‘Status Coup’ with Kshama Sawant

Status Coup, from Jordan Chariton, is now on the Recommendations list.

There are now a listed 30 Recommendations.

I made this change over the last weekend.

It is with enthusiasm that I also post in this thread topic “Status Coup” with Kshama Sawant.

In these videos, there is coverage of Seattle, Washington council member Kshama Sawant on affordable housing, Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, the destruction of capitalism, and other issues.

Beyond ‘Russiagate’

Now that special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 United States presidential election is complete, and that the report has been submitted to U.S. attorney general William Barr, several thoughts occur to me.

This is not about the investigation itself. 

It occurs to me that, if a 2020 Donald Trump wins re-election as the 45th U.S. president, this may be key to why. A president winning a second term has mostly to do with the conditions. The economy. Employment. But, this two- to three-year pushed narrative—which, according to the book Shattered, was devised by the losing 2016 Hillary Clinton campaign—has finally turned people off. And turned people off to the Democrats.

According to Poll: Half of Americans say Trump is victim of a 'witch hunt' as trust in Mueller erodes, “A 52 percent majority say they have little or no trust in the president’s denials that his 2016 campaign colluded with Moscow in the election that put him in the Oval Office.”

The problem with this, for the Democrats, is that the electorate has a way of protecting an incumbent U.S. president. It is not in their nature to want to be against a sitting president. The last two incumbent presidents who became unseated were Jimmy Carter, in 1980, and George Bush, in 1992. What they had in common was bad economies having struck on their watch and which sunk their attempts to win a second term. The economy we have right now does not compare to 1980 and 1992. So, that is an advantage for Trump heading into 2020. But, the Democrats having pushed this Russia interference in the 2016 presidential election propaganda now makes Trump look like he was targeted; that was the victim.

When an opposition-party challenger unseats an incumbent president, part of it has to do with nominee offering a vision that is a change in direction. Ronald Reagan did that against Jimmy Carter in 1980. Bill Clinton did that against George Bush in 1992. For those who believe the Democratic nominee in 2020 will do that against Trump—Any Blue Will Not Do. 

This is why I perceive there being only two 2020 Democratic candidates who have the ability to unseat Trump: Vermont U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Hawaii #02 U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. Sanders, because of his progressive agenda he describes as democratic socialism (which should be sold as being a social democrat) of Medicare for All, free public college tuition, and with addressing the problems of income inequality; Gabbard, for some of those reasons but, and this is where she is better than Sanders (and all other candidates), on foreign policies and for confronting the endless wars with the powerful and overfunded Military Industrial Complex.

The problem with Trump is that, even though the economy and jobs conditions are considered positive (I am not saying they are strong), he still polls poorly. Gallup, with a report on March 14, 2019, has Trump at 39 percent. (Link: Trump Job Approval Falters After a Month of Higher Ratings.) Why? I think it has to do with the distaste many have for Trump. Say what you want about him—one thing people can agree with is that Trump is controversial. But, it is also necessary to look at more than one source. CNN reported on March 18, 2019 that Trump is doing even better. “A majority give the President positive reviews for his handling of the nation’s economy (51% approve), and his overall rating has ticked up to 42% in the new poll.” (Link: CNN Poll: 7 in 10 say economy in good shape — and Trump may reap the benefits.) 

How much of these polls do I believe?  I have to take them one at a time. And they are usually followed by figuring whether they overall jibe with reality. At the same time, it is important to keep in mind where we are at right now, with this blog topic posted on March 25, 2019, and for when elections of 2020 will arrive. What can happen, with just over 19 months until the November 3, 2020 general election, is that Trump’s job-approval percentage can increase. But, it could also end up at a level similar to now. (I have it figured Trump must reap at least 48 percent in the U.S. Popular Vote to prevent a Democratic opponent from unseating him. And, frankly, it wouldn’t surprise me if he ends up winning two elections without a majority in the U.S. Popular Vote.) 

This witch hunt against Trump can re-elect Trump. The innate tendencies of an electorate protecting an incumbent U.S. president, that incumbent U.S. president having become a victim of a witch hunt, and the opposition-party trying to control not only how the party operates but exactly who is permitted to win their party’s presidential nomination—that, and with even more reasons, can add up to re-election for Trump. If the 2020 Democrats nominate yet another hollow corporatist—be it 47th U.S. vice president Joe Biden, former Texas #16 U.S. Rep. Beto O’Rourke, California U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris, or anyone else down the line who would have the blessing of the party establishment (which is, frankly, the Clintons)—that will make re-election for Trump much more within the realm of possibility than Democratic Party Loyalists will acknowledge.

I leave Progressives Chat reader with the following videos (which were published on the night of Sunday, March 24, 2019) from The Jimmy Dore Show:

‘Translating Corporate Dem Speak into English’…‘Jimmy Dore’…David Sirota

An insightful post, by forum member game meat, appears at Jackpine Radicals.

It is one of those read between the lines insights necessary for understanding some U.S. politics.

This is particularly applicable to the con games by establishment, corporate Democrats.

Here is a link to that thread posting by game meat: ‘Translating Corporate Dem Speak into English’.

Here it is:


Translating Corporate Dem Speak into English

• Reaching across the aisle = Voting with Republicans
• Bipartisanship = Voting with Republicans
• Getting things done = Voting with Republicans
• Access to healthcare = Does not support any form of universal healthcare
• Standing with our allies = Sending billions of [U.S.] dollars to Israel
• Small businesses are the backbone of our country = Tax cuts for large multinational corporations
• Pro business = Tax cuts for large multinational corporations
• Americans won’t do those jobs = Donors don’t want to pay competitive wages, so we will exploit desperate immigrants instead
• Moderate = Right-wing
• Realistic = Will not support anything that benefits regular people
• Pragmatic = Will not support anything that benefits regular people
• Socially liberal/fiscally moderate = Not racist, just hates poor people
• Far-left = Anyone promoting policies [which] benefits regular people
• Russians meddled in our election = We accept no responsibility for our failures

I’m sure there are many more, but these are quite common… —game meat

* * * * *     * * * * *     * * * * *     * * * * *     * * * * *     * * * * * 

A Dore Trio

Three excellent videos from The Jimmy Dore Show were published on Thursday, March 21, 2019.

Due to subject matter, and they were posted at a time in which forum members weren’t posting all of these in the comments section, I give this space to include each of them.

* * * * *     * * * * *     * * * * *     * * * * *     * * * * *     * * * * * 

David Sirota

Journalist David Sirota, of Capital & Main, has officially been hired for the 2020 United States presidential campaign of Bernie Sanders.

The Atlantic’s Edward–Isaac Dovere came out with a hit piece on Sirota, claiming unethical conduct, and it turns out the one being unethical is Dovere.

Here are three sources addressing this issue:

A link to the written piece: The Atlantic’s Attack On New Speechwriter For Bernie Sanders Completely Unravels.

Here are videos:

As Texas Trends Blue, Ohio Trends Red

The Democrats are wanting to win Texas again in United States presidential elections. They have been wanting it for more than ten years. Effective with Jimmy Carter in 1976, every Democratic Party presidential winner carried the state of Texas. In the 1990s, Bill Clinton was the first Democrat to win without Texas. The Lone Star State has been much-desired by Democrats who equate winning over Texas with sinking the Republican Party.

As the Republican presidential pickup winner of 2000, and following that year with re-election in 2004, George W. Bush carried his home state in excess of +20 percentage points relative his national support. Having won 30 and 31 states, the percentage-points margins in 2000 and 2004 Texas made it Bush’s No. 10 best state. With the Republicans failing to hold the White House in 2008, with John McCain, and with failing to flip it back with Mitt Romney in 2012, Texas lowered to the No. 15 best state for McCain (who carried 22 states) and Romney (who won 24 states). In the 2016 Republican presidential pickup year for Donald Trump, Texas actually shifted its 2012-to-2016 margins toward losing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton—going from R+15.78 to R+8.98—and the state ranked as Trump’s No. 22 best.

In that 2016 United States presidential election, Trump’s GOP pickup of Ohio, with a margin of +8.07, made it his No. 23 best state. It was only –0.91 less red than Texas. States which had usually performed more Republican than Ohio, but were less so in 2016, were Georgia (+5.10), North Carolina (+3.66), and Arizona (+3.50). Ohio performing at R+8.07 was made possible in part because Trump needed a higher margin out of Ohio—turned out to be in excess of +7—to also flip and carry the Rust Belt trio Wisconsin (+0.76, his tipping point state), Pennsylvania (+0.72), and Michigan (+0.22). But, Trump having flipped Ohio was also a part of winning over the majority of Top 10 populous states. Starting off with 2012 Mitt Romney’s 206 electoral votes, GOP pickups of Florida (+29 electoral votes), Pennsylvania (+20), Ohio (+18), and Michigan (+16) combined for +83 electoral votes. They took Trump past the 270 mark, with 289 of his original 306 electoral votes, before his additional pickups of Wisconsin (+10), Iowa (+06), and the 2nd Congressional District of Maine (+01).

The Democrats are really excited about Texas. To see a state perform anywhere from Nos. 21 to 30 means the party not with the White House senses an applicable state is flippable with the next election which delivers a party switch. But, I think the Democrats’ quest to flip Texas can come with a trade-off: that they fail to win back Ohio.

The Top 10

The current Top 10 populous states are: California (55 electoral votes); Texas (38); Florida (29); New York (29); Pennsylvania (20); Illinois (20); Ohio (18); Georgia (16); North Carolina (15); and Michigan (16). (The next U.S. Census will get North Carolina and Michigan—along with the rest—in line to reflect appropriate allocation of congressional seats and electoral votes from population changes after 2010.)

Since the U.S.’s first post-Civil War presidential election of 1868, there were four presidential elections in which all of the Top 10 populous states were carried: 1936, 1964, 1980, and 1984. In each case, Franklin Roosevelt (46 of 48 states), Lyndon Johnson (44 of 50 states), and the two for Ronald Reagan (44 followed by 49 of 50 states) resulted in them having carried at least 80 percent of the nation’s states. Since 1992, the percentage of states carried have been in the range of 52 to 64 percent. (The highest was Bill Clinton, with 32 of 50, in 1992. The lowest was Barack Obama, with 26 of 50, in 2008.) From this period, no presidential winner has carried more than 8 of the Top 10. This happened twice: Bill Clinton, in 1996, and Barack Obama, in 2008. The next-best was 7 of the Top 10: Clinton (1992), Obama (2012), and Trump (2016). In this time period, only Republican George W. Bush won with less than half of the nation’s Top 10 populous states. (He carried four: Texas, Florida, Ohio, and Georgia. During much of the 2000s, North Carolina did not rank Top 10. It was at No. 11. New Jersey was still a Top 10 populous state.)

The overwhelming majority of U.S. presidential winners have carried more than half of the Top 10 populous states. They currently combine for 256 electoral votes. A flaw to the Electoral College is that 236 congressional districts combine in the Top 10. The 256 electoral votes, from a total allocation of 538, is equal to 47.58 percent. The 236 U.S. House seats, from 435 congressional districts (adjust it to 436 for an elector from District of Columbia), represents 54.12 percent of the nation’s population. So, the majority of the nation’s population reside in a state which ranks among the Top 10. As a resident of Michigan, this applies to me. And so I don’t take this lightly. The problem with the Electoral College is folding in the U.S. Senate’s 100 seats to the allocated 538 electoral votes. The U.S. House is proportional representation. The U.S. Senate amounts to two seats per state without regard for proportional representation. So, those wanting to abolish the Electoral College have a credible argument. After all, the Top 10 states are not getting the full weight of their overall votes accurately reflected.

I won’t digress for long.

The Last Two Party Switches

When it comes to percentage-points margins, let’s look at the best-performed states, for 2008 Democratic pickup winner Barack Obama and 2016 Republican pickup winner Donald Trump, and rank them.

2008 DEMOCRATIC PICKUP—BARACK OBAMA
1. New York — D+26.86
2. Illinois — D+25.10
3. California — D+24.02
4. Michigan — D+16.44
5. New Jersey — D+15.53
6. Pennsylvania — D+10.31
[U.S. Popular Vote: D+7.26]
7. Ohio (pickup) — D+4.59
8. Florida (pickup) — D+2.81
9. Georgia — R+5.20
10. Texas — R+11.76

2016 REPUBLICAN PICKUP—DONALD TRUMP 
1. Texas — R+8.98
2. Ohio (pickup) — R+8.07
3. Georgia — R+5.10
4. North Carolina — R+3.66
[Adjusted popular-vote margin: +2]
5. Florida (pickup) — R+1.19
6. Pennsylvania (pickup) — R+0.72
7. Michigan (pickup) — R+0.22
8. Illinois — D+16.89
9. New York — D+22.49
10. California —D+29.99

I adjusted the margin on Trump for this reason: The previous two party switches for the presidency—2000 Republican pickup winner George W. Bush and 2008 Democratic pickup winner Barack Obama—saw them gain pretty much +1 state for each percentage point nationally shifted (from the previous election cycle) in their direction. (It is typically between +1 to +1.5 states gained on average.)

In 2000, George W. Bush gained +11 states with a national 1996-to-2000 shift of R+8.00. So, Bush flipped an average of +1.37 states with each percentage point nationally shifted in his (and the Republicans’) direction.

In 2008, Barack Obama gained +9 states, as well as Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, with a national 2004-to-2008 shift of D+9.72. So, Obama flipped an average of +0.92 states with each percentage point nationally shifted in his (and the Democrats’) direction. Since Nebraska #02 was a Democratic pickup, round that “+0.92” to +1.

Had a 2016 Republican pickup winner Donald Trump won a likewise pickup of the U.S. Popular Vote, he would have taken 2012 Mitt Romney’s loss of –3.86 and, since Trump gained +6 states (and Maine’s 2nd Congressional District), I estimate his margin would have been between +2.15 to +2.65. So, I went ahead and adjusted his popular-vote margin to +2. 

The Trending Top 10

The whole point of my having listed those Top 10 populous states, for where they came in for the last two winners of separate political parties [Obama and Trump], is to understand where they ranked—and to get a sense of possible future trends (as indicated below).

Since the Democrats are looking at Texas as flippable for the next time the White House party switches from Republican to Democratic, I consider a number of things: 1. How many states get carried? (Will it still follow the pattern which took hold in 1992?); 2. Is the pattern going to finally break? (Are we going to get a winner who carries at least 40 states? Meaning, 80 percent or above of this nation’s states. If so, that would be not a net gain of +1 state for each percentage point nationally shifted but closer to +1.5 states gained. Going by the 2016 results, with losing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton having won 20 states, a 2020 Democratic winner would have to shift at least 14 percentage points nationally to get a pickup of 20 states to reach carriage of 40 states.)

If the United States presidential election of 2020 ends up a Democratic pickup, and among the flipped states would be Texas, it is not going to turn “blue” without the top bellwether states of 2016 and 2020—which include Top 10s Pennsylvania and Michigan (to go along with non-Top 10 Wisconsin)—flipping as well. And if Texas flips, so too will Georgia and North Carolina. (They are bluer than Texas.) It is tough to imagine Texas flipping without Ohio. But, what can make that happen is if the Democratic pickup winner gains a number of states resulting in a narrow pickup of Texas but with Ohio narrowly holding Republican. What could cause a 40-state landslide, to include all of the Top 10 populous states, is the right candidate—and, yes, I mean Bernie Sanders—who goes after a 40-state landslide and strikes in just about every geographic region and who wins the U.S. Popular Vote by about +15 percentage points (closer to +20 would be better). 

If the United States presidential election of 2020 ends up a Republican hold, those 7 of the Top 10 for 2016’s Donald Trump—which include Pennsylvania and Michigan—will carry for his re-election. If that happens, that means the Democrats will not flip the presidency again until 2024. By then, we could get a Top 10 populous states ranking which looks like this (for the next Democratic presidential pickup winner and, following that, the next Republican presidential pickup winner):

2024 DEMOCRATIC PICKUP 
1. California
2. New York or Illinois
3. Illinois or New York
4. North Carolina (pickup)
[U.S. Popular Vote may fall here]
5. Florida or Georgia (pickup)
[U.S. Popular Vote may fall here]
6. Georgia or Florida (pickup)
[U.S. Popular Vote may fall here]
7. Texas (pickup)
8. Michigan — a narrow Democratic pickup or a narrow Republican hold if the range of carried states are still 26 to 32 (52 to 64 percent)
9. Pennsylvania — at least a half-point more Republican than Michigan; flips if a pickup-winning Democrat carries at least 40 states
10. Ohio — between three to six points more Republican than Pennsylvania

[ESTIMATED] 2032 REPUBLICAN PICKUP WINNER
1. Ohio
2. Pennsylvania
3. Michigan
4. Texas (pickup)
[U.S. Popular Vote may fall here]
5. Georgia or Florida (pickup)
[U.S. Popular Vote may fall here]
6. Florida or Georgia (pickup)
[U.S. Popular Vote may fall here]
7. North Carolina (pickup)
8. Illinois or New York — a narrow Republican pickup or a narrow Democratic hold
9. New York or Illinois — flips if a pickup-winning Republican carries at least 40 states
10. California — a winning Republican who exceeds carriage of 40 states

Notice, by comparison of 2008 and 2016, where a 2024 and 2032 Texas and Ohio would be trending. Remember that just four elections, since after the Civil War, saw a presidential winner carry all the nation’s Top 10 populous states. As Texas is trending away from the Republicans and toward the Democrats—and I would go so far as to say it will become a bellwether state—Ohio is trending away from bellwether toward the Republicans.

This is not incomprehensible. With the electoral pattern established since 1992, plenty of former bellwether states left that status to partisan-identify with one of the major two parties: Missouri (1904 to 2004, minus one), Tennessee (1912 to 2004, minus two), and Kentucky (same record as Tennessee since 1956) are now very red; California (in 22 of the 25 elections of the 20th century), Illinois (same record as California, except 1960, since 1920), and Delaware (all elections of the 1950s to 1990s) are now very blue. Ohio can follow.

In the midterm elections of 2018, none of Ohio’s 16 congressional Districts flipped Democratic as that party won a net gain of +40 (or, pending eventual outcome with North Carolina #09, +41) seats for a new majority. The 2018 Democrats flipped the U.S. House with aid from 21 states (or 22 states pending the eventual outcome in North Carolina). Texas, however, delivered +2 pickups to the 2018 U.S. House Democrats: Lizzie Fletcher unseated John Culberson in Texas #07, an area including western Houston; former NFL player Colin Allred unseated Pete Sessions in Texas #32, an area including northeast Dallas. (Both congressional districts—won in 2012 by Mitt Romney in excess of +15 percentage points and Democratic pickups for Hillary Clinton in 2016—have less than 50 percent voters who are white.)

Ohio and Texas: Their Trending Counties

In Ohio, Lake County (Painesville) had been a bellwether county in terms of its margins. In 2016, it gave Trump a margin of +7 in excess of his statewide margin. An extra +11 points came from Ottawa County (Port Clinton), which has carried for Ohio winners since 1948. (In the 2018 Ohio gubernatorial election, a Republican hold for Mike DeWine, Lake County was nearly +5.50 and Ottawa County nearly +7.50 more Republican than the state of Ohio.) And Montgomery County (Dayton) flipped and carried Republican, for Trump, the first time for that party since 1988. (Ditto Portage County, with its county seat Ravenna, from the area of Akron.)

In Texas, both Dallas (Dallas) and Harris (Houston) counties became Democratic pickups in 2008, for Obama, and their margins vs. the state have been trending significantly more Democratic than the state ever since. In 2016, Bexar County (San Antonio), which carried for all presidential winners from 1972 to 2012, carried for losing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton by +13 while Trump took the state by +9, a margin spread of +22 points more Democratic. There is also the fact that, in the 2018 U.S. Senate, losing Democratic nominee Beto O’Rourke won a pickup of Tarrant County (Fort Worth), the best bellwether county in Texas for statewide outcomes. In the last five presidential elections of 2000 to 2016, the margins spread in Tarrant County vs. Texas were: R+2.64; R+2.51; D+0.06; D+0.09; and D+0.38. In that 2018 U.S. Senate race, Republican Ted Cruz was re-elected with a margin of +2.56 (down from his first election in 2012 of +15.84). Democrat Beto O’Rourke flipped Tarrant County by +0.69. That made Tarrant County vs. Texas a margin spread of D+3.25. Winning key counties with an excess of bonus points in the margins are a key to Democrats flipping Texas.

The streak may be coming to an end in Ohio. While its record dates back to 1896, and that it since voted with all winners with exceptions of 1944 and 1960, its unbroken streak began in 1964. Ohio has been carried in all of the last 14 elections of 1964 to 2016. (If one was born after Election Day in 1964, which was November 3, 1964, one can say “Ohio has carried in all U.S. presidential elections during my lifetime.”) The historical record of streaks is shared by Nevada and New Mexico. Since the latter entered the union and voted for the first time in 1912, the two had an unbroken streak of 60 years and 16 consecutive elections from 1912 to 1972. If Trump wins re-election in 2020, Ohio will carry. That will make it 15 in a row. But, a re-elected Trump could manifest with an even stronger 2020 margin in Ohio—and that can spread to neighboring Rust Belt states Pennsylvania and Michigan—to make it difficult for a 2024 Democratic pickup winner to flip not just the neighbors but most especially the Buckeye State.

A Map for the Potential, Future Top 10

The following is a map, with appropriate hues reflecting potential for the next Democratic and, after that, Republican presidential pickups involving the potential for such trending Top 10 states.

‘Actually, the Democrats Don’t Care About Identity’

The exploitation by the corrupt, corporate Democratic Party Establishment on identity politics is given a thoughtful criticism in this Jacobin piece, from March 9, 2019, by Branko Marcetic. Here is the link: Actually, the Democrats Don’t Care About Identity.

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