The Ballot

I have the ballot for the general election for the 2022 midterm elections.

Election Day is Tuesday, November 8, 2022.

From my home state, Michigan, and from the state’s website, a resident can access an unofficial copy of the ballot. I will include screenshots of two pivotal areas: the first is for the partisan section of the statewide-elected races (Governor—yes! U.S. Senate—not on this year’s schedule—no!); the second is for ballot proposals.

I find it interesting which parties made the ballot. (And, of course, which parties did not.)

I am not impressed with the ballot proposals. 

I have a local-related ballot proposal on which I will vote. So, my ballot will get returned. In the meantime…

2022 Midterm Elections Prediction: Republicans Will Flip U.S. House and U.S. Senate

Thanks to a number of reasons, including developing changes in most recent poll reports, as well as an apparent trendline by Likely Voters (who, as Election Day draws closer, are now of mind to really make up their minds), I can now make a prediction for the 2022 midterm elections. 

The White House opposition Republican Party will win 2022 majority-control pickups for both the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate.

(Above is the 2022 U.S. Senate map. This is Class #03. Those in white are not scheduled. Solid shades are for likely party holds. Light shades are for party pickups.)

The catalyst for this is: Inflation. This is the No. 1 issue—and it is certainly national—for the midterm elections of 2022. That this is occurring on the watch of Democratic incumbent U.S. president Joe Biden. That the Democrats currently have control of both houses of Congress. (I would also suggest that the Democrats’s push for a possible nuclear war may also be a key issue.)

Nate Silver’s FiveThirtyEight has been showing, over the last week, an estimated percentage of likelihood for control of the U.S. Senate has moved from 36 to 40 to 41 to 44 and, as of Sunday [October 23, 2022], 45 percent for the Republicans. (In other words: Check daily for further movement.) Even Nate Silver himself wrote his own piece, “Why I’m Telling My Friends That The Senate Is A Tossup.” (That is a nice of way of not specifically writing, “It is 50/50.”) I certainly appreciate Cook Political Report’s Amy Walter’s recent piece, “Historically, Toss Up Races Break Decidedly Toward One Party.”

The general election—in two weeks—is scheduled for Tuesday, November 8, 2022. 

The National Wizard for Oz

Before last week, it appeared the 2022 Republicans would win majority pickup for the U.S. House—which has always been the case—but the White House Democratic Party would hold the U.S. Senate. This was attributed to the Republicans potentially failing to hold Pennsylvania. 

Pennsylvania is currently in the Republican column for retiring Pat Toomey. Nominee Mehmet “Dr.” Oz, above left, is no seasoned professional campaigner. He has been lackluster. He has been silly. But with enough wind, nationally, going against Joe Biden and his White House Democratic Party is why this electoral wizardry can happen. So Oz’s Democratic challenger, lieutenant governor John Fetterman, is seeing his previously comfortable lead, in effect for several months, dissipate. This race, highly related to a national wind, is trending toward Oz.

John Fetterman, 53, suffered a stroke several months ago. For some: His abilities are in question. But, even if Fetterman had not experienced his stroke, and even if his party’s nomination would have gone instead to corporate-appealing congressman Conor Lamb, this would likely produce the same result.

The last three midterm elections in which the U.S. Senate flipped to the White House opposition party were in 1994, 2006, and 2014. The White House party, in each cycle, failed to counter-flip any opposition-party-held seats. (Last exception: 1986.) A 2022 Republican majority-control pickup of the U.S. Senate should logically begin with retaining all party-held seats before winning pickups. 

The Tipping-Point State (And Why)

Where I sense the Republicans will flip—and get their tipping-point 51st U.S. Senate seat—is Nevada. 

In 2022 Nevada, Republican nominee—and 2018 gubernatorial nominee—Adam Laxalt is poised to unseat Democratic incumbent Catherine Cortez Masto. 

In 2016, Catherine Cortez Masto was the handpicked candidate by predecessor and former majority leader Harry Reid. But she had a major electoral flaw no other Democrat has had, in almost 15 years, in statewide Nevada: She failed to carry Washoe County. 

Washoe County’s county seat is Reno. It and Clark County (Las Vegas) are the two most-populous counties in Nevada. They combine for nearly 85 percent of the state’s population. When Barack Obama won his Democratic pickup of the presidency in 2008, and one of his pickup states was Nevada, he flipped and carried Washoe County…and became the first from his party to carry it since 1964 Lyndon Johnson. Since 2008 Obama, Washoe County has been in the column for his re-election (in 2012) as well as for Hillary Clinton (2016) and Joe Biden (2020). This also applies to winning U.S. Senate Democrats Harry Reid (2010) and Jackie Rosen (who unseated Republican incumbent Dean Heller in 2018). Washoe County also carried for 2018 Democratic gubernatorial pickup winner Steve Sisolak. For a Democrat to win Nevada’s two most-populous counties…that renders a Republican unlikely to prevail statewide. 

The 2016 U.S. Senate election in Nevada saw Catherine Cortez Masto win with a raw-vote margin of +26,915. (She won Clark County by +82,445 raw votes. Republican nominee Joe Heck carried Washoe County by +1,683 raw votes.) Just over 1 million votes were cast statewide. This makes the 2022 Democratic incumbent vulnerable to a loss.

In a friendly-to-your-party electoral environment, it is not difficult to make up these numbers. It also helps 2022 Republicans that Nevada Democrats are not popular. (This was covered in a recent Breaking Points segment.) Nevada may lose one of its current delegation of 3–1 U.S. House seats. (Cook Political Report has two of its districts rated as Tossups.) Nevada Democrats are also vulnerable to losing their party-held governorship. (Although I am not including gubernatorial predictions, in this blog topic, I am leaning to predicting that outcome.)

The path to winning Nevada for 2022 Republican nominee Adam Laxalt is this: increase 2016-to-2022 Republican performance in Washoe County; lower the 2016-to-2022 Democratic margins in Clark County; and send the 2016-to-2022 raw-vote numbers in the rest of the state’s counties—all in the 2016 Republican column—further north. This would, mathematically, be enough to deliver the state to Laxalt; deliver it in a Republican pickup; and with Pennsylvania a 2022 Republican hold, this would deliver new majority control for the U.S. Senate to the Republicans.

This would not be all up to Adam Laxalt. Credit would also go to the voters in Nevada. If they want to make this happen—that they don’t want the Democrats to retain their current level of electoral power—they will especially be the ones who deliver.

I consider this scenario—holding Pennsylvania and flipping Nevada—to be the 2022 Republicans’s path to winning new majority control for the U.S. Senate. This is before giving further consideration to the race in Georgia between Democratic incumbent Raphael Warnock (a pickup winner, from a special election, in 2020) and Republican challenger and former pro-football star Herschel Walker. That particular race, in a state which requires 50 percent, may not be decided on Election Day. A runoff would be scheduled for Tuesday, December 6, 2022. And it is there that Walker may become best-positioned to unseat Warnock and deliver a 52nd seat to a majority-pickup-winning Republican Party. If it turns out to be even worse for 2022 U.S. Senate Democrats, they are vulnerable to a loss with Republican nominee Blake Masters potentially unseating Mark Kelly for a 53rd seat in Arizona. (I lean toward predicting narrow re-election for Kelly. But, due to national circumstances, I have to rate it a Tossup.)

Past Performances

I can give a breakdown on some details based on historic pattern.

The 17th Amendment, which allows direct elections of U.S. senators by the states’s voting citizens, dates back to the 1910s. 

The midterm elections of 1914 to 2018 numbered 104 years and 27 such cycles. The White House opposition party won the overall net gains—combining U.S. House and U.S. Senate—in 24 of those cycles. Of these 24 cycles, there were 8 in which the U.S. House flipped to the White House opposition party. Of these 8 cycles, there were 3 in which the U.S. House but not the U.S. Senate flipped to the opposition party. (They occurred in 1930, 2010, and 2018.) The remaining 5 resulted in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate having flipped to the opposition party. (They occurred in 1918, 1946, 1954, 1994, and 2006.) 

When the White House opposition party established new majorities, their percentages of seats—for both houses—have tended to be a close correlation. In each case, the newly re-empowered opposition party established a higher percentage of U.S. House than U.S. Senate seats. And, for comparison, there has typically been no greater than 4 percent. 

Here were those past results:

• The 1918 Republicans, beginning in 1919, established 55.17% (for 240 of 435 seats) in the U.S. House and 51.04% (for 49 of 96 seats) in the U.S. Senate.

• The 1946 Republicans (on the watch of Democratic incumbent U.S. president Harry Truman), beginning in 1947, established 56.55% (for 246 of 435) seats in the U.S. House and 53.12% (for 51 of 96) seats in the U.S. Senate.

• The 1954 Democrats, beginning in 1955, established 53.33% (for 232 of 435 seats) in the U.S. House and 51.04% (for 49 of 96 seats) in the U.S. Senate. (For these 1918, 1946, and 1954 U.S. Senate seats, at 96, keep in mind Alaska and Hawaii had not yet become the 49th and 50th states admitted into the union.)

• The 1994 Republicans, beginning in 1995, established 52.87% (for 230 of 435 seats) in the U.S. House and 52% (for 52 of 100 seats) in the U.S. Senate.

• The 2006 Democrats, beginning in 2007, established 53.56% (for 233 of 435 seats) in the U.S. House and 51% (for 51 of 100 seats) in the U.S. Senate.

Historic Averages

Considering these outcomes, the historic averages for the numbers and percentages of seats were:

• U.S. House: 234.625 seats and 53.93 percent of seats

• U.S. Senate: 51.63 percentage of seats

Estimates

I get the sense the 2022 Republicans, with majority-control pickups for both houses of Congress, will establish close to the historic averages with the following beginning in January 2023:

• U.S. House: 235 to 244 seats. (This would be 54 to 56 percent of the seats.)

• U.S. Senate: 51 to 53 seats. (This would be 51 to 53 percent of the seats.)

Progressives Chat Regulars’s Home States

Look for these potential outcomes in the four separate states of the regulars here at Progressives Chat:

• Missouri (TowerofBabel): The state is solidly aligned to the Republicans since George W. Bush’s 2000 Republican pickup of the presidency and Missouri. A national Republican wave would mean solidifying party-level support in this state. (Republican shifts as well in nearly all states.) Now-retiring Roy Blunt’s last re-election to the U.S. Senate, in 2016, was by a low +2.79 percentage points. (This occurred while Republican presidential pickup winner Donald Trump carried the state by +18.51.) So, 2022 nominee Eric Schmitt should experience a conspicuously higher margin. (FiveThirtyEight recently estimated +18. It can go higher.) 

• Oregon (cathyx): I sense Republicans will win a pickup of the governorship—specifically for nominee Christine Drazan—and this would be the first for the party since 1982. The party will flip the state’s 5th Congressional District. Thanks to the 2020 U.S. Census Bureau’s report including changes with populations, Oregon has gained +1 congressional district (and likewise electoral vote). Pre-2022, the state’s U.S. House delegation is 4–1 in favor of the Democrats. Post-2022, I estimate an outcome of 4–2. This would change the percentage of Oregon’s Democratic-held U.S. House seats from 80 to 66 percent. The only likely Democratic hold, at this point, is re-election to the U.S. Senate for Ron Wyden.

• Wisconsin (The_Fixer): Nowdays one of the nation’s best bellwether states—and the 2016 and 2020 U.S. presidential elections’s tipping-point state—Wisconsin should well-reflect overall 2022 national outcomes. In this respect, I think it will not disappoint. The state’s Republican incumbent and senior U.S. senator, Ron Johnson, will win re-election. (His margin will likely be more comfortable than what numerous polls had reported.) The state’s 3rd Congressional District (retiring Democratic incumbent Ron Kind) will flip Republican. That will change Wisconsin’s U.S. House delegation from 5–3 to 6–2 in favor of the Republicans. This would change the percentage of the state’s U.S. House delegation, favoring the Republicans, from 62.50 to 75 percent. Like with the 2022 Pennsylvania U.S. Senate election, Wisconsin’s gubernatorial election is a Dead Heat. If much of the estimated outcomes play out, Democratic incumbent Tony Evers may become unseated by Republican challenger Tim Michels. (That race is a tough call.)

• Michigan (Candy83): In the presidential elections of 2016 and 2020, and the midterm elections of 2018, Michigan well-matched its popular vote with the U.S. Popular Vote for U.S. House. (For 2020, it was the one pickup state, for U.S. President, to best-match its statewide margin vs. the national.) The Republicans don’t have the gubernatorial nominee, in Tudor Dixon, it needs to unseat Democratic incumbent Gretchen Whitmer. (The best would have been former Detroit police chief James Craig. He, like numerous other Republican candidates, was rejected ballot access for the primaries due to the state determining numerous, submitted signatures were fake.) Whitmer—a 2018 Democratic pickup winner with a statewide margin of +9.56 (north of +400,000 raw votes)—is likely to win re-election with lower margins. (Some polls suggest this race could become tighter and change to a Tossup.) Michigan also lost –1 congressional district (and likewise electoral vote). Pre-2022, its U.S. House delegation is an Even 7–7. I sense it will change to 7–6 (perhaps even 8-5) in favor of the Republicans. Cook Political Report rates the state’s 7th Congressional District (Democratic incumbent and CIA agent Elissa Slotkin) a Tossup. The state’s 3rd Congressional District (which includes Kent County and its county seat Grand Rapids) is generally trending Democratic—it flipped in 2018 for Gretchen Whitmer and a re-elected U.S. senator Debbie Stabenow and in 2020 for Joe Biden (and it votes in presidential elections like Nebraska’s 2nd Congressional District)—has been targeted by the DCCC in its Red-to-Blue strategy. This is the district of Peter Meijer, a family member of the Meijer stores, who was ousted in the Republican primaries by John Gibbs who, as it turned out, received campaign money from the Democrats. This may turn out to be, like with Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign, another Pied Piper strategy gone wrong.

Coming Changes for ‘Progressives Chat’

In recent weeks, Progressives Chat reached its fifth anniversary. I followed that with noting where I think actual progressives are at. (I also wrote about my position.)

Just recently, I came across a few things which have me reconsidering what I do and how I handle this blog site.

I will mention what I have in mind after I touch on the following.…

Old Stomping Grounds

I used to be a participant on another person’s blog site. This is a person with whom I thought I was politically in sync. That he, too, is progressive. He is not. He is, bottom line, a Democrat. So, I stopped posting on his site two years ago. But, I recently checked out blog topics. What he has written and published. Within the last few days, what has been revealed is something that is so FUBAR.

In recent days, this blogger wrote that the 2022 midterm elections—scheduled for Tuesday, November 8, 2022—must be about Donald Trump. That the 45th U.S. president needs to be The People’s No. 1 issue. In the next entry, he wrote that Trump, after he became unseated and before having left office, wanted to murder then-vice president Mike Pence and U.S. House speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Knowing there are Progressives Chat members who have at least one story each can tell…I am just grateful I managed to avoid what became of this person’s blog site. (I apologize for not mentioning it specifically. I do not hate the person. He was generous with me. There was no official departure, from me, and nothing in the way of a blowup. This is why I will refrain here from mentioning it specifically.)

When thinking of Old Stomping Grounds…I also think of some sites which I used to recommend particularly in the sidebar list of “Videos.” When thinking of the early period of this blog site, I realize I eliminated so many video sources—some for more egregious reasons than others—because they sold out and/or became no longer worth continuing to list. This reminds me: Coming up for Progressives Chat.…

Revising the Recommendations

I intend to take the lists for recommended “Videos” and “Websites” and reduce them significantly. Effective this blog topic’s published date, they combine for nearly 50. 

The reason to pare down the lists has to do with exerting better control over what is a priority to recommend. Truth is: I, and this may include some of this blog site’s regulars, am not keeping track…and not regularly tuning in all that are listed. With no disrespect to any of them…the current lists are excessive.

I estimate the recommended “Videos” should be limited to either ten [10] or fifteen [15]. There should be a mix of content. Obviously, The Jimmy Dore Show will continue to rank No. 1. That program—livestreams and clips alike—falls into a category blending commentary with news. (Personally, I connect most with Dore.) For others, I want to include content providing human interest. An example is Hezakya Newz & Films, which covers past history and how it has affected—and some continue to affect—the human condition. So, these two sources will stay.

I also estimate the recommended “Websites” will become limited to five [5]. This should be easier given there isn’t currently much listed. I think people gravitate a lot more to video content.

The changes in recommended content will take effect next month, after the 2022 midterm elections, so links will still be available on Election Day. The new change will likely be by either [Mondays.] November 14 or 21, 2022. And I invite Progressives Chat’s regulars to make their recommendations. 

Flashback 1982: The Tylenol Murders

It was 40 years ago, with the timing in September and October 1982, which marked the Tylenol Murders.

This case, which is officially not solved, happened in and around Chicago, Illinois.

Bottles of Tylenol Extra Strength, at which time were in capsule form, were tampered with and injected with cyanide.

The Tylenol Murders claimed the lives of seven, including three family members (two who later took from the same bottle belonging to the deceased first), and it required detective-like work by nurse Helen Jensen—after those family members died—to figure out it was the pills. (She worked the case with now-retired Chuck Kramer, now 81, at which time he was a fire department lieutenant in Arlington Heights.) All the victims, including one child, were under the age of 40. As now-retired Jensen, now 85, tells it: Her theory was initially dismissed. “I went back to the emergency room, presented it [the theory of that particular bottle of Tylenol pills being poisoned] to the medical examiner and the police, and they laughed at me.” Jensen also described the case as follows: “It was probably one of the first acts of domestic terrorism.”

I was 11 years old. My sense of this, at the time, was a panic which had people—from everywhere—figuring this could happen anywhere. (It did quite a hit job on the business of Johnson & Johnson. The manufacturer recalled more than 30 million bottles.)

My late paternal grandmother, who regularly watched local and network news, would often say, for any news reports involving destructive and sickening crimes, “What is this world coming to?”

With the timing on the calendar closely connected to Halloween, this also changed—to some extent—how parents handled allowing their children to celebrate the holiday; whether to continue their neighborhood Trick-or-Treating tradition for its intended fun…and for the candy. (Frankly: It was even before 1982. The 1981 film sequel Halloween II includes a scene of a boy taken to the hospital by his mother because he came in contact with a tampered product.)

One thing good came from this: It changed the industry for the ways it packages over-the-counter medicines and other products.

There is a podcast (to which I will not provide a link; it came to my attention only shortly before having completed writing and setting this blog topic to publish), and it is titled Unsealed: The Tylenol Murders (AT WILL MEDIA, The Chicago Tribune). I have not yet listened to it. It has several episodes. I intend to check out, at the very minimum, its first.

I encourage interested readers to not only watch the above video, which is a news segment by CBS Chicago (WBBM–TV, Ch. 02), but to also read some material which follows this paragraph (for some more general information). 

• Chicago Tylenol murders

• Chicago Tylenol murders: Who did it? No one has ever been charged, but questions still surround James Lewis

Five Years Later…

Last week marked the fifth anniversary of Progressives Chat.

This week, I will give my two-cents on where progressives—actual progressives—are at here in 2022.

I will also mention where I am at.

The Democratic Party Establishment succeeded in having defeated the actual progressives electorally and politically. For the time being. Electorally—certainly. Politically—yes, as well, but not in a way which is guaranteed to be permanent. (That cannot be guaranteed.)

Politics, like life, is continuous. All the election cycles one may experience in one’s lifetime—no matter the type of election cycle (presidential; midterm)—is not the last given election that will ever be. Despite the hyperbole, from whomever and from one election cycle to the next, that it is not reality. That is not history. That is not life.

The Democrats have won three of the last four United States presidential elections. The history indicates this is an example of being in a realigning period. That, since 2008, a Democratic pickup year for Barack Obama, we are in a realigning period in which the presidency is with the Democrats. That this will play out for at least 70 percent of this given period, which began in 2008, and will run for 30-plus years. The last four cycles—2008, 2012, 2016, and 2020—have been the inverse of what occurred 40 years prior. The Republicans, with a realignment favoring them beginning in 1968, a Republican pickup year for Richard Nixon, won three of four through 1980. The Democratic win was in 1976 with Jimmy Carter, from that period, as has this period’s Republican win came in 2016 with Donald Trump. And, for another parallel, the nation’s citizens and voting electorate wanted a 1980 Carter out just like they did with a 2020 Trump.

I was born in 1971. Richard Nixon was U.S. president. The Republican Party was dominant especially during my childhood (when they won four of five cycles during the 1970s and 1980s). The Democratic Party was considered the joke. That is, if you think of the presidency of the United States as the measurement of worthiness. The be-all, end-all. (And there are people who do.) Now, 40 years later, it’s the opposite—that the Republican Party is considered the joke.

While it is good to know the score, or at least be able to keep track as best as one can ask of himself, it doesn’t mean much if you are being left behind.

The Democrats, in their current form, are doing just that. In last year’s gubernatorial election in Virginia, the No. 12 most-populous state in the nation, and which realigned to the Democrats for U.S. President beginning in 2008, the electoral outcome was a Republican pickup for Glenn Youngkin. (The Democrats nearly lost the governorship of New Jersey, the nation’s No. 11 most-populous state.) Following that result, in Virginia, Substack’s Shant Mesrobian tweeted the following:

Even with that predictable result, it is (has been) intentional. For example: With the abortion issue, and the Democrats not codifying into law the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1973 decision on Roe v. Wade, I noted in a 2022 blog topic, ‘Since 1912’, that this was intended by the Democrats. Meaning: I don’t buy into any attempt by Loyal Democratic Voters to excuse or explain away the Democratic Party, which they predictably do when they respond to criticisms and failures, for what I recognize is (has been) intentional.

The Democrats, in their current form, are now as follows: They rig their primaries; they are McCarthyites; they wanted to force vaccinations; and they are for censorship.

The Loyal Democratic Voters, in their current form, are reminding me of the presidency of a 2000s George W. Bush and that period’s Loyal Republican Voters. Here in the 2020s, the Loyal Democratic Voters have no concern for what is coming out of the Joe Biden presidential administration. They have no concern for what is needed for people and for this country. They simply want to…belong. To belong to their party. And they want everybody to back their party. They are on a team—Team Blue. That whenever an election is coming up—and federal elections are scheduled every year—they want their team to win. They will never tell you precisely what they figure they will win or, if their team prevailed, did win. (They are not able.) 

When I think about this blog, Progressives Chat, and that the five-year anniversary of its launch has passed…I want to state what has been forgotten by some. (Not here; but elsewhere.) It calls for going back to…basics.

I voted the 2016 and 2020 Democratic presidential nomination to Bernie Sanders not because I personally adore (adored) the man. I voted for him because of the vision he had was one which best-matched with what I recognized is necessary. (I am not alone.)

Leading on policy issues has (had) been Medicare for All. That has (had) been followed by a federal minimum wage of at least $15 per hour. That it is (was) followed by making college tuition free. 

Approximately 50 percent of the nation’s people, who have employment, are earning $35,000 or less per year. (Gross income.) We have not only an income problem…we have an insufficient income problem. People are underpaid. It is not just a problem but a crisis.

We also have an infrastructure problem. I am referring to the infrastructure for traveling. For getting around. That our current system is decades behind. 

The biggest problem we have is that our government is bought and sold. Everything you can name that is an issue and which is actually solvable—like reallocating the federal budget and allocating to where that money is needed—gets blocked. It gets blocked, for one, in favor of incessant wars. One war followed by the next.

The U.S. has had the money—as it does now—to: end poverty; to bring people’s incomes in line with this current period in history; to deliver a healthcare and health-insurance system (that does not take apart people financially); to make college tuition free; to modernize our traveling infrastructure; and more.

Where we are at, with what I pointed out, and what else may be considered, is (has been) intended. 

Now I am going to mention what I am intending:

With the 2022 midterm elections scheduled for next month—on Tuesday, November 8, 2022—I will do the following (before I do anything more or else): I will not vote for any person who is affiliated with the Democratic Party.

My last vote for anyone on Team Blue was with the midterm elections of 2014. It was Year #06 of the presidency of Barack Obama. The primaries were rigged in 2016—not just against Bernie Sanders but also against every person who voted the presidential nomination to Bernie Sanders—and, so, I denied all of Team Blue my general-election votes that year. I followed suit with the midterm elections of 2018. And, in 2020, I did not vote because my father was in the final weeks of his life and, frankly, had the timings occurred separately I would have completely rejected the Democratic Party anyway.

I have written and posted plenty on electoral politics. I follow simply because I like to be aware for as much I can ask of myself. I am also intrigued with the topic of realignment. Not just electoral realignments; but also political realignments. 

Realignments involve, among numerous factors, changes in voting patterns. I am aware that my own voting pattern is possibly realigning. That I am realigning away from the Democrats. Given the fact that, post-2014, three consecutive election cycles—two presidential and one midterm—have passed; and that I will also be denying Team Blue in this year’s midterms (which would make it four cycles in a row); it is likely I am (or have) realigning (realigned); that this is accurate—even if I wasn’t always conscious of this.

I do not trust, and I do not respect, the Democratic Party. So, as the general election draws closer, and this week is five weeks out, there will be more people reminding us…they are with Team Blue. The ones who are most interesting, at least to me, are those online content creators who have been leading on their audiences to tell them they are progressives. That group of content creators, in reality, will do what they can to get their viewers to…Vote Blue [No Matter Who; No Matter What]. They are not progressives. They are…Democrats. They will do this while Joe Biden has—and, as a reminder, [‘Since 2012’] it is (has been) intended—not delivered on any policy issue they have claimed is important to them. There will be some humor to that con job, to prop up a so-called political party which is a scam operation, and that can provide someone who generally has a good sense of humor with some entertainment. When it comes to who I am willing to take seriously, I have tuned out those people. 

I have strengthened my resolve.

Throughout the majority of 2022, with nine months now having passed, I have received plenty of communications from the Democratic Party. I have responded to none. If anyone tries to contact me by phone, as Election Day approaches, and I do not recognize the number, I will not take that call. (That is, after all, what many do—and it is what many recommend others do—for one’s own sake.) After Election Day has passed, I will refer to text and e-mail messages and block those contacts.

I am rejecting the Democratic Party. The entirety of the Democratic Party. I am doing so for understandable, and even responsible, reasons. (Not that any person is required to explain one’s votes.) While I already stated four key reason, the bottom line is this: The Democratic Party has earned it.

I have not necessarily realigned my voting elsewhere. I don’t feel I have to be voting between the two major U.S. political parties. I also do not feel like I must participate by voting in this year’s midterm elections. At the same time, I don’t want to leave this blog topic with any misunderstanding. I do not want readers to conclude that I am lately perceiving both major U.S. political parties to be totally equal to each other in their current forms. (They are not.) One of the two has: rigged their primaries; does McCarthyism; attempted to force people to become vaccinated; and is for censorship. The other major party did not do any of that. 

Five Years Later…

The ball is now in the court for Team Red. I have closed the door on Team Blue. (I dismiss them.) If the Republicans are interested…I will hear and consider them. They will, of course, have to earn my vote (votes). And if they continue losing at the presidential level, because in part we are in a realigning period for the Democrats, and also in part because the GOP are lost, then the Republicans may find themselves experiencing and even facilitating numerous changes that a lot of today’s people—including their current party insiders—may not anticipate or expect. The two major U.S. political parties, both in existence longer than 150 years, have not always remained the same throughout history. My door is open.