee:

‘Danny Sjursen: Fighting “Forever War”’

The Zero Hour’s R.J. Eskow interview veteran soldier Danny Sjursen. This is not the first such interview. But, it is well-worth watching because of Sjursen’s understanding of the military industrial complex, and it is why we keep having one war followed by the next while not meaningfully improving the well-being of the lives of the people of the United States.

The interview lasts just over a half-hour. (It was published to YouTube on Friday, September 6, 2019.) One criticism I have is of Eskow. He is not alone in this; but, it can become distracting when a host asks a guest an important question but, before the guest answers, the host—thinking it is for purposes of further clarity (even when it is not necessary)—goes off on a tangent. It is remarkable the guest doesn’t lose focus by forgetting what was asked. Eskow does it at least a couple times. Thankfully, Sjursen does not lose track.

Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper Interview Jimmy Dore

Published Thursday, September 5, 2019, at approximately 04:00 p.m. ET, is the third installment of Rolling Stone “Useful Idiots” hosted by Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper.

Taibbi and Halper discuss the fact-checking Washington Post and media bias against Bernie Sanders (who turns 78 on Sunday). They later interview guest Jimmy Dore.

A Labor Day with ‘Company Man’

I wish everyone a Happy Labor Day.

Now, I don’t want to come across as if I am saluting well-known corporations. But, I have come across some well-researched videos. And I respect the labor that went into them.

I have been finding it very interesting to watch the videos by YouTube member Company Man.

For the last two years, Company Man has gone over the histories of numerous companies—their good and bad times—and his videos are only a few short minutes. It can be pretty remarkable. 

I will post five select videos by Company Man.

Here is a link to his site (followed by the below videos): YouTube — Company Man.

1984 in Music

Given the fact we are now in Labor Day Weekend, and that I will actually have a thread for that date (this one runs two days), I wanted to come up with a blog topic that is a bit of a break from politics. (Well, politics is everywhere.)

I recently drove by my middle school, in a suburb of Detroit, Michigan, and connected how long it has been. I was reminded of the specific year 1984.

It was 35 years ago. 

It was the first year I started buying music. 

I thought it was the best year in music specifically from the decade of the 1980s.

It was Tina Turner’s comeback year, with her album Private Dancer and her No. 1 and Record of the Year and Song of the Year Grammy winner “What’s Love Got to Do With It.” It was also the year of Bruce Springsteen’s Born in the USA. It was also the year Cyndi Lauper won the Grammy for Best New Artist for her She’s So Unusual which also garnered her Record of the Year and Song of the Year nominations for “Girls Just Wanna Have Fun” and “Time After Time.” It was also the year The Pointer Sisters became greatly appreciated with their Break Out No. 1 hit, and the Grammy winner for Best Duo or Group Pop Vocal Performance, “Jump (For My Love).” It was the year Lionel Richie performed at the 1984 Summer Olympics, in Los Angeles, California, and experienced five hits from eight tracks from Can’t Slow Down, which went on to win the Grammy for Album of Year. (Source: Wikipedia — ‘“Can't Slow Down” (Lionel Richie album)’.)  It was also a good year for R&B singers Billy Ocean, for “Carribbean Queen,” and Chaka Khan, for “I Feel for You,” which was written by Prince who, with his Prince and the Revolution, had their huge hit Purple Rain. It was a good year for motion-picture soundtracks. Not just Purple Rain, but also Stevie Wonder with his “I Just Called to Say I Love You,” from The Woman in Red, but also from the film which was my first album purchase, Footloose.

1984 was a great year in music.

Here are five videos, although I am tempted to post more, from “1984 in Music”: