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”:
Jill Biden, the wife of 47th U.S. vice president Joe Biden, recently offered her insights with explaining why the 2020 Democratic nominee for president of the United States must be her husband.
I am going to link the video. But, afterward, I will comment at length.
Jill Biden: So, yes, you know—your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care than Joe is…
This means Joe Biden is opposed to Medicare for All. But, Jill Biden will try to persuade a voter, insisting on Medicare for All, to overlook her husband.
Jill Biden: …but, you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election. And you may have to swallow a little bit and say, “Ok. I personally like so and so better,” but your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.
No. Not everyone, who choose to participate by voting, shares the same motivation. Not all people think alike. So, Jill Biden’s expressed bottom line is not everyone else’s bottom line.
Jill Biden: I know that not all of you are committed to my husband, and I respect that, but I want you to think about your candidate—his or her electability—and who’s going to win this race.
I have.
Joe Biden will not be president of the United States.
• No member of congress who voted for the wars in Vietnam or Iraq—the two most disastrous wars since television—was later elected president of the United States.
• No former U.S. vice president unseated an incumbent U.S. president.
With its popularity overwhelming, and with such incredible support among self-identified party voters, Democrats will not win back the presidency of the United States with a nominee who does not truly support, and is determined to deliver, Medicare for All. Not only does Joe Biden not truly support, and is not determined to deliver, Medicare for All…Joe Biden is opposed to Medicare for All. That means, for me, one who will not vote for a candidate who does not truly support, and is not determined to deliver, Medicare for All…Joe Biden is opposed to me. And this also means, I am opposed to Joe Biden.
When you are deliberately out of touch—meaning, you are opposed—to a big part of the domestic agenda of the people who are in your party…you are not going to win the presidency of the United States.
2020 Nomination for Joe Biden = 2020 Re-election for Donald Trump!
Jill Biden: And, so, if you’re looking at that, you’ve got to look at the polls.…
For determining the 2016 Democratic nomination for president of the United States, supporters of Bernie Sanders were telling this to supporters of Hillary Clinton. Sanders was polling more strongly than Clinton for hypothetical, general-election matchups including against eventual Republican nominee and presidential pickup winner Donald Trump. That fell on deaf ears. The 2016 supporters of Hillary Clinton did not give a damn about the polls. Now, supporters of Joe Biden want supporters of Bernie Sanders—and more so than supporters of other 2020 Democratic presidential candidates—to turn around and mind the polls.
Jill Biden: And you know—a lot of the times, I say, “Oh, you know—polls don’t mean anything, polls don’t mean anything,” but, they’re, consistent. And if they’re consistently saying the same thing, I don’t think you can dismiss that. I mean you all deal with facts.
This is not enough information. Polls for the primaries. Polls for a hypothetical matchup for the general election. One may want to look to past examples, in a year preceding a leap/presidential year, to see if they jibed with what actually played out. I personally should do this. From some other people’s writings, elsewhere (of course), it has been mentioned that the preceding year’s polls were not what played out with some primaries—to determine a party’s presidential nomination—and the general election. That Hillary Clinton was supposedly going to be the 2008 Democratic nominee for U.S. president. That Jeb Bush was supposedly going to be the 2016 Republican nominee for U.S. president. 2008 was a year in which the presidency flipped from Republican to Democratic. 2016 wss a year in which the presidency flipped from Democratic to Republican. But they ended up flipping for different individuals—Barack Obama and Donald Trump—and that tells us the specific nominee (and party pickup winner) matters.
Jill Biden: So, if your goal—I know my goal—is to beat Donald Trump, we have to have someone who can beat him.
Agree.
It is not Jill Biden’s husband.
It is important to recognize, for any given upcoming U.S. presidential election, the nature of that election.
Election 2020 is an incumbent year.
This means, the people have the option to re-elect an incumbent president.
Election 2020 gives the people the option to re-elect Republican incumbent U.S. president Donald Trump.
Nominate Joe Biden—and the result will be re-election for Donald Trump.
To unseat an incumbent U.S. president, it helps to consider those who did unseat incumbent U.S. presidents.
During the 20th century, there were five. Four were Democrats: 1912 Woodrow Wilson (who unseated William Howard Taft); 1932 Franklin Roosevelt (who unseated Herbert Hoover); 1976 Jimmy Carter (who unseated Gerald Ford, never elected U.S. vice president or U.S. president); and 1992 Bill Clinton (who unseated George Bush). One was a Republican: 1980 Ronald Reagan (who unseated Jimmy Carter).
None of those opposition-party challengers unseated incumbent U.S. presidents without having a vision, one for change, and one who convincingly persuaded the people to go in the direction such winning opposition-party challenger argued for.
Joe Biden is not a change candidate.
Joe Biden is a candidate of yesterday.
Consider this linked video’s moment from the 1993 Oscar-nominated documentary The War Room, about the 1992 Clinton/Gore campaign, and Clinton’s campaign lead strategist James Carville. (The film’s co-director, D.A. Pennebaker, died at age 94 on August 1, 2019.)
Jill Biden: And, so, if you look at the pols. If you look at Joe, with his record with independents, we can’t just have Democrats who are going to win.…
This does not make sense.
Jill Biden is trying to make an argument saying the 2020 Democrats must nominated Joe Biden—because, otherwise, they are likely to not unseat Donald Trump—but then she says Democrats can win but that is not enough.
She tries.
Jill Biden: You know—we have to include everybody. Our party has to be more inclusive.
Not even the Democratic Party Establishment is inclusive.
They have, at least since 2008 (a Democratic pickup year for the presidency for Barack Obama), embraced demographics—what information they absorbed about how non-whites voted nationwide (like the sizes of the nationwide votes since increasing by Hispanics and Asians)—but, that isn’t speaking to policies let alone how the party as a whole operates.
The Democratic Party Establishment has spent the last four decades trying to out-Republican the Republican Party with corporatism.
So, as far as being inclusive is concerned: The Democratic Party Establishment embraces inclusiveness, in the form of helping non-whites rise in the ranks, so long as they don’t have an agenda which differs from theirs.
Jill Biden: Which means we have to go to independents and say, “join us.”
They will. If the party prevails. In 2016, Donald Trump won self-identified independents by +4 (while he lost the U.S. Popular Vote by –2.09 but, had he prevailed—given he and his party flipped the presidency—would have won by +2.xx). Usually, self-identified independents align with the winner. (They did not in 2012.) It’s not enough to say, “join us.” You have to earn their votes.
Jill Biden: We have to go to Republicans and say, “Ok! You’re a Republican. But, you can’t tell me that your children are proud of the president. You know of the things he [Trump] says. And you know, as a mother or father, how can you be proud of that president as a leader?” …
Not everyone’s thinking is alike, Jill Biden.
On the way to re-election in 2012, Barack Obama had plenty from the Republican side who were trying to say to Democrats: How can you vote to re-elect Obama when he has the mandate to buy private insurance? Did you really want that, during his 2008 campaign, when he promised to deliver a health-insurance bill to your advantage? Is your Affordable Care Act truly affordable?
Looking toward 2020, many Democrats try the same guilt trip as Jill Biden with regard for Republican incumbent Donald Trump.
What is a flaw, to Jill Biden’s assertion, is that it doesn’t keep in mind something important: What Obama and Trump have in common is that they are personally popular in their political parties. Obama is personally popular with self-identified Democrats. (They were mathematically enough for his re-election in 2012 while losing Republican challenger Mitt Romney won over self-identified independents nationwide. The size of the vote from self-identified Democrats—who outnumbered Republicans by six percent—helped with that and with Obama’s popular-vote margin of +3.86. Source: How Groups Voted in 2012.) Trump is personally popular with self-identified Republicans. While the Democrats flipped the U.S. House in 2018, and won the net gain in U.S. Governors (+7 when the party needed +10 for a new majority), the Republicans counter-flipped with winning the overall net gains in the U.S. Senate as Trump guided four of his party’s nominees—they were opposition-party challengers—to unseat incumbent Democratic U.S. senators in Indiana, Missouri, North Dakota, and bellwether state Florida.
That, for example, doesn’t sound to me, Jill Biden, like there are too many self-identified Republicans who are not proud of Donald Trump.
Jill Biden: And I think, if you look at the polls in Michigan, in Ohio, in Pennsylvania—where [we, Joe and Jill Biden] are from—[Joe is] leading all the other candidates.
Let’s consider the primaries first. Since 1976, the Democratic presidential primaries have been held in all 50 states and District of Columbia, as is obviously the case with general elections. (The Republicans started this in 1980.)
No Democratic presidential nominee who failed to win the primary in Michigan went on to win the general election. 1988 Michael Dukakis (who lost to Jesse Jackson) and 2016 Hillary Clinton (who lost to Bernie Sanders) have this in common.
Another way of putting it: The Democratic pickup winners, with a first-term election, were 1976 Jimmy Carter, 1992 Bill Clinton, and 2008 Barack Obama. Now, please keep in mind, Michigan violated the DNC rules in 2008. (They jumped ahead in the calendar.) Some of the actual candidates, like eventual nominee Obama, removed their names from the 2008 Michigan Democratic presidential primary ballot. The winner of record, with 55 percent, was Hillary Clinton. But, I will say this: Had Michigan not violated the rules, and retained usual schedule of being held five to seven weeks after the first contest in Iowa, the winner in Michigan would not have been Hillary Clinton but Barack Obama. Why? Michigan votes in primaries more closer to the next state I will mention.
Another thing to consider: There is only one state—since 1976—which carried in the primaries and the general elections for Democratic pickup winners Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, and Barack Obama. That state is Wisconsin. It was the tipping point state in the general election of 2016. It gave Donald Trump his 270th electoral vote. Pennsylvania and Michigan followed to become Trump’s 290th and 306th original electoral votes.
In the 2016 Wisconsin presidential primary, the winner was not Hillary Clinton. It was Bernie Sanders. He defeated Clinton by +13.54 percentage points. (Source: Wikipedia —2016 Wisconsin Democratic primary.) That, in a way, was a bad omen for a general-election nominee Hillary Clinton. I think at least one person in her campaign may have recognized this. Consider the following video, just after it happened, by Mike Malloy.
Do I think Joe Biden would win all these states—and this doesn’t strongly factor Ohio (which is trending toward the Republicans while Texas is trending toward replacing Ohio as a new bellwether state)—in both the primaries and the general election?
No.
Trump hit his numbers. I won’t go into details. But, long story short: His 2016 campaign, for its strategy with the electoral map, was focused on flipping the four Rust Belt states—but, think more of the trio Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan—because Trump spoke to the issues of the voting electorates in those states and persuaded them that the status quo of the Democrats—with the eight years of Barack Obama and with what would come from a nominee and possible winner in Hillary Clinton—would not actually move these people’s live in a better direction. (Side Note: Every U.S. president elected to two terms—this sets aside Franklin Roosevelt, the only one who was elected beyond two terms—who carried Pennsylvania and/or Michigan with his first election…carried them with re-election. Since Michigan, the younger of the two states, first voted in 1836…they have carried the same in all but five election cycles: 1848, 1856, 1932, 1940, and 1976. They are highly likely to vote the same again in 2020.)
Jill Biden proudly says she and her husband are from Pennsylvania. Well, Donald Trump is from New York. And Trump certainly did not flip and carry New York. He was born in the Empire State as Biden was born in the Keystone State. Hillary Clinton was not born in New York. She was born in Illinois. People—voters—are not consciously saying to themselves, When I vote, I want to help make sure a presidential candidate carries his home state because it is also my home state. If that was to become the reality, Republicans could routinely nominate two candidates from, say, Hawaii and Rhode Island while Democrats could routinely nominate two candidates from, say, Idaho and Wyoming for the presidency and vice presidency of the United States.
This is not a credible argument by Jill, on behalf of Joe, Biden.
Jill Biden: So, yes, you know—your candidate might be better on, I don’t know, health care than Joe is; but, you’ve got to look at who’s going to win this election and, maybe, swallow a little bit and say: “Okay. I personally like so and so better.” But, your bottom line has to be that we have to beat Trump.
That isn’t even the bottom line for the Democratic Party Establishment.
The bottom line for the Democratic Party Establishment, to which Jill’s husband Joe is a proud member, is to keep control of the party.
They want to make sure actual progressives don’t attain power. If they do attain any power, the corporate Democratic Party Establishment want that to be at a minimum. To contain it. What the Democratic Party Establishment, with assistance from their allies in mainstream media, want is to keep control. They want to control who, and what, can represent politics not only in the United States but also in this so-called left-wing political party called the Democratic Party.
Another Jill—2012 and 2016 Green Party U.S. presidential nominee Jill Stein—had it correct. She still does. The Democratic Party is, in current form, a graveyard for actual progressives wanting to advance their vision and agenda.
This is the point of Jill Biden speaking in support for her husband’s 2020 United States presidential campaign.
It is an effort to get self-identified Democrats—ones who intend to vote in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries—to conclude that they need Joe Biden. That they cannot win without Joe Biden. That they have to have Joe Biden.
This is not truly about unseating Donald Trump.
This is not a message, for however much it may be taken seriously, that can produce that result.
This is about helping the corrupt and corporate elites continue to maintain their control of the Democratic Party—and to urge the party’s voters to feel desperate by backing a candidate, for 2020 nomination, who has the corrupt, corporate, Democratic Party Establishment feeling comfortable.
If this was actually about unseating Donald Trump—and some of these flawed points actually show the best option is not her husband—Jill Biden would have been passionately and lucidly making the case to speak directly in favor of voting the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination to the candidate who is best at offering a vision, an agenda, and a change in direction that is very favorable for the people and for the United States. Jill Biden would be urging us to vote for Bernie Sanders.
I leave this with a video, on this topic, published Tuesday [Aug. 27] by The Jimmy Dore Show.
Matt Taibbi and Katie Halper have teamed up for a new podcast, Useful Idiots. Published to YouTube in video form is their debut. A good one. They interview 2020 Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard.
To answer the blog title’s question: It would depend on the outcomes.
First thing necessary is to win the 2020 Democratic nomination for president of the United States.
If that happens, next is that the presidency would have to flip from Republican to Democratic.
Since I perceive only Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard as the two capable 2020 Democratic candidates, that certainly makes sense.
Let’s suppose that happens.
Specifically for Bernie Sanders.
Following that would be this question: By how much would Bernie Sanders need to win the U.S. Popular Vote to be able to flip and carry the state of Texas?
The answer lies ahead in the following: In 2016, the U.S. Popular Vote margin was –2.09 for Republican pickup winner Donald Trump. Had Trump won the U.S. Popular Vote, his margin would have been, my estimate, between +2.15 to +2.64. Historical average, since at least 1932, is a net gain of +1 to +1.5 (more commonly closer to +1) state with each percentage point nationally shifted in the direction of a pickup winning Republican or Democrat. So, in 2020, the following are an estimate for a pickup winning Democrat to be able to go so far as to flip and carry Texas. And when beginning to read it, please keep in mind that 2016 losing Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton carried 20 states, plus District of Columbia, and an original 232 electoral votes.
Why are Wisconsin through North Carolina listed as +4?
In 2016, Hillary Clinton carried California with 150 percent her raw-vote margin in the U.S. Popular Vote. She gained about 1 million votes, above 2012 re-elected Democratic incumbent Barack Obama, in an election in which Democrats had the White House and it flipped Republican. (It was an additional +7 percentage points. The opposite should have happened.) A presidential winner does not carry his party’s No. 1-ranked populous state with 100 percent or more his national margin. Barack Obama, in 2012, carried California with about 60 percent his national margin. 2004 re-elected Republican incumbent George W. Bush carried his home state Texas with approximately 55 percent his national margin.
The adjustment, from Wisconsin through North Carolina, keeps in mind a Republican shift in California to stabilize the level of Democratic support vs. the nation. It usually performs about 15 to 20 percent more Democratic vs. the nation. For Hillary Clinton, it was 32 points above. That is abnormal. In an election won by the Democrats, I can imagine California in excess of +20 to +25; but, not +30 or more.
This also keep in mind that there have been only three United States presidential elections—in 1824, 1960, and 1976—in which the winner carried less than half the nation’s participating states. So, I would estimate we will continue to see a majority count of states get carried by presidential winners. That, if the Democrats flip the presidency in 2020 (rather than wait for 2026), that pickup winner will carry at least 26 states. (It is also partly why my previous blog topic stated the needed popular-vote margin to be reached is +4.)
There is another pattern.
To estimate a states count, for a winning Republican or Democrat, figure +22 for a Democrat and +28 for a Republican. Since the 1990s, the range of carried states has been 26 (for Barack Obama in 2012) and 32 (for Bill Clinton in 1992). The average has been 29. If the U.S. Popular Vote has been won by +5 percentage points, a Democrat would carry 27 states and a Republican would carry 33 states. The Democrats are averaging 12 electoral votes per carried state. The Republicans are averaging 9 electoral votes per carried state. (Trump was at 10. But, Clinton and Obama hit 12 twice while Clinton, in 1992, was 11 and, in 1996, was 12. Obama, in 2008, averaged 13. The structural advantage is with the Democrats for higher electoral-vote scores; the states’ count advantage is with the Republicans.) A formula: a Democrat can carry 22 states, with average of 12 electoral votes, and garnered 264 but get to 270 with a remainder of 6 to reach 270; a Republican can carry 28 states, with average of 9 electoral votes, and garner 252 with a remainder of 18 to reach 270. (If one wants to see 40 states get carried, which hasn’t happened since the 1980s, Democrats have to win the U.S. Popular Vote by +18 while Republicans need +12. For the Democrats: 58 to 40 percent. For the Republicans: 55 to 43 percent.)
Had 2000 and 2016 Republican pickup winners George W. Bush and Donald Trump won the U.S. Popular Vote, their whole-number margins would have been +2. They both carried 30 states. So, for the math: 28 + 2 percentage-points margin = 30 carried states. (Bush, with re-election in 2004, won the U.S. Popular Vote by +2.46 percentage points and carried 31 states.)
With exception of 1992 Bill Clinton (with a margin of +5.56 and carriage of 32 states and District of Columbia), this formula has applied, although not perfectly, to the Democrats since the 1960s.
• 1960 John Kennedy: 22 + 0.16 percentage-points margin = 22 carried states
• 1964 Lyndon Johnson: 22 + 22.58 percentage-points margin = 44 carried states
• 1976 Jimmy Carter: 22 + 2.06 percentage-points margin = 24 carried states (Carter won 23)
• 1996 Bill Clinton: 22 + 8.52 percentage-points margin = 30 carried states (Clinton won 31)
• 2008 Barack Obama: 22 + 7.26 percentage-points margin = 29 carried states (Obama won 28 but also flipped and carried Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District—one-third that state’s vote)
• 2012 Barack Obama: 22 + 3.86 percentage-points margin = 25 carried states (Obama won 26)
If we see this pattern continues, and Bernie Sanders ends up the 2020 Democratic nominee for president of the United States, and he unseats Republican incumbent U.S. president Donald Trump, in order to flip and carry Texas, his margin in the U.S. Popular Vote would need to reach: +7.
To flip and carry the state of Texas, a 2020 Bernie Sanders would have to go from a 2016 Hillary Clinton’s 20 carried states to 29.
According to that video by Graham Elwood, Bernie Sanders polls at +5 in Texas. Well, if that were to actually happen, Sanders would win the U.S. Popular Vote by, say, +11—and that would also mean he would carry 32 or 33 states.
Since this thread’s title includes the word “Can,” this answers how it is mathematically possible for Bernie Sanders to “Win Texas.”
For at least a couple of months, there have been plenty of polls for both the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries and the general election.
When reporting percentage-points margins, especially for the general election, it does not good to look at numbers without picturing what it means for the nation—and that is getting at the electoral map.
Dating back to at least 1932, when the White House switched parties, the pickup winning Republican or Democrat tended to win an average net gain of +1 to +1.5 (usually closer to +1) states with each percentage point nationally shifted in his direction.
The last two Republican pickup winners, 2000 George W. Bush and 2016 Donald Trump, did not win likewise pickups of the U.S. Popular Vote.
Bush entered 2000 with 1996 losing Republican nominee Bob Dole’s popular-vote margin of –8.51 percentage points and 19 states (for 159 electoral votes). Bush flipped +11 states (combining for +112 electoral votes) to end up with 30 states (for 271 electoral votes). Had Bush won the U.S. Popular Vote, I estimate his margin would have been near +2.50 percentage points. (Bush’s margin was –0.51.)
Trump entered 2016 with 2012 losing Republican nominee Mitt Romney’s popular-vote margin of –3.86 percentage points and 24 states (for 206 electoral votes). Trump flipped +6 states and Maine’s 2nd Congressional District (which is half that state’s vote; combining for +100 electoral votes) to end up with 30 states (for an original 306 electoral votes). Had Trump won the U.S. Popular Vote, I estimate his margin would have been between +2.15 to +2.64. (Trump’s margin was –2.09.)
In between Bush and Trump was 2008 Democratic pickup winner Barack Obama. He entered 2008 with 2004 losing Democratic nominee John Kerry’s popular-vote margin of –2.46 and 19 states and District of Columbia (for a mathematical 252 electoral votes). Obama flipped +9 states and Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District (which is one-third that state’s vote; combining for +113 electoral votes). Obama prevailed on both counts—U.S. Popular Vote and Electoral College—with 28 states, Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District, District of Columbia, and 365 electoral votes. And his popular-vote margin went from Kerry’s –2.46 to +7.26, a national 2004-to-2008 shift of +9.72. Since he flipped +9 states, and Nebraska #02, that aligned with the average net gain of +1 state for each percentage point nationally shifted.
I am anticipating this historical pattern will play out the next time the presidency flips from the party which currently has the White House, the Republican Party, to the opposition party, the Democratic Party.
Just in case it happens in 2020 (rather than waiting for 2024), I adjust the 2016 popular-vote margin to work from not Hillary Clinton’s +2.09 but to –2.15 to –2.64.
I figure the 2020 Democrats, if they flip the presidency, and unseat Republican incumbent Donald Trump, will win the U.S. Popular Vote by at least +4 percentage points.
Supporting this estimate is the recent piece: How Trump could lose by 5 million votes and still win in 2020. David Wasserman writes, “The ultimate nightmare scenario for [2020] Democrats might look something like this: [Donald] Trump loses the [U.S Popular Vote] by more than 5 million [raw votes], and the Democratic nominee converts Michigan and Pennsylvania back to blue. But Trump wins re-election by two [electoral votes] by barely hanging onto Arizona, Florida, North Carolina, Wisconsin and Maine’s 2nd Congressional District—one of the whitest and least college-educated district in the country.”
In the United States presidential election of 2016, approximately 137 million votes were cast for U.S. president. Hillary Clinton won a Democratic hold of the U.S. Popular Vote with a raw-vote margin of +2,868,518 and a percentage-points margin of +2.09. Due to the fact that not every United States presidential election has the same number of votes—or millions of votes—cast for U.S. president, I prefer to focus most often on the percentage-points margins. This is especially the case with one comparable election cycle followed by the next. It is important to track shifts, from the prior cycle, because it helps to determine outcomes which deliver party switches. Over the last three presidential cycles—2008, 2012, and 2016—there were 131 million, 128 million, and 137 million votes cast for U.S. president. If 2020 motivates more individual votes to vote for U.S. president, or part of it may be a rise in eligible voters, perhaps the estimate can be 140 million votes. Losing the U.S. Popular Vote by –5 million votes, in 2020, with 140 million votes cast, will be losing by around –3.50 percentage points. In 2016, Trump finished with –2.09. So, this is suggesting a 2016-to-2020 Republican underperformance of around –1.50 as Trump still manages to win a second term. Conclusion: The 2020 Democrats’ target margin, for winning the U.S. Popular Vote, and for being enough to win in the Electoral College, is +4.
So, too, were actors Timothy Hutton (born in 1960, he won a 1980 Oscar for Ordinary People), Angela Bassett (1958), and Lesley–Ann Warren (1946) as well as singer–entertainer Steve Lawrence (1935).
Carol Mosley Braun, the first African–American woman in the history of the U.S. Senate, elected in 1992 from Illinois, was born on this day in 1947.
On this day, Elvis Presley died at age 42 in 1977 and Aretha Franklin died at age 76 in 2018.
As a gift to myself, I am refraining from having a topic related to this blog.
2020 Democratic presidential candidate Bernie Sanders was interviewed by Joe Rogan (who turned 52 on Sunday, August 11). The video was published to YouTube on August 6. Progressives Chat reader The_Fixer already posted the full interview in the comments section. But, it deserves being a topic.
Following the most recent with Donald Trump, and the four progressive women of Congress—Alexandria Ocasio–Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, and Rashida Tlaib—the remarkable Kim Iversen explains why “Racism Is Being Used As A Distraction By The Elites.” (This video was published July 24. I meant to post it sooner; but, other issues came first.)
UPDATE: The video is gone. Either it was Kim Iversen or YouTube responsible for having removed it. I wrote this to publish for August 12. So, I will not change the title of the blog topic. I am sorry I did not post it sooner. My mistake.
It was 50 years ago this week which marked the heinous murders of actress Sharon Tate, 26, who was married to film director Roman Polanski, and eight months pregnant; hair designer Jay Sebring, 35; coffee heiress Abigail Folger; screenwriter Wojciech Frykoswki; and an 18-year-old Steven Parent.
When I was growing up, during the 1970s and 1980s, some from my generation were fascinated. There was an Emmy-nominated CBS television movie, Helter Skelter. The power of the production may have had something to do with it. But, I think it was the fact that celebrities were murder victims. It is not too common. In July 1989, so it has been 30 years, was the murder of 21-year-old actress Rebecca Schaeffer, a rising star who played opposite Pam Dawber on the 1986–1988 CBS comedy series My Sister Sam.
Charles Manson, the ringleader of those 1969 murders, was a cult leader. He is a case example why, despite being progressive, I am not totally opposed to the death penalty. He was convicted, by famed prosecutor and author Vincent Bugliosi (1934–2015), in January 1971. Manson lived another 46 years, having died at age 83 in 2017. Also convicted were those Manson directed to commit the murders: Susan Atkins (1948–2009), Charles “Tex” Watson (b. 1945), and Patricia Krenwinkel (b. 1947).
A comedian who I liked, the late Sam Kinison (1953–1992), had a bit in which he touched on drugs—make that acid—explaining Manson. It was standup comedy. So, I did not take to it that Kinison was expressing 100-percent his thoughts on Manson. My take on Manson was that he was, along with being a con artist, a predator and a killer. He preyed on others to join his cult. He facilitated the murders of those celebrities, and non-celebrities, by getting his cult members to do his bidding. (Related to the murders of Tate, and her company, were the August 10, 1969 murders of supermarket executive Leno, 44, and his wife Rosemary LaBianca, 38.)
For years, the surviving members of Sharon Tate’s family made sure to help keep Charles Manson, and his fellow killers, in prison. Tate’s mother and one of her sisters died before Manson. But, fortunately, one of Tate’s sisters is alive—and continues to do her best to make sure none of the surviving members of Manson’s cult of killers can be freed from prison.
Following is an interview with one of the attorneys who successfully brought Manson and his “family” to conviction back in 1971.
The superb Mark Blyth, from Brown University, speaks for just over one hour and a half about globalism, its effects, the trajectory, and—at the mark of 01:19:50—the United States presidential election of 2020.
(For a video of this duration, I recommend streaming it to a device that plays on your television. That is, if this is an option for you.)
“Mark Blyth—Global Trumpism and the Future of the Global Economy” was published to YouTube on July 16, 2019.
On Tuesday and Wednesday, July 30 and 31, 2019 were the second round of 2020 Democratic presidential primaries debates on CNN.
CNN is garbage.
I have decided, rather than get bogged down into details, to just include some video clips for those who stood out on each night. But, I will list the candidates according to tiers.
DEBATE NIGHT #01: THE PERFORMANCES
Location: Detroit, Michigan Date: July 30, 2019
All, while categorized, are listed in alphabetical order.
