2024, an election for the ages, or aged!

In a much to early review of the 2024 election, I provide my totally uneducated, possibly biased, sarcastic, and pragmatic predictions. 

Listed below are the potential candidates for each parties nomination, according to a variety of sources.

I have them listed in reverse order of age, which is age on January 20, 2025, as well as end of 2nd term.

I'll start with the democrats, and quickly eliminate some. An example would be Michelle Obama, as she has very much made it clear... she is not interested. When I look down the list, I quickly realize some of these names have some traction, but not enough to unseat Biden, imho. 

The intrigue within the democrat ranks, would be the VP choice. Replacing Harris might be considered, but is fraught with peril, regarding demographics. I'll be frank... someone that is not old, not male, and not white. That only leaves a couple of choices... so it will be Harris, imho.

DEMOCRATS...

• Joseph Biden  82.2 ~ 86.2
• Bernie Sanders 83.4 ~ 91.4
• Hillary Clinton 77.3 ~ 85.3
• Elizabeth Warren 75.6 ~ 83.6
• Phil Murphy 67.4 ~ 75.4
• Amy Klobuchar 64.7 ~ 72.7
• Michelle Obama 61 ~ 69
• Kamala Harris 60.3 ~ 68.3
• JB Pritzker 60 ~ 68
• Gavin Newsom 57.3 ~ 65.3
• Cory Booker 55.8 ~ 63.8
• Gretchen Whitmer 53.4 ~ 61.4
• Jared Polis 49.7 ~ 57.7
• Ro Khanna 48.4 ~ 56.4
• Pete Buttigieg 43 ~ 51
• Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez 35.3 ~ 43.3

The actual fun, going into 2024, would be the republican race. Trump clouds up everything for the republicans. For all the talk of someone else, at this point, that does not seem likely. Whether you love him or hate him, he is likely the nominee.

The VP choice, is filled with intrigue. There are many that would not make the grade, for a variety of reasons. With the biggest reason, being Trump himself. You would also have to consider 2028, and who might wish to avoid the VP position in 2024, and focus on that 2028 election.

It matters, as in my lifetime... 

• V.P. Barkley was deemed to old and lost the democratic nomination in 1952.
• V.P. Nixon left office in 1961, and made it to the Presidency, in 1969
• V.P. Johnson, assumed office on death of Kennedy (1963), and was elected in 1964.
• V.P. Gerald Ford assumed the Presidency in 1974, following Nixon's resignation, and lost in 1976.
• V.P. GHW Bush became President in 1989.
• V.P. Biden left office in 2017, becoming President in 2021. 

Other than deaths or resignations, the number is four, across 14 different Presidents. So the odds are not so good, imho.

Then you have the potential candidates for V.P., although Pence seemingly came from nowhere and likely based on donor connections. Then there is the toxic relations with many of the other candidates on this list. Seriously, can you imagine Liz Cheney as a Trump V.P. nominee?

Then there is the potential benefit to the ticket. Most are in republican safe states. Could Youngkin deliver Virginia's 13 electoral votes to the Republicans? Would he influence any other states?

So the V.P. nominee is a crap shoot, imho. 

REPUBLICANS...

• Donald Trump  78.6 ~ 82.6
• John Bolton 76.2 ~ 84.2
• Asa Hutchinson 74.1 ~ 82.1
• Larry Hogan 68.7 ~ 76.7
• Greg Abbott 67.2 ~ 75.2
• Mike Pence 65.6 ~ 73.6
• Chris Christie 62.4 ~ 70.4
• Mike Pompeo 61.1 ~ 69.1
• Tim Scott 59.4 ~ 67.4
• Liz Cheney 58.5 ~ 66.5
• Glenn Youngkin 58.1 ~ 66.1
• Ted Cruz 54.1 ~ 62.1
• Kristi Noem 53.2 ~ 61.2
• Nikki Haley 53 ~ 61
• Chris Sununu 50.2 ~ 58.2
• Will Hurd 47.4 ~ 55.4
• Ron DeSantis 46.4 ~ 54.4
• Vivek Ramaswamy 39.5 ~ 47.5

Now onto the general election. My long history suggests that Democrats will vote Democrat, and Republicans will vote Republican. I cannot believe that many people cross party lines to vote. I will acknowledge that most registrations are based on local politics. 

There are many local races, that are predominately one party locations. Which means the people register to that party, to influence the local primaries. Generally speaking, there are many instances when the winner of the local primary, runs unopposed in the general election.

Nationally, the breakdown of registration is this...

Click image to enlarge

In the last election, the independent vote was split almost evenly. BUT the elections are not based on majority votes, but rather majority Electoral College votes. Please do not start whining about whether it is fair or not... it is constitutional. It's not going to change in the next two years.

So, a look back to 2016... IF about 39,000 votes in a handful of close state races, that went to Trump had voted for Clinton, Clinton would have won that election, with 273 EVs. (Pennsylvania - 22.2k; Michigan - 5.4k; Wisconsin - 11.4k). (Margins were higher, but IF 50.1% had switched votes.)

In 2020, if about 63,000 votes in a handful of close state races, that went to Biden had gone to Trump... Trump would have won the election. (About 21.6k votes in Georgia (5.9k), Arizona (5.3k), and Wisconsin (10.4k) would have tied it, at 269 each. Pennsylvania's 41.4k, would have been over the top, for Trump, at 289.)

Scary ain't it! 

In 2024, pay attention to the "toss-up" states. Arizona, Georgia, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and yes... possibly "hanging chads" Florida. 

Whatever you may think, several factors will weigh heavily on the 2024 election and it should come as no surprise... the hysteria surrounding those several factors. The 2024 election is not a slam dunk for either party. 

The economy will play an enormous factor. At this point, who really knows what will take place, although lies will be the order of the day, from both parties. 

Remember, 2024 will likely hinge on a couple of hundred thousand "independents" in those "toss-up states."

It should be fun to watch. By that, I am hoping to be around to watch it!!

Would Keystone XL Have Helped?

That seems to be all the rage, now with gasoline prices topping the US $5 mark. It seems that everyone can agree, that it is the fault of one political party or the other. So it would seem that allowing the Keystone XL pipeline to be built... would have increased the volume of crude coming into the United States and thereby reduce the price of gasoline.

Except we are exporting crude and petroleum products at an enormous and historical rate. We have exported 920,255,000 barrels of oil and petroleum products since the beginning of March. Certainly we have imported a lot as well. 827,071,000 barrels of oil and petroleum products in that same period. Oh wait... that export number is nearly 100 million barrels higher than the import number.

What would the crude inventory look like... Note the gray area is the 5 year range, both top and bottom, with the blue line being where we actually are and the red line being those 100 million barrels. Note the 5 year is distorted by the sudden drop in consumer demand, due to covid, which would normally be in the 420 million barrel range. Even the past 5 years is distorted in comparison to 7 years ago. (If you struggle with the small print, just click on the image. 

It gets even better as we have exported 86,667,000 barrels of gasoline over that same period, while importing 74,508,000 barrels of gasoline. Oops!

This is why I am having a problem with the idea surrounding the failure to approve Keystone XL as having an impact on our current gasoline prices. 

To be sure, IF we could go back in time and retroactively approve Keystone XL it should reduce the global impact of crude and thereby the price of gasoline, IF everything else remained the same.

To do that, we would need to ignore the shale boom (drill baby drill) and our own Congress in December, 2015, lifted the oil export ban that had been in place for over 40 years and let's not forget the releases of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve (SPR).

Briefly, the Keystone XL was proposed back in 2008, just as U.S. gasoline prices roared past the $4 per gallon mark. Keystone XL was a proposal by what was then called Trans Canada, based in Calgary. It was the 4th phase of the project, which came under fire. Politics in Canada prevents pipelines of this scale from going to their coasts, thus it is almost captive to the U.S. Market. 

It should be noted that XL was struck down in November, 2015.

Here is the gasoline price chart, with some embedded notes from me. (Pardon the penmanship)

Here is the U.S. Production chart without my adding comments, so refer to above dates and times... (Note that dates may not line up and I probably should have marked each)

So while we can blame Obama (Democrat) for the Keystone cancellation, it should be pointed out the repeal of the crude oil export ban... was Republican led. So here is what transpired, regarding exports from the USA.

Then finally, the last part of the picture... crude oil historical inventory.

At that point in time, the drill baby drill people were under severe financial stress and really needed to unload crude via exports. Keystone XL would have added pressure as well, although the XL stood for export limited, which seems like the exports would be limited, but in American terms, Keystone XL (export limited) would have been branded Keystone XI (export inc.) Keystone was a Canadian venture. Granted it was being exported to the USA, but intent was points further. 

And it was clear the aim was to link up to Cushing Oklahoma and the new pipelines being put in place to the gulf coast AND thereby be further exported to parts unknown. Pipelines that had moved crude from the gulf to the interior were being reversed, as part of this plan. Yes, the refiners in the Gulf had established Foreign Trade Zone status, thereby exempting the Canadian crude from export ban. It was a pass through arrangement being planned.

Keystone XL was slated to add 850,000 barrels per day into the mix. Yes, it would have theoretically lowered global petroleum prices, but so would the release of 1,000,000 barrels a day from the SPR. Coupled together, the likelihood was prices being about the same as current, as the need to phase out Russian Crude would be pulled forward.

Just because XL was struck down, does not mean their crude is not making its way to the gulf and the U.S. refineries along the gulf. Remember all the problems with rail tanker explosions and fires? The result was new tanker requirements and the biggest makers of these new tankers were subsidiaries of Burlington Northern, which was owned by Berkshire Hathaway. A lot of money to be made by building these new rail tankers and hauling this crude. It would have been cheaper by pipeline, but politics is politics.

Striking down XL doesn't appear to have staunched the flow of crude oil from Canada...

Then there is this... 

CALGARY, Alberta, March 24 (Reuters) - Canada has capacity to increase oil and gas exports by up to 300,000 barrels per day (bpd) by the end of 2022 to help improve global energy security following Russia's invasion of Ukraine, Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson on Thursday.

It would seem that existing flows were not at capacity, so how would XL have increased the flows?

I can't really see a way around the current price of gasoline at the pump. We may have seen prices lower than 1 year ago and may see prices come down quicker in the fall... but right now, it would likely be the same. 

As usual, there is plenty of blame to pass around and nothing will really be done to alleviate the rise in prices. 

Would Keystone XL have helped? ONLY IF  YOU BELIEVE NONE OF IT WOULD BE EXPORTED OR DISPLACE U.S. CRUDE TO BE EXPORTED. By the way, I have this beachfront property for sale in Death Valley... if you are interested.

If you feel the need to blame politicians, be sure to blame ALL, in my humble opinion. The finger prints of each party are all over the current situation.