Prediction: 2020 Democratic Presidential Nomination Will Go to Bernie Sanders

Real Clear Politics, effective Thursday, January 30, 2020, and shortly before this blog topic was published Friday, January 31, 2020 at 06:00 a.m. ET, reports the “Betting Odds” for the 2020 Democratic nomination for president of the United States are with Bernie Sanders.

This is, along with what has been developing over the last week or so, enough for me to move to predict the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination will go to Bernie Sanders.

I wrote plenty, with respect for details on how and where the nomination may be won, in the previous blog topic.

The screen shot above is appealing.

(The next blog topic, Monday, February 3, 2020, will address the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucus.)

2020 Democratic Nomination Looks Good for Bernie Sanders

Over the last week or so, and with much attention (even by corporate “news” media) poll reports have Iowa and New Hampshire moving more toward Bernie Sanders.

I think the nomination will go to either Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders. (At this point, most do.) But, between writing this and its publishing date (I had to do some late-night editing), it looks like the 2020 Democratic nomination will go to Bernie Sanders.


Recommended reports:

• Amid Social Security Fight, Joe Biden Is Losing Ground Among Middle-Aged and Older Voters 

• Bernie Sanders grabs lead in California presidential primary poll

I do want to run scenarios. (This is why there are two maps.)

For the nomination to go to Joe Biden, I think he would win under similar outcomes as 2016 Hillary Clinton. This keeps in mind that I am going by official record. (The 2016 Democratic presidential primaries were rigged. I’m not saying the nomination would be rigged for Biden. I am not saying it won’t be. But, the Democratic Party Establishment does not want Bernie. No question! Much of this is about, as the blog’s title mentions, momentum and potential if the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination ends up going to Bernie Sanders.)

All 50 states have been participating in the Democratic (1976) and Republican (1980) presidential primaries for a period of a good 40 years. There isn’t a guarantee of citing particular states as if they are bellwethers to easily predict the nomination.

When it comes to the two states which are scheduled first for contests, eventual Democratic nominees have won more in Iowa than in New Hampshire. For the Republicans, it was the opposite. Exceptions on the Democratic side were 1988 Michael Dukakis (who won New Hampshire but not Iowa) and 1992 Bill Clinton (who won neither; Iowa was carried by home-state son Tom Harkin, and other candidates essentially conceded the state to the then-U.S. senator; and Clinton came in second in New Hampshire). Exceptions on the Republican side were 1996 Bob Dole and 2000 George W. Bush (winners in Iowa but not New Hampshire).

This is keeping in mind eventual general-election nominees trying to win a first-term election to the presidency of the United States.

The 2020 Democratic Party Establishment does not want Bernie Sanders to win both Iowa and New Hampshire. Strategically, based on history, they would like Joe Biden to win Iowa and leave New Hampshire to Bernie Sanders.

If Bernie Sanders wins both—and there are stirrings he may also win the third state on the schedule, Nevada—that will highly likely change the trajectory in the fourth scheduled state, South Carolina. They are the caucus (Iowa and Nevada) primary (New Hampshire and South Carolina) states on the schedule in February prior to Super Tuesday, which will be March 3.

I would anticipate, under such circumstances, Joe Biden’s polling numbers advantage to shift away from him and toward Sanders. (Side note: In 2016, Hillary Clinton won the Palmetto State by +47.22 percentage points. Over the last year or so, there have been Democratic insiders saying they figure the demographics of South Carolina will make it a primaries bellwether for 2020. In 2016, it voted 35 points more for Hillary than the rest of the nation’s Democratic presidential primaries voters. 1976 Jimmy Carter, 1984 Walter Mondale, 1988 Michael Dukakis, and 2004 John Kerry—who carried 46 of 50 states—won their general-election nominations without South Carolina. So, even with the demographics being talked up, I am not convinced South Carolina is key. And, in presidential elections, based on 2016 results, Democrats have to carry at least 31 states to be able to also carry South Carolina. They haven’t won over 30 states since Bill Clinton’s two terms from the 1990s. The last Democratic president to carry South Carolina was 1976 Jimmy Carter.)

In 2016, Donald Trump, en route to the Republican nomination, won three-for-four in as many states at the front of the schedule. I saw CNN cover it with John King mentioning that there hadn’t been a Republican who pulled that off and not gone on to win his party’s nomination. But, on the Democratic side, 1984 Walter Mondale lost three of the first four to rival Gary Hart. Mondale ended up with the nomination, with fewer carried states than Hart, by winning in a way like the game of Monopoly—scoring prestige properties with seven of the nation’s Top 10 populous states.

Going by the official record, Hillary Clinton won nine of the Top 10—leaving the upset in my home state Michigan, on March 8, 2016, to go to Bernie Sanders by +1.42 percentage points while Hillary won nationally by +12.06.

Take a look at the above map.

Michigan is colored in solid blue. The rest of the blues were the states won by Bernie Sanders in the 2016 Democratic presidential primaries. (Again—official record.)

If Joe Biden wins the nomination, I would say he wins the majority of the Top 10 populous states. Same with the rest making up the Top 20. Just over 50 percent of the nation live in a Top 10 state. Through No. 20—I am really getting at states which are allocated with double-digit electoral votes for presidential elections (which includes No. 21)—are where approximately 70 percent of the nation’s citizens reside.

If the nomination is won by Bernie Sanders, he will win a good number of pickups where they really add up. This includes Top 10 populous states. California has been recently polling for Bernie Sanders. (2016 margin: Hillary +7.03.) If he wins there, he will also win over states in the Rust Belt. I would start with Illinois. (2016 margin: Hillary +1.95.) If both California and Illinois go to Bernie, I don’t doubt he would win Michigan by an increased margin (compared to 2016). But, it would also mean looking to him winning in Ohio and/or Pennsylvania. And this would involve his birth state New York. And if it is happening on the northern side of the map, it has to also be happening on the southern half. Since the modern system on the primaries, no general-election nominee avoided carrying at least one state in the south.

To consider the Top 10 states, nine of which appear on the above map in yellow, I think a general-election nominee Bernie Sanders will have won with at least five of them. (Really—I think Bernie Sanders would carry at least seven.) Joe Biden’s best bets are Texas and Georgia. Bernie Sanders’s best bets are Michigan with California and Illinois. And I think the other five—Florida, New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and North Carolina—are going to be a part of the trajectory of the outcomes from February, in early-March, and going forward.


Consider the schedule:

• March 3 [Super Tuesday]: California, Texas, and North Carolina
• March 10: Michigan
• March 17: Florida, Illinois, and Ohio
• March 24: Georgia
• April 28: New York and Pennsylvania

Again—If the nomination goes to Joe Biden, he will likely win the majority of these Top 10 populous states. If the nomination goes to Bernie Sanders, he will likely win the majority of the Top 10 populous states.

In the 2008 Democratic presidential pickup year for Barack Obama, he actually won fewer than half. Setting aside Florida and Michigan (which violated DNC scheduling rules), Hillary Clinton won six of the eight—leaving Obama to win in Georgia and his home state Illinois.

Now, if I could be told that Bernie Sanders wins the nomination, for fact, and I can give him at least ten more states to go along with the 22 he won in 2016, I would start with the Top 10. I would have  him win no less seven. (A part of how this would happen is, unlike in 2016, a 2020 Bernie Sanders wins over states’s more and/or most populous counties—like Wayne County, Michigan; Cook County, Illinois; Los Angeles County, California. That calls for more details but, alas, I won’t be get into it. But, if he does end up winning the nomination, he will have to win along that path.) Where Sanders wins matters. I would want him to win pickups in California, of course, and at least one in the South (although I want both, North Carolina was closer than Florida in 2016), and four in the Rust Belt (within reach, in 2016, Illinois, Pennsylvania, Ohio, and New York). I would really want Sanders to get an eighth, with Florida, because that is a state where growing momentum with demographic-friendly citizens could make that state feasible for him to win in the primaries. And, outside the Top 10, the Rust Belt includes No. 11-ranked New Jersey, which he lost in 2016 by nearly –27 percentage points (it was held late, on June 7), and in which he is lately polling in position to very possibly win it over.

So, with a late-date schedule indicated with California, let us consider the 2016 margins from Top 10 populous states (again—official record):

• Michigan — Bernie Sanders +1.42
• Illinois — Hillary Clinton +1.95
• California (June 7) — Hillary Clinton +7.03
— [U.S. Popular Vote — Hillary Clinton +12.06] —
• Pennsylvania — Hillary Clinton +12.08
• Ohio — Hillary Clinton +12.99
• North Carolina — Hillary Clinton +13.64
• New York — Hillary Clinton +15.92
• Florida — Hillary Clinton +31.06
• Texas — Hillary Clinton +32.00
• Georgia — Hillary Clinton +43.10

You go by that list, and it looks like Georgia, Texas, and Florida would be out of reach. But, a lot of this will depend on demographics breakdowns and for how these human beings (who are not merely in demographic categories) will handle their voting.

The 2016 entrance and exit polls reported, in age groups, that 17–29 voters nationally gave Bernie Sanders about 70 percent. Same for Hillary Clinton with 65+ voters. The in-between groups—those 30–44 (Bernie) and 45–64 (Hillary)—also split but with less severity in margins.

If Bernie wins Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada—and if he goes on to win the nomination—that will be made possible with 45–64 voters possibly flipping to him and 65+ voters reducing their Hillary-to-Biden margins to mathematically shift in the direction of Bernie.

This would also have a baring on, say, Black voters. Bernie won Blacks 17–29 with more than 50 percent of their support. His terrible numbers, overall with Blacks, were with the two oldest groups having performed rock-solid for Hillary. (She won much of the South with the overall Black votes times the size of their vote statewide. Meaning, she reached 50 percent or above to carry a given state just with that voting demographic.)

Bernie is polling ahead of Biden with Hispanics. So, if he ends up with the nomination, I would imagine he flips, say, between four to six of those Top 10 states and also wins a pickup in not only Nevada but also New Mexico. In general elections, New Mexico has over 40 percent its population Hispanic. So, if the trajectory is Bernie ending up winning the nomination, and doing so decisively, and given the fact that state was late on the schedule in 2016, and that Hillary Clinton carried it by just +3.06 percentage points, New Mexico would be ripe to go for Bernie Sanders.

I also look at Top 20 populous states Arizona, Massachusetts, and Missouri. And I also keep in mind a state not in Bernie Sanders’s 2016 column which carried for Hillary Clinton by less than +5 points.

And, obviously, this is going to include a pickup of No. 30-ranked Iowa. That state’s decision, with flipped coin tosses, was a joke in 2016.

If Bernie Sanders wins the 2020 Iowa Democratic caucus, and later wins the party’s presidential nomination, then Iowa goes on the following list with others mentioned above.

• Iowa — Hillary Clinton +0.25
• Missouri — Hillary Clinton +0.25
• Kentucky — Hillary Clinton +0.43
• Massachusetts — Hillary Clinton +1.40
• South Dakota (June 7) — Hillary Clinton +2.06
• New Mexico (June 7) — Hillary Clinton +3.06
• Nevada — Hillary Clinton +5.35
• Connecticut — Hillary Clinton +5.38
— [U.S. Popular Vote — Hillary Clinton +12.06] —
• Arizona — Hillary Clinton +14.90
• New Jersey (June 7) — Hillary Clinton +26.64 

Those states, from both lists, which carried for Hillary Clinton by around five points or less were reflective of what the entrance and exit polls said about the voting of the age groups. The older half—those 45–64 and 65+—combined for approximately 60 to 62 percent the size of the vote nationwide and, from what I remember, in nearly every state polled. The younger half—those 17–29 and 30–44—combined for approximately 38 to 40 percent the size of the vote nationwide and state after state. In general elections, the older half are usually no greater than 55 percent. So, in 2016, older voters out-voted younger voters. That is a lesson young people need to learn. Show up—or very possibly get out-voted with a result you may not want. For people who really want Bernie Sanders nominated in 2020, especially applicable to those 17–29 or 30–44, they cannot see this repeated.


The below map is an estimate—not scientific—to show where a nominee Bernie Sanders may prevail with the 2020 Democratic nomination for president of the United States. All in solid blue (including Top 10 state Michigan) were in the 2016 column for Sanders. Those in light blue are 2016-to-2020 pickups. Those in yellow are ones speak to potential of even further pickups. And you get a good idea why and how this can unfold quite dramatically. Numerous of the modern-day presidential nominees carried at least 30 or more states in their primaries. It has a way of really adding up.

‘This Is Neoliberalism…’ [Part II]

(Note to readers of Progressives Chat: There will be three blog topics this week. Along with this blog topic’s publishing date, they will appear Wednesday and Friday, January 29 and 31, 2020, at 06:00 a.m. ET. This is necessary because of the specific topics and their timing.)


It was a year ago at this time that I posted a topic, here at Progressives Chat, which were videos of “This Is Neoliberalism” (‘This Is Neoliberalism…’).

They were two video published to YouTube by BarakalypseNow.

By the end of 2019, Barakalypse Now had posted two more video updates. (He also had a livestream, following the fourth installment, with viewers. He did not know what he was doing with the sound; so, at a running time of two hours, I realized that livestream was not good enough for me to include in this blog topic.)

I caught the third and fourth video updates the last week of 2019. I could have scheduled them for a blog topic at the beginning of January 2020. But, I opted to create and post a blog topic scheduled for the date which marks 52 weeks from the original blog topic. So, the first was on Monday, January 28, 2019. This update is on Monday, January 27, 2020. (The videos’ published-to-YouTube dates were: March 1, 2018; September 1, 2018; April 1, 2019; and December 1, 2019.) Given how close we are to the start of the voting in the 2020 Democratic presidential primaries, which begins with Iowa next Monday [February 3, 2020], I figure the timing for this is very appropriate.

To watch all four videos will combine for nearly three hours of one’s time. If you remember well the first and second installments, you may skip to starting your viewing with the third. Progressives Chat readers may appreciate these videos. This is an important subject. Well-worthy of a given blog topic.

Here is a link to BarakalypseNow’s videos page on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/user/cygnusness/videos.

Here are the videos:

New Recommendation: Tim Dillon

The recent video interview and discussion between Joe Rogan and Jimmy Dore alerted me to comedian Tim Dillon.

I don’t know much about Dillon. I know he is a comedian from New York, is now in California, and is gay. So, I decided to check out Dillon.

Some of Dillon’s YouTube-published videos are podcasts of more than one hour. He also has video clips that are under 10 minutes in their running time. I am going to include three videos from The Tim Dillon Show.

(Site Note: I have added, to “Recommendations,” The Tim Dillon Show and Hard Lens Media.)

“Jeffrey Epstein’s Temple Has Moved To Los Angeles To Find Work” 

(10.31.2019)

“Disney Plus is Here! And I've Never Been Happier!” 

(11.14.2019)

“Tim Dillon as Meghan McCain (Original Video)” 

(11.22.2019)

✯ ✯ ✯ ✯ ✯

BONUS: 

“The Joe Rogan Experience #1390” recently welcomed

—and it wasn’t the first time—guest Tim Dillon 

(11.22.2019)

Endorsing Bernie Sanders

The 2020 Democratic presidential primaries begin in two weeks with the first contest in Iowa scheduled for Monday, February 3, 2020.

I am endorsing Bernie Sanders of Vermont.

I am endorsing Sanders because of his vision, which includes Medicare for All, and for his true progressivism (by U.S. standards) in leadership he has to offer.

The only other 2020 presidential candidate I have considered is Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii. Her vision is bringing an end to the wars. So, my endorsement of Sanders is not without appreciation of Gabbard.

There is no one else seeking the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination who is worthy. I give some credit to Andrew Yang of New York for his unique suggestion of giving $1,000 per month to the citizens.

I have written it before. I will have written it again. The Democrats will not win back the presidency of the United States without a candidate, a progressive, who is truly supportive of and is determined to deliver Medicare for All. The No. 1 person in the race who measures up is Bernie Sanders.

‘Unworthy’ Elizabeth Warren…‘#CNNIsTrash’…Joe Rogan interviews Jimmy Dore

The controversy—the hit job—by Elizabeth Warren against Bernie Sanders (and I have taken into account it was not just Warren) exposed the U.S. senator from Massachusetts as unworthy. I think it also revealed, just in case there was doubt, that she is in bed with the corrupt, corporate, Democratic Party Establishment.

I have never considered voting the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination to Elizabeth Warren. I have only been willing to vote the nomination to Bernie Sanders or Tulsi Gabbard. And, after asking myself if I would vote in the general election for a nominee Warren, I found I was not willing to do so.

I think Elizabeth Warren is running for president of the United States, here in 2020, as an alternative “progressive”—one who is considered more palatable to the corrupt, corporate, Democratic Party Establishment—to help stop the nomination from possibly being won by Bernie Sanders.

Warren’s expressed positions, particularly on the top domestic issue of healthcare, was aping Sanders for a while. Perhaps some people fell for it. I questioned who those people are. (I do not trust Working Families Party and Progressive Change Campaign Committee’s Adam Green due to their endorsements of Warren.)

The reason why I oppose Warren came before she jumped into the 2020 presidential race.

Instead of running in 2016, Warren signed a letter in 2014 which encouraged Hillary Clinton to run for U.S. president.

Instead of endorsing Bernie Sanders, to whom she supposedly is more closely aligned politically, and before the March 1, 2016 Democratic primary in Massachusetts, which Hillary Clinton apparently won by small margins of +17,019 raw votes and +1.40 percentage points, Warren was silent.

After the last contest ended in June 2016, Warren went on Rachel Maddow’s MSNBC program and endorsed Clinton.

During the general-election period, Warren passed the time trying to out-tweet Donald Trump on Twitter.

After the general election, with the Dakota Access Pipeline was being protested at Standing Rock, Warren was silent until the protests were nearly over.

In 2017, rather than endorse Dennis Kucinich, Warren endorsed Richard Cordray—a corporatist and the man who held the position that should have been hers in Barack Obama’s administration—for the 2018 Democratic nomination for Governor of Ohio. (Cordray lost.)

In 2019, Warren announced she would run for president of the United States, in 2020, and spent months—including on the debate stage—aping Bernie Sanders on policies especially related to domestic. She was for Medicare for All. And Warren looked really good until early-November. (I actually thought she would end up the nominee and posted it here: “Anticipating and Predicting Election 2020”.) And then, during that same month, she pulled away from Medicare for All and, soon after, her poll numbers headed south.

One does not have to read all these reasons. Just consider Warren signed that letter encouraging Hillary Clinton to (while strongly asserting she would not) run for president of the United States. My initial reaction, at the time, was that Warren is not interested in the presidency of the United States. That not every politician wants to eventually become president of the United States. What came after, beginning in 2016, revealed to me something undeniably obvious.

Elizabeth Warren is not a leader.

Yes—that is true, Elizabeth Warren. But, there is more.

Elizabeth Warren will not be president of the United States.

Yes—that is obvious. But, there is one more observation.

Elizabeth Warren is not a true progressive.

✰ ✰ ✰ ✰ ✰ 

I will share this related piece, one that is exceptional, by Caitlin Johnstone.

Here is the link: #CNNIsTrash Trends As Pushback Grows Against Oligarchic Election Meddling.

✰ ✰ ✰ ✰ ✰ 

The new Joe Rogan Experience video of the host welcoming Jimmy Dore, on Tuesday, January 14, 2020, dropped Thursday afternoon. Here it is:

‘Democrats’ Future Is Moving Beyond the Rust Belt’

Political analyst Ronald Brownstein has a very interesting piece, published to The Atlantic’s website last Thursday [January 9, 2020], on potentially realigning electoral voting patterns.

Some of this won’t surprise. But, I do have a reaction that is this blog’s topic post.

Article link: Democrats’ Future Is Moving Beyond the Rust Belt.

Quote:

For Democrats, the Sun Belt imperative is growing more urgent.  While most in the party are preoccupied with winning back the three Rust Belt states [Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan] that tipped the 2016 election to Donald Trump, both people and political power are continuing to migrate inexorably from that region to the younger and more diverse states in the Southeast and Southwest.

This sustained population shift reinforces the consequences of Trump’s political repositioning of the Republican Party. Trump has targeted his polarizing message and agenda heavily toward the priorities of the older and non-college-educated white voters who still dominate most of the Rust Belt. That will make it tough for Democrats to rely on those states, particularly in presidential races, as much as they did during the 1990s and earlier this century.

In the near future, then, Democrats will likely need to offset any Republican gains in the Rust Belt by winning more elections in Sun Belt states, which are adding more of the diverse, white-collar, and urbanized voters at the core of the modern Democratic coalition. Through the coming decade and beyond, the crucial variable that could tilt the national balance of power between the parties may be whether Democrats can leverage those demographic advantages in the Sun Belt to break the hold Republicans have enjoyed on most of the region since at least the 1970s. 

This analysis, by the excellent Ronald Brownstein, is anticipation of a possible and gradual realignment of some voting patterns involving particular states.

A clear way to understand this is to first look at where states came in for both Donald Trump (the Republican presidential pickup winner) and Hillary Clinton (who did not hold the presidency in the Democratic column after two terms won in 2008 and 2012 by Barack Obama) in Election 2016. I will not list all but will focus on those which ranked for each party between Nos. 18 to 32 (meaning, the fewest and most carried number of states by either party since 1992). I will list them in descending order by their margins with tracking their cumulative electoral votes. (In 2016, there were faithless electors for both Trump and Hillary. But, I will set those aside.)

Starting with:

Donald Trump (R)—Pickup Winner
✫✫✫ 45.93%; with 30 states, plus Maine’s 2nd Congressional District, and 306 original electoral votes] ✫✫✫
18. Mississippi +17.80 (cumulative 113 electoral votes)
19. Alaska +14.73 (cum. 116)
20. South Carolina +14.27 (cum. 125)
— Maine’s 2nd Congressional District [pickup] +10.28 (cum. 126)
21. Iowa [pickup] +9.41 (cum. 132)
22. Texas +8.98 (cum. 170)
23. Ohio [pickup] +8.07 (cum. 188)
24. Georgia +5.10 (cum. 204)
25. North Carolina +3.66 (cum. 219)
26. Arizona +3.50 (cum. 230)
— Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District +2.23 (cum. 231)
27. Florida [pickup] +1.19 (cum. 260)
28. Wisconsin [pickup] +0.76 (cum. 270—Tipping-point state)
29. Pennsylvania [pickup] +0.72 (cum. 290)
30. Michigan [pickup] +0.22 (cumulative 306 original electoral votes)
Not carried:
31. New Hampshire –0.37 (cum. 310)
32. Minnesota –1.51 (cum. 320)

Hillary Clinton (D) 
✫✫✫ 48.02%; with 20 states, plus District of Columbia, and 232 original electoral votes] ✫✫✫
18. Nevada +2.42 (cumulative 218 electoral votes)
19. Minnesota +1.51 (cum. 228)
20. New Hampshire +0.37 (cumulative 232 original electoral votes)
Not carried:
21. Michigan –0.22 (cum. 248)
22. Pennsylvania –0.72 (cum. 268)
23. Wisconsin –0.76 (cum. 278—Tipping-point state)
24. Florida –1.19 (cum. 307)
— Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District –2.23 (cum. 308)
25. Arizona –3.50 (cum. 319)
26. North Carolina –3.66 (cum. 334)
27. Georgia –5.10 (cum. 350)
28. Ohio –8.07 (cum. 368)
29. Texas –8.98 (cum. 406)
30. Iowa –9.41 (cum. 412)
— Maine’s 2nd Congressional District –10.28 (cum. 413)
31. South Carolina –14.27 (cum. 422)
32. Alaska –14.73 (cum. 425)


Going by Ronald Brownstein’s piece, he perceives the Democrats’ future in the Sun Belt and not so much the Rust Belt. (He is not alone.)

I understand.

Since 1968, every time the White House switched parties, there was at least one pickup state which has since not flipped back to the party which lost it. This was the case with several states for: 1968 Republican pickup winner Richard Nixon (among them were North Dakota, South Dakota, statewide Nebraska, Kansas, as well as Idaho, Oklahoma, Utah, and Wyoming); 1976 Democratic pickup winner Jimmy Carter (Minnesota); 1980 Republican pickup winner Ronald Reagan (Alabama, Mississippi, South Carolina, and Texas); 1992 Democratic pickup winner Bill Clinton (California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, statewide Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, and Vermont); 2000 Republican pickup winner George W. Bush (among them were Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Missouri, Tennessee, and West Virginia); and 2008 Democratic pickup winner Barack Obama (Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico, and Virginia).

Since 1992, presidential winners have carried between 26 (a 2012 re-elected Barack Obama) and 32 (a 1992 first-term-elected Bill Clinton) states. The Republican winners have averaged 9 (a 2000 and 2004 George W. Bush) and 10 (a 2016 Donald Trump) electoral votes per carried state. The Democratic winners have averaged 11 and 12 (a 1992 and 1996 Clinton) and 13 and 12 (a 2008 and 2012 Obama) electoral votes per carried state. So, structurally, Republicans need to carry at least 28 while Democrats need to carry at least 22 states to win. It may explain a formula for guessing how many states a prevailing Republican or Democrat carries. Add +28 for the Republican or +22 for the Democrat to what that winner’s U.S. Popular Vote margin would be. Winning by +4 means a Republican carries 32 and a Democrat carries 26 states. But, based on this post-1980s period electorally, the winning Republicans are more likely to carry at least 30 while winning Democrats carry at least 26 states.


For the 2020 Democrats: If their general-election nominee unseats Republican incumbent Donald Trump, he/she would start by flipping no less than the following states listed between Nos. 21 to 23 (because of their reach); but, come to think, he/she would need to win the U.S. Popular Vote by at least +8 percentage points to win back everything that flipped in 2016 for Trump. (Just three U.S. presidential elections—1824, 1960, and 1976—saw the winner carry less than half the nation’s states.) My estimate for their likely order:
21. Michigan (cum. 248)
22. Pennsylvania (cum. 268)
23. Wisconsin (cum. 278—Tipping-point state)
24. Florida (cum. 307)
— Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District –2.23 (cum. 308)
25. Arizona (cum. 319)
26. North Carolina (cum. 334)
27. Georgia (cum. 350) | Target U.S. Popular Vote Margin: +5 (also the tipping-point state for 2020 Democrats in order to flip the U.S. Senate)
28. Iowa (cum. 356)  | Target U.S. Popular Vote Margin: +6
— Maine’s 2nd Congressional District (cum. 357) | Target U.S. Popular Vote Margin: +6.50
29. Texas (cum. 395) | Target U.S. Popular Vote Margin: +7
30. Ohio (cum. 413) | Target U.S. Popular Vote Margin: +8


If 2020 ends up a Republican hold, with re-election for Donald Trump,  the Democrats would much more likely get their presidential pickup in 2024. (Since the 1950s, only once has a political party won three consecutive election cycles—the Republicans of the 1980s.) With the potential of some states realigning, as has been suggested in this piece by Ronald Brownstein, here is an estimated, scenario order with use of the same selection of states for where they could get reshuffled in 2024. Instead of the 2016 (and, as estimated, 2020) tipping-point state being Wisconsin—closely followed by Pennsylvania and Michigan—one could be looking toward Arizona or Georgia as the tipping-point state. (I lean a little toward the Peach State.) A Democratic pickup of the presidency in 2024 could play out as follows (with use of the 2010s allocation of electoral votes):
— Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District [pickup] (cumulative 233 electoral votes)—Realigned to the Democrats
21. North Carolina (cum. 248)—Realigned to the Democrats
22. Arizona (cum. 259)—Realigned to the Democrats
23. Georgia (cum. 275—Tipping-point state)—Realigned to the Democrats (with future Republicans needing to counter-flip some “Tint Lights” or “Solids”)
24. Florida (cum. 304)—Bellwether, minus two elections (1960 and 1992), since 1928
25. Texas (cum. 342)—Bellwether; it was a previous bellwether, minus 1968, from 1928 to 1988
26. Michigan (cum. 358)—Bellwether; voted the same as Pennsylvania, except in three elections (1932, 1940, and 1976), since 1860
27. Pennsylvania (cum. 378)—Bellwether; voted the same as Michigan, except in three elections (1932, 1940, and 1976), since 1860
— Maine’s 2nd Congressional District (cum. 379)—Realigned to the Republicans
28. Wisconsin (cum. 389)—Realigned to the Republicans; voted the same as Iowa, except in two elections (1976 and 2004), since 1944
29. Iowa (cum. 395)—Realigned to the Republicans; voted the same as Wisconsin, except in two elections (1976 and 2004), since 1944
30. Ohio (cum. 413)—Realigned to the Republicans

Click the map to create your own at 270toWin.com

Color Code:

· Solids: States and districts appearing to be firewalls for respective political party; some unanticipated changes are possible, with however many emerging states, in the future
· Medium Red: Potentially realigned to respective party, effective 2016
· Medium Light Blue: Anticipation of potential realignment to respective party, effective 2024
· Tint Lights: States which could become vulnerable to respective party to which they are currently aligned (or lean)
· Yellow: Possible bellwethers for an unbroken string of consecutive election cycles (Florida, since 1996; Michigan and Pennsylvania, since 2008; Texas, since 2016)

Truth in Comedy

Emmy winning comedians Ricky Gervais, hosting The 77th Golden Globe Awards on NBC [Sunday, January 5, 2020], and Dave Chappelle, recently awarded the 2020 Mark Twain Prize for American Humor, recently delivered funny and observant performances. I think they are worth sharing for the weekend’s blog topic. And their videos appear below.

‘US escalates war on Iran and Iraq — LIVE with Rania Khalek, Max Blumenthal, Ben Norton, Aaron Mate’

The Graystone held a livestream on the evening of Friday, January 3, 2020.

The discussion is about U.S. president Donald Trump’s airstrike assassination of Iran general Qasem Soleimani and PMF commander Abu Mahdi al–Muhandis.

It is about more than that.

The video of the two-hour livestream was published to YouTube, with the following description: “We discuss the US escalation of war on Iran and Iraq — Aaron Maté is joined by Rania Khalek, Max Blumenthal, and Ben Norton.”

This is too important to have waited until Monday [January 6, 2020] for publication.


(I intend to leave this blog topic running until next Thursday, January 9, 2020. So, unless something else comes up, I will continue with the usual scheduling of no more than two blog topics posted within a week. So, the next blog topic would publish on Friday, January 10, 2020.)

Happy New Year 2020!

A new year.

A new decade.

I wish all readers of Progressives Chat a… Happy New Year 2020! 


(In December 2019, I scheduled blog topics on Sundays and Thursdays. Beginning next week, the twice-a-week schedule will return to Mondays and Fridays.)