Stidmatt

Building off my last post…

I have my dataset, which has the partisan affiliation of every Senator and Governor in US history. It also has the partisan affiliation of each president in US history and shows how states have voted in every election since 1788.

I just graphed how many states with a Democratic governor and two Democratic Senators have voted for the Democratic presidential candidate since the formation of the Democratic Party in 1828.

As we can see, among all states in the United States that have had this political arrangement since 1992, they almost always vote for the Democratic nominee for President.

If we filter it down to states with over ten electors, we then have the following graph:

No state with this criterion has voted for a Republican in any Presidential election since 1988.

As long as people turn out and vote for Kamala Harris, I think this trend will continue.

Reversing this for Whig or Republican-controlled states:

Now filtering to states with over ten electors:

See that uptick in 2020? Those states are Arizona and Georgia. Maine is in the graph with all states.

We will see if this trend continues on Tuesday.

But with this data in mind and ruling out a Reagan-esque election this week… this brings us to the following map using the data from this article:

I do not think Harris will lose New England or Virginia.

Which puts Harris at a minimum of 270 votes.

The remaining states don’t matter in our archaic voting system.

I think Harris is going to win.

Now, go vote and make it happen.

My theory is the partisan control of the governorship and Senate seat is a good predictor for how people will vote in a Presidential election.

The higher the prediction, the more likely the state will vote for a Democrat. All presidential elections since 1830 are included.

A state gets one point if the Governor or a Senator from the last 6 years has been a Democrat.

When people describe the interests in the Israeli-Palestinian War as Israel vs. Hamas as what Israel wants vs. what Hamas wants, they are equivocating Israel with Hamas, and the two are very different. Israel is a country with multiple interest groups, and Hamas is a totalitarian terrorist organization. They are not the same. If there is any chance of a long-term political solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, we need to break down the different interest groups in Israel and Palestine, or the agreement will fail.

Palestine has a minimum of two interest groups:

• Hamas, an extremist far-right antisemitic political party
• Fatah, a center-right antizionist political party

Israel has a minimum of five interest groups:

• Likud is an extremist far-right Zionist political party that has ruled the region for most of the last 50 years.
• Other right-wing Zionist political parties
• Centrist Zionist political parties
• Left-wing Zionist political parties
• Arab citizens of Israel

So be careful in how you talk about it. If you mean Likud, say Likud. Claiming that all Israelis agree with Likud is antisemitism.

We must get past this Tuesday, but looking forward to the future is important. Seeing the polls now and historic election trends, I think there is a genuine possibility that 2028 could be a landslide for Democrats.

This is the base map that I think will be applicable in 2028. Democrats only need to win Pennsylvania to win. With some investment, Democrats could turn Florida, Texas, and Ohio into swing states, given that Trump only won 51, 52, and 53% of the vote, a smaller margin than Biden won historically purple Virginia. These three states will be in play with a small amount of investment. This brings us to the following map:

If Republicans have to start investing in Texas, they will have less money to spend in Nevada, making it a lean Democratic state.

In such a scenario, Republicans must win all swing states except Arizona. As Republicans become more hostile towards Hispanic Americans and Hispanic Americans are a quickly growing demographic, this map starts to look likely.

If Harris wins on Tuesday and she has a successful first term, as I already outlined in Kamala’s Keys, there is no reason 2028 should not be a blowout for the Democrats.

This is my prediction map for the election. I think Harris has a 7/8 chance of winning.

Georgia, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania are pure tossups. Arizona will not make a difference. Harris will win the presidency if she wins one of those three swing states.

Giving Trump only a 1/8 chance of being elected on Tuesday.

Trump has a negligible chance of winning the popular vote, which unfortunately does not matter.

After talking to family and friends in Ohio and Montana, this is my expectation for the Senate race on Tuesday. Montana, Ohio, and Pennsylvania are holds for the Democrats. Arizona is a flip for the Democrats. West Virginia is a hold for the Republicans. Texas and Florida are swing states.

The House could go either way. I cannot make a prediction, it’s a total tossup.

Let’s hope I am right.

https://ukranews.com/en/news/1044377-zelenskyy-indignant-at-leaking-of-secret-clause-of-victory-plan-with-request-for-tomahawk-missiles

Yesterday, we saw the most significant intelligence leak of confidential military information in the United States’ history.

It is guaranteed that whoever leaked the details of the Victory Plan shared them with Moscow, putting the whole world in danger.

The plan was shared with NATO heads of state and Donald Trump. We know the leak came from the White House.

The people who we can be certain got access to the full plan are:

1. Joe Biden
2. Kamala Harris
3. Secretary of State Antony Blinken
4. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin
5. National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan

Other potential recipients of the information are members of the National Security Council.

Besides them and potentially the Chiefs of Staff, no one else needs to know the whole plan beyond what the Ukrainians are willing to broadcast. It is one of the most important and confidential documents in recent history.

The leak of this plan is going to significantly hamper the efforts of the Ukrainian military to achieve their aim of freeing their country from Russian occupation.

Usually, the person who takes the fall for such leaks ends up being some poor enlisted individual who spreads the information to the press. While the person who actually gives the information to the press is absolutely at fault, they never work alone. In any organization of considerable size, information is only shared on an as-needed basis. This is how it has been in every job I have ever had.

If some new intern or private has access to a plan as important as this, somebody gave them improper access. Eventually, that access chain will lead directly to someone in the President’s inner circle who we know saw the plan.

No one else needs to know the full details of the plan.

That’s how it works at my company and every company and government agency I have ever worked at.

Somebody in the President’s inner circle shared the Victory Plan with people who should not have had access to the plan. This is one of the largest information leaks in American history, and innocent people are going to die because of what they did.

We must assume Russia has the full victory plan now. This will significantly hamper Ukraine’s efforts to free their country.

I suspect the answer is Jake Sullivan, given his history of putting ridiculous restrictions on Ukraine’s ability to use weapons to defend its territory. He also had a very bizarre departure from his high-ranking position in the Obama White House in 2014 to being an adjunct professor, which was a massive downgrade to his career. That is not a normal move for someone to make and is suspicious. People who are doing a good job do not go from being a major advisor to the Vice President of the United States to an adjunct professor for shits and giggles. It is a major reduction in salary and political influence. It does not make sense unless he was forced out, and, for whatever reason, the Obama White House chose not to do a full disciplinary hearing for why he left in 2014. Nobody else in the President’s inner circle has such a record.

2014 is, of course, the same year that Russia invaded Ukraine. It is the most likely candidate for the event which led to Sullivan’s departure given his actions as National Security Advisor.

I think there will be a full FBI investigation, and even when they find the person who spread the information directly to the press, they need to look at the chain of command and prosecute every single person who gave improper access to such a document.

I do not know for sure if he is guilty… but there is a heluva lot of smoke coming from the National Security Advisor right now. There is enough evidence from his public actions regarding Ukraine over the last 13 years to make him a suspect. He needs to be investigated.

The FBI needs to find the mole as soon as possible. The world’s security depends on it.

Nobody is safe as long as somebody in the President’s inner circle is handing out improper clearance to sensitive information.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jake_Sullivan

In comparison to other leaks, this one takes the cake. All leaks not going through official government channels are technically illegal under the Espionage Act. Sometimes they can be considered the action of a whistleblower, which a lot of people debate about the Edward Snowden leaks. Some of the information spread by Chelsea Manning were of a more sensitive nature, but her sentence was commuted by President Obama in the final days of his presidency.

Most importantly to me from an ethical point of view, no one has died because of the information Edward Snowden and Chelsea Manning leaked.

This leak is much more severe than the Manning and Snowden leaks. This one puts people in danger of getting killed. This leak compromises the entire war effort of Ukraine. This is by far in terms of impact to international security the most severe leak in the history of the United States.

It needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Watch this video first. This is a response.

I agree with his analysis. Shirvan is correct that these four states have many conflicts. This has a lot to do with my previous post, where I discussed world superpowers. After looking at GDP, GDP per capita, military expenditure, total area, and population, I found that the United States is indeed the most powerful country in the world. Canada, by my rough calculation, is the second most powerful country in the world, followed by China in third place.

China and Russia are the most powerful authoritarian regimes, followed by Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and Iran. All these countries are part of the “BRICS” group except Venezuela, a suspended member of the Rio Pact.

I think of American alliances in three tiers:

1. The first tier comprises members of ANZUS, NATO, and the Rio Pact, our three extant multilateral and voluntary mutual protection pacts.
2. Our second tier comprises four countries with unilateral protection pacts: Japan, the Philippines, South Korea, and Thailand.
3. Our third tier comprises major non-NATO allies, such as Afghanistan, Israel, and Egypt. They do not have mutual protection pacts with the United States.

Our first tier comprises 18% of the world’s population but 54% of the world’s economy and 59% of the world’s military expenditure.

Our second tier is comprised of countries that were members of SEATO. Adding these four allies brings our total to 23% of the world’s population, 64% of the world’s economy, and 63% of the world’s military expenditures.

If a country was to attack the United States directly, they would be faced with all of these countries at the same time. Certain doom for any country stupid enough to attack us. It is also extremely likely that if a Rio Pact member was attacked, however unlikely, that many NATO members besides the United States would respond, especially Canada which would certainly respond.

A military invasion anywhere in the Americas is a fantastically stupid idea.

Invading basically any democratic country ranked by the Economist with a GDP per capita over $10,o00 is a stupid idea because of the seven which do not have a mutual protection pact with the United States, Austria, Ireland, Cyprus, and Malta are part of the European Union, the European Union surrounds Switzerland, leaving only Israel and Singapore as the only rich democratic countries which are not either a member of or surrounded by a mutual protection pact made of democracies. If they have not already, Mauritius, Malaysia, and Mexico will join this list soon.

So when it comes to this “New World Order” which has been formed to oppose the “American Empire” all four of them are authoritarian regimes. Their GDP per capita is quite low in nominal terms. The difference between nominal and PPP values for Russia is extreme, which is a sign of extreme currency manipulation. China has the same problem to a smaller extent, with PPP values twice that of nominal. This increases the cost of imports, increases the cost of living for the middle class, hinders further economic growth, and limits China’s power. The same problem exists in Iran. North Korea’s economy is so closed we don’t even have accurate GDP figures for it. The only country in Asia which could have a worse economy than North Korea is Afghanistan, which is quickly falling to Russian influence with the Taliban regime.

According to SIPRI, these four countries combined comprise only 17% of global military expenditures, less than the United States’s, which stands at 40%.

If the United States and our allies were more willing to bring more developing countries under our wing as allies, we could quickly prevent their military expansion.

Ukraine is a test of America’s resolve. Russia has been very clear that if we don’t defend Ukraine, they will continue to attack more countries that do not have mutual protection pacts with the United States. Georgia is next on the list.

After Georgia, they will try to colonize a wide array of countries using various economic and military means, moving towards regime change. India’s elections threaten its continued membership in BRICS, and if they elect a more liberal government that fights against corruption, don’t expect China and Russia to take that lightly. Most of these countries are in Africa. Once India goes through a major reform period dealing with corruption, I predict it will leave BRICS. India is a natural ally of the United States and Europe with our shared democratic values. It’s only a matter of time. China and Russia are doing everything in their power to prevent this at all cost.

When India elects a reformer, whenever that is, the United States and Europe will prioritize quickly bringing India into our alliances.

Taiwan is obviously the first target of the Communist People’s Republic of China. This has been their policy since their founding. If  Ukraine loses, expect a full-blown invasion of Taiwan.

The Russian military uses extreme levels of propaganda to convince Americans that they are strong and scary, but in reality, they are actually quite weak relative to the United States when you look at the data.

If we bring Ukraine and Georgia into NATO, there will be no likely targets left in Europe. Georgia and Ukraine can then focus on democratic reforms to bring themselves in line with the EU acquis.

Forming a military alliance with ASEAN would immediately deter China from military incursions into that region.

Mexico is always welcome to rejoin the Rio Pact. The isolation of the Americas means an invasion of any American country is unlikely, but Mexico rejoining our alliance will be meaningful. I believe this will happen someday.

Sri Lanka is the only other Asian democracy left with a population of over 5 million, and it does not have a mutual protection pact with the United States. When they reach out to us, we must respond in kind. It’s only a matter of time.

The remaining democracies, which have a population of over 10 million and do not have an alliance with the United States, are located in Africa. Historically, there is a pattern that as countries develop, their economies grow, corruption declines, their government becomes more democratic, and then they reach out to the United States for deeper relations. The only exceptions tend to be petrostates, like Saudi Arabia and Russia. Georgia and Ukraine did this, and we rebuffed them. When we do this, it slows democratization globally and is a gift to tyrants everywhere. We need to reach back to Georgia and Ukraine, defend their sovereignty, and bring them into NATO.

We must never respond to an olive branch with a flame thrower as we did when Ukraine and Georgia applied to join NATO. That has been a massive failure of foreign policy. We have adopted an adversarial stance against China, especially in our speeches over the last 8 years, but until we respond with as much warmth and welcome to our new friends as we respond to China’s treatment of the Uyghurs with hostility, it will only be an act. We could and should have responded to their rejection of NATO by offering a unilateral mutual protection pact. Bush and Obama did not do that, which was our failure as a country.

We can never do that again. We must quickly and deliberately respond to the warming of relations from democracies that respect their human rights by deepening our relations, starting with military relations and leading with economic relations to help them develop further and grow into free and stable societies people want to live in.

That is how we build a more peaceful world.

When Kamala Harris becomes President in January she has 4 years to have a different approach to power than Biden has sought.

“Unity” is not a Key to the White House. Presidents can and have been elected without bipartisan support.

Kamala’s keys

Harris must pass a major piece of legislation directly affecting Americans. The economy and health care are the top concerns facing Americans. Introduce a public option and extend Medicare to cover long-term care. This is a key to the Presidency.

Maintaining a strong economy for her entire term grants her two keys, for a total of three keys.

I do not think Harris will have a scandal as President. She will then have four keys.

If Harris supports Ukraine fully and they win the war, that will count as a major foreign policy success. She will have five keys.

There cannot be a major military or foreign policy failure while she is President. The Gaza War, the Taliban takeover in Afghanistan, and the Russian invasion of Ukraine are all major foreign policy failures. None of this can be repeated. She will now have six out of thirteen keys.

Six keys to the White House are in the President’s direct control. If a President successfully unlocks those six keys, she is probably charismatic, bringing her to seven.

A charismatic President will not have a serious primary challenger, bringing her to eight out of thirteen keys.

It is also likely that the President will win a Party mandate in the midterm, with a major foreign policy success and a major law passed through Congress in her first congressional meeting, bringing her to nine keys.

A president with a successful foreign and domestic policy will almost certainly run for a second term, ten keys.

She will be popular, and it’s highly unlikely that a third party will do well in the general election, bringing her to eleven keys.

The likelihood of social unrest in such a scenario is non-existent. Twelve keys.

The only key the President does not have direct control over is how charismatic her challenger is, which fully depends on how organized the opposing major party is. But at this point, the President has achieved Twelve keys to power.

Former president mistakes

Donald Trump screwed up the economy with his handling of COVID. This led to social unrest and was a scandal. He likely would have won reelection against Biden if not for his disastrous handling of COVID.

The Democratic Party was disorganized in 2014, which led to its loss in the midterms. This resulted in no major policy change before 2016. Parties need to compete everywhere to win a mandate and pass a major policy. 2016 was a weird election for these reasons.

George W. Bush’s second term was disastrous. The economy was in freefall, and the Iraq War was going badly.

Al Gore had the most keys in 2000. The Electoral College voted against the will of the people.

Bill Clinton won because the economy was in recession in 1992.

Carter suffered from a poor economy. He was unable to pass a major policy change.

Gerald Ford had to deal with the legacy of Nixon’s administration, which he did not handle well.

Nixon won because of protests against the Vietnam War. So, the peace candidate lost due to peace protests. It was a weird election.

The economy was in recession in 1960, and multiple foreign policy failures occurred in Eisenhower’s administration’s last few years.

Truman’s last term had no major policy despite a party mandate, no incumbency advantage, investigations into corruption, and lots of problems, which led to the highly charismatic Eisenhower winning.

Herbert Hoover was a deeply uncharismatic man who presided over a horrendous recession. He had no control over Congress and failed as president, leading Roosevelt to victory.

Woodrow Wilson flipped almost every key to false during his second term. A recession, Republican congress, and social unrest gave the Republicans a win.

Taft had a third-party challenger, a primary challenger, little charisma, and no major policy change.

Over the last 120 years, those are all the times the Presidency has flipped to the other party.

Former Presidential wins

The most notable reelection campaigns are the following:

Obama had only three false keys. Lichtman claims Obama was not charismatic, I’m not sure I agree, and he claims the economy was poor. Obama did fail to maintain control of Congress in 2010, though. Every other key was positive.

Reagan’s reelection and the election of George H.W. Bush were slam dunks.

LBJ in 1964 had almost every key in his favor.

Eisenhower, in 1956, had everything except a major policy change in his first term.

Franklin Roosevelt was a master of the keys, never having more than 2 false keys in his entire Presidency.

Every key was in Theodore Roosevelt’s favor in 1904, the last time a President had every key to the Presidency.

McKinley had three false keys. He supported civil rights and was generally popular.

The results of these presidential administrations are the background for what I think Harris should do so she has a successful first term and an easy path to winning the general election in 2028.

Don’t worry about bipartisanship. Govern well and win.