Nevada Housing Division Home Is Possible: Fill & Download for Free

USA here, bare with me, this might get a little crazy, because it is hard to imagine some of our neighbors actually attacking us… but here we go.“If your country’s neighbors attacked your country, how screwed is your country?” AHahahahaahhahaha. Oh man. Oh gees. How screwed are we? That is the wrong question my friend. Lets go alphabetically shall we?CanadaOh Canada, America’s hat. To figure out how screwed we are we need to come up with an objective for Canada to attack. Let us assume, that the Canadian government was just fed up with the current US President, and decided it HAD to do something! SO of course they will attack, suddenly and without warning. Attempt to cripple America’s northern military assets, attempt a decapitating strike on the government, occupy the great lakes region and wait for the grateful American populace to rise up and join Canada in the socialist utopia! Free Healthcare for ALL!(Pictured Above: Can-A-Da! Can-A-Da!)Let us see what Canada has to work with here.First, before we get into the military, lets recognize that the US and Canada share a RIDICULOUSLY HUGE BORDER.(Pictured Above: A Ridiculously Huge Border)Going across that massive, stupid large national boundary is the largest exchange of commerce the US (the worlds largest economy) shares with any other nation. This include copious amounts of oil, which fuels much of the US’s energy needs. The first thing Canada could do to hurt us…. is shut the oil off.Ouch, that will be a hit to our economy in the short term.Ok now lets talk military. Currently the Canadian Air Force has in service 76 of these babies.(Pictured Above: CF-18 Hornet)The CF-18 Hornet is a variant of the F/A-18 hornet. The original small one, not the newer Super Hornet. There greatest advantage is being able to fly in US airspace on Day One without us being the wiser.They will use this to great effect in a surprise attack on Fort Drum, and Washington DC, though the DC trip will need some auxiliary fuel. 76 F-18s is nothing to sneeze at. That is more than the complement of a Nimitz Aircraft Carrier, and a strong war fighting force all on its own.Unfortunately for the Canadian Air Force, its life time in this surprise conflict is entirely dependent on the US response time. They won’t be able to take out all the US Air Force assets in the North East in one sortie, and that is all they get before something bad starts happening in return.Next up lets see what the Canadian Army has to throw into the fight. The Canadian Army has about 23,000 active regular duty soldier, another 19,000 in reserve and 5,000 rangers. I am going to assume Canada is using every single one of them.The Canadian 2nd, 3rd, 4th and 5th divisions are all going to be heading south. 2nd out of Montreal is will positioned in Niagara prior to the initiation of hostilities, and attempting to occupy Niagara and capture the Air Base there, and threaten Buffalo. the 3rd and 4th will be positioned further East on the NY-Canada border and drive straight for Fort Drum and the 10th Mountain Division, the most readily available US Military Force to threaten operations in Western and Northern NY. Fort Drum will be on the receiving end of some of those CF-18s to support this move. The Canadian 5h will be moving further west, on the other side of the great lakes towards one of the other strategically important border crossings… take your pick it really doesn’t matter, you’ll see why shortly. Canada has no major armored force to speak of, a marginally artillery force, and few heavy combat troops. These divisions will largely be organized as Mechanized Infantry with anti-tank rocket forces to handle opposing armor and native artillery assets for fire support. Oh my brother’s to the North… I am so sorry its come to this….Fun Fact: This latest American-Canadian conflict is not the first time the US and Canada have gone to war. Not even the second! America has been formally at war with Canada as many times as we have with Germany! (Twice, for those counting at home). The US has tried twice to conquer Canada and failed both times. Unfortunately we have gotten so so SO much better at fighting wars since then….So What Happens?The initial American reaction to Canada’s Shock and Awe (and apologetic?) campaign is…. confusion.(Pictured Above: All of America on D-Day)We first get word of some sort of attacks in DC. First response is “Oh No! Terrorists Again!!!”. But our government officials are even more perplexed when they are told “Those are Canadian planes….”. Now the Canadians might have lost their marbles, but they aren’t stupid. They have a lot of shared intelligence and communication infrastructure with the US, so they will be able to keep things confused for a meaningful amount of time.Unfortunately confusion at the strategic level is not as crippling to the US military as it might be elsewhere. Our domestic defense forces are not what they were pre 2001. Certainly some F-22 would be lost on the ground to the Canadian sneak attack, but they simply can’t destroy them all and still support ground forces and try to take out the evil Trump. Also, lots and lots and lots of combat aircraft are in North America out of their reach, in Nevada, Alaska, California, Texas, So so so many. Within hours, the American skies are cleared of aircraft. All commercial traffic is stopped and grounded. There are now millions of Americans REALLY PISSED OFF and they don’t even know at who or why yet.The Canadian forces reach Fort Drum, and take the 10th Mountain by surprise. Unfortunately for them, US combat soldiers in the Army only do 2 things. Fight Wars, and train to Fight Wars. As such, Fort Drum may not have been prepared, but it is still loaded with a few thousand combat soldiers with lots and lots of weapons, and plenty of Ammo. The Battle of New York is on, and the Canadian offensive meets resistance at day one. Unfortunately Drum does get encircled, and the Canadian forces demand their surrender. The commander of the 10th Mountain would laugh if he wasn’t uncontrollably angry.Which brings us the the downfall of the Canadian offensive. The gross miscalculation on the American response. America has not been hit by surprise attack on its own soil by a foreign nation since WW2. Once it is understood that this was a deliberate attack, by the legitimate government of Canada exercising the will of its people, it won’t matter who is in charge in Washington anymore, there is only one way we could possibly respond.As our other allies look on in stunned silence (OMG a NATO member just attacked another NATO member…. What do we DO???? Wait what was I saying?! Everybody stand real still and try to pretend we’re not here….) America responds.Enter the Air Force. Remember how I said the skies go empty in America? Well that’s just commercial traffic. The AWACS, F-22s, F-15s and F-16s are all up there. And I mean up there, EVERYWHERE.Canada’s air force now counts its life in hours, because it takes less than a day to scrub them from the sky and destroy them on the ground. Do you have any idea how many combat aircraft we have in the US? A LOT. At any given time there are more than 100 operational F-22s, 200 F-15s and I can’t count that high F-16s in CONUS. Operational. Ready to Fly. And they all just got a new job. Oh and those troops in New York? We have a few hundred A-10s on the way…Speaking of those poor guys in Drum, there relief will be coming swiftly. The NY National Guard received emergency activation orders the day of the attack. Similar to our domestic defense forces, this is not the Army National Guard of pre-2001. The New York National Guard has spent the last 15 years fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. More than a quarter of its members are War veterans, with a majority of its combat arms NCO core having combat experience. The 69th infantry in NYC is a Mechanized Infantry Brigade well stocked with weapons and vehicles. The 42nd Infantry Division, headquartered in NY, has its own Aviation support units, artillery, logistics support, engineers, infantry and armor.That is to say, relief troops for Drum sprout up and start gathering by the next day.Meanwhile the 82nd is in the hot seat as a quick reaction force, and begins its 48 hour mobilization. Luckily since the attack is in North America, it can mobilize pretty damn quick. The first response force is in Canada in a couple days, with the rest of the division just driving up after them. The “One division in 30 days” clock ends up being more like 5 days.4th Infantry Division, 3rd Infantry Division, First Cavalry, First Armored, all start prepping for mobilization, drawing ammo and organizing convoys. The Ranger battalion drops in and secure Toronto Airport, and Air Mobility Command has C-17s landing offloading M-2 infantry fighting vehicles and 105mm artillery in hours. The heavy armor convoys up, but Toronto is occupied even before they get there.The battle of New York is resolved before the regular army relief forces make it there, and the 10th Mountain and 42nd ID accept the Canadian 3rd and 4ths surrender. With that threat taken care of, the 10th mountain begins looking towards Niagara, and the air support it was receiving starts hitting the Canadian troops threatening Buffalo.By now most Canadian are thinking “Well shit, this was pretty damn stupid. Lets call the whole thing off.”But here is the problem with that…… America does not take sneak attacks very well. Seriously, look at our history. I’m not just talking Pearl Harbor. Even if the politicians in the US were willing to call the whole thing off and withdraw troops, they would never have the public support of the US citizens. Heck, plenty of US Citizens think Canada might as well be part of the US anyway, and this whole attack would just be a convenient rationalization that a “Free Canada” can not be trusted!Like I said, America has tried twice in our history to conquer Canada. Well, third times the charm.By week 2 there are 50,000 American soldiers at the border or in Canada. Toronto is occupied, Ottawa is being moved on. US forces are securing the oil pipelines, and occupying oil fields. The US Army has taken control of major border crossings, and the politicians in Congress are starting to think about what an “end to the conflict” looks like.Say hello to the new Canadian Territory! We let Quebec become an independent nation, and the rest of Canada gets occupied. It is a hard pill to swallow for a lot of Canadians, and some diplomacy has to go on with our neighbors in the UK who share a Monarchy with Canada, but do you really think that matters to most Americans? (Be honest my fellow Americans reading this at home, did you even realize Canada was still under a monarchy?). Their might be some calls to return Canadian sovereignty, but guess who won’t care? The American people! Canada tried to pull off a sneak attack. America will keep the most heavily populated and industrial places, mostly the major cities near our border. With them will come all of the northern wilderness.It has been a while since we got some new states, maybe in a decade or so we will carve some new ones out of the Canadian Territory. Sorry Canada, no more free healthcare. (Except for Quebec I guess).So, How Screwed Were We? Well our population just went up 10%, we gained massive oil fields, and depending on how much territory we let Quebec keep we are now the largest nation on Earth instead of 3rd. So yeah… Not screwed at all.MexicoOh boy…. Hold on folks, this one is going to be a bit darker.Mexico and America have also been to War before. Unlike Canada though, the US soundly defeated Mexico in our past conflict, and then acquired (stole) a big chunk of land from them. Mexico’s military is laughable under equipped, under trained, and corrupt. But hey you know what, let’s assume the Mexican government figures “Screw Trump and his stupid wall. This is just what we need to unify our people and strengthen our National Identity. We will hit their border stations and secure a buffer at the major population zones. The Americans can do nothing, their fractured political system will never allow it!”And so they go north and tangle with the border patrol. Hit the border barriers to let more people through more easily, and secure privately held lands along the border and occupy them as a buffer against Trump’s “Northern Aggression”.In short, it is President Trump’s birthday and Mexico just gave him the best present of all. After shouting “I told you so! We should have built the wall!!!” about a million times, it is time to get down to business. Let’s take a look at what we are up against.Mexican Air Force:No combat Aircraft.(Pictured Above: Not the Mexican Air Force)They have a bunch of utility aircraft, some UH-60 helicopter, a lot of prop jobs and… that is pretty much it. Ok so no great air war or surprise aerial assaults like from Canada. How about the Mexican Army?The Mexican Army has 10 Brigades, all stationed around Mexico City. Let us assume for their great standoff with America they deployed all ten to their key border occupation zones. That is 25,000 troops consisting of Light Infantry, Mechanized Infantry, Armor, Engineer, and MP Brigades. All the ingredients of an effective fighting force.What’s missing? Air Support. Heavy Logistics. And Air Defense.(Pictured Above: The Mexican Army)They have some independent battalions of scouts, field artillery, armor, etc. These can account for a few thousand additional support troops. Unfortunately for them, they are not safe….anywhere.As they move and secure the border locations, video of the Mexican invasion is live streamed to all the US. Half of the fractured nation is instantly, overwhelmingly pissed off. This would be the half that has been supporting building the border wall. The other half of the nation tries to calm them down, but find they don’t really have a leg to stand on. Still they hope a diplomatic solution can be found…..Unfortunately for them, President Trump now has all the excuse he could ever want to secure the US-Mexico border. Hol-y-Crap did you mess up, Mexico!As before, the National Guard gets emergency orders immediately. But unlike before, there is not any early confusion or an early air attack to soften anything up. At first it is a simple humanitarian crisis as American refugees flee the areas of occupation. Some boarder patrol elements might try to fight the border army, but they aren’t equipped for that fight. Unfortunately for the Mexican Army, there is a whole LOT of US military near that border.Some politicians in Washington might be trying to defuse the situation with the Mexican Government. Trump, however, has the military readying to mobilize. The 1st Cav is ready to go from Fort Hood. The 82nd is ready to hit it as well. The Air Force is prepping strike packages. By day 3, the US military is ready to strike back, and guess what? With foreign soldiers on American soil Trump doesn’t need any approval from Congress to take action.The counter attack is fast and violent. The Mexican military units in the US are either destroyed or scattered, and the Army moves in to mop up. Tanks straight from Texas cross back into Mexico. The 1st Cav and 1st Armored start a drive straight to Mexico City as the 82nd and rangers drop in to the Mexican airport and secure it. Here come those C-17s again.By the time anyone can condemn the US counter attack it is over, and the Army has thousands of soldiers on the Mexican side of the US-Mexico border, and are already clashing with and conducting raids against cartel houses. US border patrol and DEA assets are now integrated into joint forces, and there is a flurry of activity while people in Congress try to figure out what an end to THIS conflict looks like.Trump may have overstepped his authority by invading Mexico, but public opinion will sway in the direction of it being necessary to secure the bases of the Military units that invaded the US. And guess what? They’re all in central Mexico.End State: The United States of Mexico keeps their sovereignty, but the Mexican-US boarder is occupied by US troops for years to come, with the border possibly pushing south and certain border cities becoming long term occupied by US forces for ‘security’. Possibly, they are eventually returned to Mexico, but equally possibly allowed to become US territories and eventually a new state. This would more likely depend on the opinions of the people living there after about a decade of US occupied administration. (They might figure after that they are better off staying as part of the US than returning to Mexico).So how screwed are we? That depends on your opinion of Trump. Because his base loves him, and he was proven right, easily winning a second term and getting everything he has wanted and then some for the southern border.And Mexico pays for it.The biggest downside? The massive humanitarian crisis this creates on our southern border. Civilian casualties would likely be higher than military ones, with the brunt of the pain and suffering being born by innocent Mexican civilians.

I know of no one who does not recognize that Floyd Mayweather Junior is a great boxer - where the argument starts is where in the pantheon of greats Floyd resides.He himself, and his most devoted followers believe he is the best of the best.Almost all experts and most of the rest of us disagree.Why do we disagree with Floyd’s assessment of himself?Because no impartial view of all time greatness has Floyd Mayweather Junior on top. He cherry picked opponents, he demanded fight conditions that favored him, he would only fight in Nevada whose Commission gave him favorable treatment, and more. By no rational assessment is Floyd what he thinks he is.CREDIT PICTURE SPORTS TECHFloyd will never top the vast, vast, majority of lists of all time greats:Floyd never unified a title;Floyd never tried to become undisputed champion at any weight class;Floyd never fought an undisputed champion;Floyd never took a fight he was not convinced he could win; indeed, as noted above, he backed out of a fight with Winky Wright after agreeing to it when he viewed fight films and discovered, hey, Winky could beat him;Also as noted above, cherry picking Floyd refused in his prime to fight welterweights he thought might beat him, such as Paul Williams and Antonio Margarito; he refused to fight Kostya Tszyu, he refused to meet Ricky Hatton at junior welterweight;Floyd refused to meet Sergio Martinez when Martinez held the Junior Middleweight title, and then again when he held the middleweight title, though Martinez offered to meet him at a catchweight; Floyd agreed to fight Winky Wright at junior middleweight, and then backed out;Floyd refused to fight any of the young welterweights who called him out at the end of his career, such as Erol Spence, (who beat his ass sparring), Keith Thurman, Shawn Porter, Bud Crawford, and instead, choose to fight washed up Andre Berto;Floyd fought a complete amateur for his 50th, supposedly record breaking, win;Floyd took a highly illegal IV prior to the Pacquiao fight, which was approved retroactively when the press began to publisize it, special treatment allowing injections and IV’s happened regularly in Nevada with Floyd, when not allowed for anyone else;The only people Floyd ever fought once he became a star, who were the same age and under no preconditions, were women.NO opponent of Mayweather sings his praises as the best of all time, and there is a whole list of who he ever ducked completely, or ducked until time had removed the danger for him, or who he made go up or down in weight, or who he had fight him in Nevada so he could get preferential treatment, and more.First, when people assess Floyd, contrary to what he likes to think, they don’t talk about his boring style, they talk about his wanton cherry pickingThe worst case was Winky Wright. Floyd called him out. Floyd agreed to a contract and a catchweight. Then Floyd began looking at film on Winky, and decided it was way too dangerous a fight and withdrew.NO all time elite fighter calls someone out, hammers out a contract, then runs away because he thinks he can’t win.Lewis Watson, the boxing writer and historian, speaks of the artificial puffing up of records against cherry picked competition, saying:“unbeaten records are fairly padded; you have to look if there are any notable victories coming against first rate competition."He also addressed the myopic claims that Mayweather and other fighters claim multi-division titles by grabbing one of the 68 alphabet titles available - and if you count the Ring's titles, there are 85; (255 if you count super, interim, and regular titles!):“lies won’t penetrate the skin of the boxing community, it will, however, continue to deceive the wider casual public, with the true best fighters on this planet the ones that will feel the negative effect."Kim Hogue says:“winning an alphabet world title doesn’t mean you can become branded as an ‘elite’ fighter by anyone who actually understands boxing."Thornton Clifford writes of Armstrong's feat of holding 3 titles simultaneously:“back then there were eight titles, eight weight classes, total, and he held three of them at once! That would be equivalent to Mayweather holding six of today's weight class belts at once if there was only one title in each weightclass, and if you factor in five organizations awarding titles, he would have to have held 24!"Calling Floyd the best in history when he ducked or avoided 2/3 of the best fighters of his age is ridiculous.The only thing Floyd is greatest at, and unbeaten at, is all time cherry pickingDuran was also brutal about Mayweather’s cherry picking:“He says he’s the best ever but of course we know that he has not fought with anybody.”Roberto Duran Details How He Would Have Beaten Floyd Mayweather | Boxing News and ViewsThe greatest fighters do not duck credible opponents. Mayweather certainly did duck those he thought might beat him.Floyd called out Winky - and then ran for his lifeIn 2005, Mayweather called out Winky Wright, the lineal and formerly undisputed 154 lbs title holder who had just beaten Felix Trinidad at 160 lbs and could point to two wins over Mosely. Wright agreed and within days had his team in the office of Top Rank (Floyd's promoters at the time) offices hammering out the contract for the fight.The details were hammered out: the bout would be at 154 lbs but weigh-ins would be the morning of the bout rather than the day before and Wright would not be allowed to gain more than eight pounds between weighing in and the start of the contest. But Mayweather and Bob Arum suddenly pulled out.Mayweather ducked Winky - as the contract was agreed on, Floyd became more and more uneasy, and he pulled out.That is ducking.It is doubly bad ducking when you, like Floyd, ran your mouth about beating Wright, agreed to a contract, and then backed down.Floyd showed no interest in fighting Kostya TszyuFloyd showed no interest in fighting Kostya Tszyu when both were campaigning near the same weight; Tszyu certainly was willing to fight Floyd, but the ultimate cherry picker had no interest in fighting him.Floyd playing “let’s fight at the weight best for me, and I sure won’t show up within the weight limits!”In 2007, Ricky Hatton wanted to fight Floyd at junior welterweight, and Floyd made him come back up to welterweight in order to get the fight.Juan Marquez had never fought above lightweight when Cherry Pickin’ Floyd wanted to fight him. Did he meet Marquez at Junior Welter? Of course not! He insisted on a contract weight of 144, or welterweight, despite that being two weight classes higher than Marquez had fought at.Having gotten another of his favorable weight restrictions, did Floyd show up and make weight? Of course not! The champion cherry picker showed up at 146.Did the Nevada Commission make Floyd pay a penalty or sanction him? of course not! They allowed him to file an amended contract! (he did pay a contract penalty, to Marquez, but the Commission would have sanctioned anyone else!)Just as the commission allows him to use illegal IV’s and denies his opponents legal medications!And then there was Miguel Cotto - Floyd said no to fighting him at his bestIn 2007-08, Miquel Cotto was the next best welterweight in the world behind Mayweather. A thrilling fighter he had moved up in weight and easily disposed of Carlos Quintana, smashed the over-matched Urkal, stopped Judah and then beaten Shane Mosley in an excellent showing. He was by any definition the most deserving fighter to face Mayweather. There was no reason for the bout not to be made. But Mayweather instead signed for a pointless rematch with De La Hoya.Of course Mayweather did eventually face Cotto but it was years later, and after gruelling wars with Margarito and others had sapped Cotto and he wasn't the same fighter.The 2007-08 version of Cotto with his inside game, hook and versatile jab was a major challenge for Mayweather. The 2012 version may have been good enough to pose Mayweather some problems but he wasn't the same. Mayweather ducked Cotto at his best. There's no other way to put it.Paul Williams certainly pursued the elusive Mayweather, who had no intention of facing anyone he was not sure he could beatPaul “The Punisher” Williams wanted a fight with Mayweather, and tried everything to get that chance. He called him out in interviews, trash talked and said he would do anything to get that fight. Williams was confident that he could one day defeat Mayweather.Floyd never gave him a chance, of course.And what about Erislandy Lara, who chased the cherry picker too?Lara spent 2014 and 2015 pursuing Mayweather, before he finally gave up. He didn’t have a chance, since he was definitely in Floyd’s class as a slick boxer or more.What about when Mayweather let his fans pick his next opponent - then backed down when they picked the lightning fast Amir KhanMayweather posted on his personal Facebook, Twitter and Instagram accounts in2014:“I’m going to let the fans vote. Tell me who I should fight next. Khan or Maidana?”Khan won by 2–1, and trainer Freddie Roach talked about Khan using his speed to beat MayweatherRoach said:“I always thought he could beat him with his speed. I think he’s faster than Mayweather and that’s what it takes to beat him. Floyd might have his hands full on the night.Mayweather evidently thought so too, went back on his word, and scheduled the much easier Maidana.Or Antonio Marqarito, who practically begged Mayweather to fight?In 2006 Bob Arum tried to make a Margarito versus Floyd Mayweather Jr fight, and offered old cherry picking Floyd $8 million, but Mayweather turned it down. Called at that time “the most feared man in boxing” Margarito continued to seek out the best possible opponents and met Paul Williams in 2007, while Floyd made a junior welterweight come up to fight him! What a guy!Or Sergio Martinez, who was willing to come down to whip Floyd?He offered to come down to Junior Middleweight to meet Floyd, and would have gone to 152 even. But Floyd was having no part of the then cat quick Martinez.What about Erol Spence, Terrence Crawford, Keith Thurman or Shawn Porter?While Floyd was declaring his cherry picking self the greatest of all time, every major welterweight was calling him out. Erol Spence beat Floyd up sparring with him - and he was still a kid!Instead of doing what Manny Pacquiao did, and challenging a young lion at 40, old Cherry Picking Mayweather ducked them all, each and every one, and fought a complete amateur and then claimed it was a record breaking victory!And Floyd loved him some catchweights!Ask Canelo who Floyd made shrink to 152. Winky had to agree to come down to meet Floyd - but when Floyd watched tape and discovered Winky at 154 was twice the fighter he was, Floyd did what he did best - ran, ran, ran!Floyd loved waiting till fighters got old, had too many ring wars, or not at allAnd that was a pattern through Mayweather’s whole career - he faced Cotto, Mosley, Pacquiao only when he was convinced time and hard fought matches had diminished them to the point where he was safe in facing them.He didn’t face Paul Williams, Tszyu, Margarito, and most of all, Winky Wright, at all.Let’s not even get started on his favorable treatment by the Nevada CommissionOther than his outrageous cherry picking, his disgusting catchweights, and his fighting amateurs as though it were a mighty feat, nothing is more sickening than the incredible bias shown Floyd by the Nevada Athletic Commission.Yes, the good old Nevada Athletic Commission, known to some as the Mayweather Athletic CommissionThe Floyd loving Nevada Commission made repeated outrageous decisions favoring Mayweather.In other jurisdictions, Floyd couldn’t have gotten shots in his hands immediately prior to fight time, or illegal IV’s, while the same commission, wink, wink, denies legitimate medical care to his opponents.Manny Pacquiao had a Full thickness rotator cuff tear before fighting Mayweather. This injury, will normally present with severe shoulder pain and an inability to lift your elbow away from your body. However, in some cases, the rotator cuff tear is so severe that a significant number of your pain fibers are also torn, which can make use of the arm less painful, but results in extreme weakness.So effectively, Manny fought Floyd with one arm.Because of the injury, and believing if he cancelled or postponed the fight Floyd would never agree to another date, Manny, on the advice of his doctors, requested a shot of Ketorolac, sold under the brand name Toradol, among others, which is a nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug (NSAID), an anti-inflammatory that acts for about 5 days to dramatically reduce inflammation and allow use of a damaged rotator cuff, muscle, et al. It does reduce pain, but that is a side effect of reducing the inflammation so significantly.Ketorolac was patented in 1976 and approved for medical use in 1989. It is available as a generic medication. The primary mechanism of action responsible for ketorolac's anti-inflammatory, antipyretic and analgesic effects is the inhibition of prostaglandin synthesis by competitive blocking of the enzyme cyclooxygenase (COX). Ketorolac is a non-selective COX inhibitor. It is considered a first-generation nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.In the US, ketorolac is the only widely available intravenous nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug.Toradol is perfectly legal, perfectly appropriate for a fighter to use, and not on the list of banned medications or substances in Nevada.Pacquiao’s camp was told by his orthopedist that he could take the injection if he wanted, and the United States Anti-Doping Agency approved the in-competition use of the remedy for the Pacquiao-Mayweather match in a certified document.The problem was that the Nevada Commission claimed the USADA never shared its approval with the state commission, Chairman Francisco Aguilar said, so when Pacquiao’s camp told the commission it wanted the fighter to take the injection at 6:08 p.m. on fight night, the request was rejected.Aguilar said that Pacquiao’s camp noted the possible need for the medication, already approved, on a medical form filled out at Friday’s weigh-in, but a check mark in the “no” box was placed next to the question of whether the fighter had a shoulder injury. Although the commission, with the medical documentation of the medical necessity, and the Anti-Doping Agency's approval, could have waived that mistake, they choose not to.Pacquiao, who does not speak, let alone write, fluent English, depended on his team to fill the paperwork out properly. When they made the mistake of not checking a shoulder injury, the Nevada Commission - the same Commission which allows Floyd to inject his hands prior to fights with pain killers - seized on the technicality, although the drug itself as listed along with the medial and anti-doping approvals, and refused to allow the medical treatment.Floyd got an illegal IV infusion prior to the same fight, but it was okayed retroactively by the Floyd loving Nevada CommissionTo add insult to outrage, Mayweather was allowed to use an illegal IV prior to the right without any sort of repercussions of any kind.Floyd Mayweather received an intravenous injection before his fight against Manny Pacquiao, contrary to World Anti-Doping Agency guidelines. Mayweather received an retroactive exemption for the IV after the fightAgents of the United States Anti-Doping Agency who showed up to give Mayweather a random drug test after the fight’s weigh-in “found evidence of an IV being administered” to the boxer. Nevada State Athletic Commission executive director Bob Bennett told SB Nation, which had broken the story, that USADA did not clarify to the Nevada State Athletic Commission whether Mayweather was actually receiving an injection when the anti-doing agents came to his home, or, he had just received it.In any event, Floyd admitted to receiving “vitamens.”According to Mayweather’s medical team, the fighter was given two composite vitamin mixes for dehydration. While the injections did not allegedly include any banned substances, IVs are still banned under World Anti-Doping Agency and the United States Anti-Doping Agency rules because they are, or can be, used to “dilute or mask the presence of another substance.”Nearly three weeks after the fight, USADA granted Mayweather a retroactive therapeutic use exemption to receive IV injections. USADA told the NSAC that Mayweather had not applied for the therapeutic use exemption until 18 days after the fight, 19 days after his test, and the Commission, the same Commission that refused Pacquiao legitimate medical treatment, approved.The Nevada Commission, either by hook or crook, does everything it can do to tilt the playing field for Mayweather.Injections for your hands? Okay if you are Floyd! But Floyd’s opponents? Forget about it!These kinds of antics definitely affect how people look at Mayweather when assessing his place in history.Floyd in general never took any risks that separates the merely great from the greatest of them allFloyd's cherry picking opponents, and his refusal to ever unify a title, or participate in a fight with one of the undisputed champions, seals his place in history. Most top 50 rankings, like this one, have him around 29, which he is here. (Jake LaMotta is 26, ahead of Floyd as he should be)The Top 50 Pound-for-Pound Boxers of All TimeFloyd's fighting a rank amateur and claiming that as his record breaking 50th win was distasteful. Smart business, but distasteful. As Manny Steward so eloquently said, he :“chose money over glory."Floyd the last 5 years of his career was careful to avoid up and coming fighters like Spence, or Thurman, who would have been a serious risk.Anthony Mason, boxing writer, said:“I think the only way to fairly rank a boxer's place in history is by comparing their résumés. And that does not mean just wins and losses - it is too easy today to fight only has beens or never will be's, and run up the record. Case in point, Floyd Mayweather."Floyd had top 10 talent, but over his career, far less than top 10 performance.NO other top 50 fighter in history picked a complete novice, with no amateur or professional record at all, to fight a record breaking fight with.NO ONE.That antic, and his others in imposing onerous catch weights, and his other antics, are what lowers him in the all time rankings.As Manny Steward so eloquently said:“he chose money over glory."Monte Cox, when compiling the list of all time great welterweights, found Mayweather undeserving:“Floyd Mayweather’s career does not give him a top 10 spot. Luis Rodriguez, for example, had a better career than Floyd beating Emile Griffith, Benny Paret, Hurricane Carter, Curtis Cokes, Georgie Benton and Bennie Briscoe. I cannot in all honesty put Mayweather in the top 10 welterweights based on a career of hand picked opponents and having never unified a major title. Floyd avoided fights with Mosley, Margarito and Pacquiao when they meant something. He waited for these opponents to slow down and fade before considering facing them. Mayweather just does not have the competition to be considered a true all time great. I am not convinced that Floyd would beat any of the top 10 all time welterweights.Cox’s Corner All Time Divisional Boxing RatingsMayweather fan’s primary claim to his greatness is that he never lost, but claiming Mayweather is the greatest of all time because he never lost is idioticBy the logic, any fighter who retired undefeated should be ranked higher than any fighter with a loss, they should all in in the Hall of Fame - only they are not.By the logic that any fighter who retired undefeated should be ranked higher than any fighter with a loss, Jim Barry and Ricardo López must be better than cherry picking Mayweather - they both retired undefeated with more victories than Floyd!Bad logic and it is not so.The five top champions who retired undefeated are:Rocky MarcianoFloyd MayweatherJoe CalzagheAndre WardI would also have to mention Edwin Valero, 27-0-0, the lightweight champion who had just vacated and moved up to light welterweight, and whose retirement came with his suicide, and murder of his wife.I will list the other champions who retired undefeated:Jimmy Barry, 59-0-9 (Bantomweight champion)Kim Ji-Won 16-0-2 (Super Bantomweight champion)Mihai Leu 28-0-0 (welterweight champion)Ricardo López 51-0-1 (Strawweight champion)Terry Marsh, 26-0-1 (Super Featherweight, Lightweight, Light Welterweight champion)Jack McAuliffe 35-0-5 (lightweight champion)Sven Ottke 34-0-0 (Super Middleweight champion)Dmitry Pirog 20-0 (Middleweight champion)Harry Simon 31-0 (Middleweight champion)Pichit Sitbangprachan 24-0-0 (Flyweight champion)There are numerous boxers who never held a title and retired undefeated after a short career.It isn’t your won/loss record which determines greatness, it is who you faced, when you faced them, and who you beat.If Mayweather logic is followed, then Wanheng Menayothin when he retired was the greatest of all time. Wanheng Menayothin, the WBC minimumweight champion from Thailand, retired with his stat-busting 54-0 record. Does that make him the greatest? of course not! He did not face ONE top fighter in his prime!(Then he unretired and promptly lost! Still, no one proclaimed him the greatest when he passed Mayweather’s unbeaten streak!)What do other fighters say?Mike Tyson, in his own, absolutely no hold back way, summed up Floyd, repeated claims that he is the greatest of all time:He's very delusional. Listen, if he was anywhere near that realm of greatness with Ali he'd be able to take his kids to school by himself. He can't take his kids to school by himself, and he’s talking about he's great? Greatness is not guarding yourself from the people, greatness is being accepted by the people. He can’t take his kids alone to school by himself.And Mike added with open contempt:He's a little, scared man. He's a very small, scared man,"Mike Tyson Goes Off on Floyd Mayweather for Saying He's Better Than Muhammad Ali.Sugar Ray Leonard was more diplomatic. He said:Ali is the Greatest of all time, Floyd ain’t.”Sugar Ray Leonard Says Ali is the G.O.A.T., Mayweather Ain'tRoberto Duran laughs at the thought of Mayweather being the best of all time. Speaking in an interview with ESPN Deportes, Duran said:“If Mayweather would have fought me I would have busted all of his ribs. A man who covers up as well as he does you have to throw to the liver, and that is going to give you openings.”Now when you are talking about why people don’t like Floyd, Floyd’s odious personal history comes into play.Floyd and violence, domestic violence.Since 2002 Mayweather has been accused of violence against women with alarming frequency. (perhaps he learned it from his family - his Uncle has also been charged with incidents of domestic violence)He pleaded guilty in two of those incidents, and in another he was convicted only to have the charges dismissed four years later. The most recent incident, in which he hit his ex-girlfriend in front of two of their children at 5 a.m. in 2010, resulted in a 90-day prison sentence.Those three incidents are:Over a five-month span in 2001 and 2002 he pleaded guilty to two counts of battery domestic violence, a search of his criminal record on the Clark County website shows. He received 48 hours of community service and two days of house arrest. Three other charges — stalking, obstruction of a police officer, and violation of a protective order — were dismissed. According to the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Melissa Brim, the mother of Mayweather's oldest daughter, was the victim. She later claimed in a lawsuit that Mayweather "swung open a car door, hitting her jaw, pushed her into the car and punched her several times in the face and body," the Review-Journal reports. That lawsuit was dismissed in 2003, according to the Review-Journal.In November 2003 Mayweather was arrested and charged with two counts of battery for allegedly fighting with two women at a Las Vegas nightclub. He was later convicted of misdemeanor battery and ordered to serve 100 hours of community service, the Associated Press reported at the time. According to the AP, one of the accusers, Herneatha McGill, testified that Mayweather "punched [her] on the cheek, and then punched [Kaara] Blackburn on the back of the head as she tried to help her friend." A search of Mayweather's criminal record shows these charges were "dismissed per negotiation" in 2008. (settlements to the victims were reportedly involved)In December 2011, Mayweather pleaded guilty to one count of misdemeanor battery domestic violence and no contest to two counts of harassment for hitting the mother of three of his children, Josie Harris. He was sentenced to 90 days in jail and released after 60 days. Mayweather allegedly threatened to kill his ex-girlfriend, Josie Harris, pulled her hair and threw her to the floor at her home. The Clark County criminal complaint alleged Mayweather Jr. told Harris he would make her and her new boyfriend “disappear.” Felony coercion counts were filed, alleging Mayweather Jr. threatened to beat his two sons if they left the residence or called 911 during his verbal and physical attack of Harris. In December, 2011, Mayweather pleaded guilty to one domestic violence charge and no-contest to two harassment charges.One of Mayweather's sons saw the fight, ran out of the house, and alerted a friend of his mother's, who called the police, according to the police report.Harris told Yahoo's Martin Rogers in 2013, "Did he beat me to a pulp? No, but I had bruises on my body and contusions and [a] concussion because the hits were to the back of my head. I believe it was planned to do that, because the bruises don't show."Harris had "redness on her face and a large contusion to the right side of her forehead and chin" when she was examined at the hospital, according to the incident report.https://i.usatoday.net/sports/Investigations-and-enterprise/Mayweather-Documents_Part2.pdfOutside of these three incidents, Mayweather has been accused of domestic violence numerous other times. Deadspin published an exhaustive report of these accusations in 2014.According to their report, which is massively detailed, Mayweather has been accused of violence against women seven times in the last 13 years, including a 2005 incident where he was found not guilty of battery after Harris recanted an allegation that he hit and kicked her outside a club.The Trouble With Floyd MayweatherFloyd is the greatest businessman-boxer of all time, and the best of his ear, (though not the greatest boxer of all time, clearly), but his personal life, for all his money, has been marked by disgraceful bouts of domestic violence.But it is hard, when you study his past, not to believe violence would be an inevitable part of Floyd's life, and to not to feel some sadness for a two year old who was held as a human shield by his Dad, and his mother, who after failing to get the Father to let him go, okayed her brother shooting Dad anyway.Finally, any assessment of all time greatness generally takes social impact into account as well as ring accomplishments. What did the fighter do to make the world a better place?His boxing related antics alone will assure that Floyd is never, ever, considered for the GOAT. He simply does not belong in that august company. But when you add in the other factors, it is simply no wonder why a lot of people detest FloydCREDIT TO:Boxrec for statistic, records and rankingsAli: A Life by Jonathan EigFOX Sports - Sports News, Scores, Schedules, & VideosCox’s Corner and Monte CoxDan Rafeal and ESPN “Manny Pacquiao has shoulder surgery” (May 6, 2015)Floyd Mayweather received banned IV fluids before Pacquiao fight by Thomas HauserListon and Ali: The Ugly Bear and the Boy Who Would Be King by Bob MeesMayweather had banned IV before Pacquiao fightMike Tyson Goes Off on Floyd Mayweather for Saying He's Better Than Muhammad Ali.Roberto Duran Details How He Would Have Beaten Floyd Mayweather - Boxing News and ViewsRotator Cuff Tears by J. Miller, Clinical PhysiotherapistSports Illustrated with Thomas HauserSugar Ray Leonard Says Ali is the G.O.A.T., Mayweather Ain'tThe CodeThe Greatest: My Own Story by Muhammad Ali

Original Question: How many electoral votes will Trump win in 2020?Thank you for the A2A, Jeffrey HoffmanNOTE: This answer has been updated of September 8, 2020. See UPDATE - Tuesday, September 8, 2020 below.This is an incredibly complex question. I had started to answer it for myself, but since you asked…I considered five basic scenarios and eighteen Democratic candidates. I did not consider celebrity or non-professional candidates as I am thoroughly convinced that any such candidate would do worse than even the least desirable of the candidates I evaluated. Also, there are other Democratic Candidates out there. It should be fairly easy to interpolate. For instance Kirsten Gillibrand should do better than Kamala Harris, but not as well as Gina Raimondo or Maggie Hassan. It is a simple fact that governors do better in general elections than senators.So the five scenarios I evaluated are these:The Baseline Scenario - This is the current situation played out until 2020. It assumes no major changes in the national status quo, no major crises, and no major political crisis or scandal. There is no commentary implied on the likelihood of this occurring.The Conditions Improve and Divisiveness Abates Scenario - As the 2018 Midterm Elections showed, if Donald Trump does not take his foot off of the divisiveness gas pedal, he will lose big time in 2020. Maybe that is not obvious, but when I dug into the numbers, it became obvious—for at least some Democratic candidates. But if economic conditions continue to improve, and Trump begins to act like a decent human being, then no Democrat can win.Divisiveness Increases - This is a double-edged sword for Trump. It will work for him if the Democrats nominate a controversial, far-left candidate—or Hillary Clinton. If the Democrats nominate a governor, however, this strategy will come back like a boomerang and rip Trump to shreds. His best strategy would be to be a decent human being from now until 2020. The question is, does he have it in him? And if he does not, can the Democrats maintain the discipline to nominate a governor?Economic Conditions Worsen - This is where things get worse economically for many Americans, but there is not a complete economic meltdown. Even if it is not a total disaster, these conditions would make re-election difficult for Trump. Stll, the Democrats can still lose if they nominate a left-wing nutjob. Again, the Democrats would do best to nominate a governor. But on the good side, if the Democrats prove to the nation that they are serious by nominating a governor, any meaningful decline in the economy shifts Ohio to the Democratic column, and that is huge.Economic Collapse - Yes, even Hillary Clinton and Elizabeth Warren win if there is an economic meltdown. But that is essentially the only circumstances in which they win. We can add Kamala Harris, Eric Holder, and Bernie Sanders to that list. In short, if there is an economic collapse, the Democrat is going to win. That is, unless they do something incredibly stupid like appear to be cheering for an economic collapse.So for each of these five scenarios I am going to provide a generic map for that scenario and a projected Electoral Vote count for each of my eighteen candidates. The map should be intuitive. Darkest blue means voting will be heavily Democratic, while the darkest shade of red means voting will be heavily Republican. The two darkest shades mean essentially that the other party’s candidate has no chance of winning. For lighter pure shades, it means that the other party’s candidate cannot win in a straight-up head-to-head matchup, but the introduction of a significant and appropriate third party candidate could change the balance. For colors that are more pink or purple, that means an extraordinary candidate of the opposing party could win in a head-to-head matchup. Such candidates are very rare. At this time, I do not believe that the Democrats have such a candidate, but I have a remark about that at the end.For notes on my model see the endnotes.With that said, here are the scenarios:Baseline ScenarioGeneric DemocratStates too close to call: Florida, WisconsinBest Guess: Florida goes to Trump, Wisconsin to the DemocratResult: Democrat wins 279–259My Candidate List:Joe Biden - no cliffhanger races. Result. Biden 298 - Trump 240Kate Brown (Gov. OR) - Wisconsin too close to call. Best guess: Wisconsin will vote for Governor Brown. Result: Governor Brown 279-Trump 259. If Wisconsin goes Trump, the election is a dead heat and goes to Congress where Trump will win. This is because the Republicans will control a minimum of 26 of the State Congressional Delegations, and when electing the President, each State (not each member of Congress) gets one vote.Steve Bullock (Gov. MT) - Florida too close to call, but it only affects the Electoral Vote count. With Florida Governor Bullock wins 311–227. Without Florida, Governor Bullock wins 282–256.John Carney (Gov. DE) - Florida too close to call. This is like Kate Brown with Wisconsin. If Governor Carney wins Florida, he wins the Presidency, 298–240. If he loses Florida, the election goes to the House and Trump wins. It really just is too close to call from here.Hillary Clinton - Colorado too close to call. This a very bad sign for Ms. Clinton, but even if she wins Colorado, she still loses as the election will then go to the House where Trump will win.Roy Cooper (Gov. NC) - Roy Cooper is the governor of the surprisingly purple North Carolina. The Republicans are trying to hold on to power, but their grip is weakening. Roy is potentially a divide-healing type of President. Assuming he runs a solid campaign there are no toss-up states, and he beats Trump solidly. Cooper 323-Trump 215.Andrew Cuomo (Gov. NY) - Florida too close to call. Another one that if Cuomo wins, he wins the election and if he does not the election goes to the House. Like with Carney, it is just too close to call from here.Kamala Harris (Sen. CA) - Essentially the same result as Hillary Clinton. Colorado too close to call, but it does not make a difference, because even if she wins, the election deadlocks at 269–269 and goes to the House, where Trump wins.Maggie Hassan (Sen. NH, fmr Gov. NH) - Florida too close to call, but it does not make a difference. With Florida, she defeats Trump 308–220. Without Florida, she defeats Trump 279–259.John Hickenlooper (outgoing Gov. CO—term limited) - This is the candidate who would scare the living crap out of me if I were a Republican strategist. The reason why is the races he makes too close to call: Texas, Arizona, Iowa, and Florida. The other reason is that without winning any of those states he still defeats Trump 282–256. If he runs the table on those states, he defeats Trump 366–172. Even if we say Texas is too tough a nut to crack, Hickenlooper still defeats Trump 328–210.Why you ask? Because Hickenlooper won’t come across as an East Coast or a West Coast liberal elite. He can just say time and time again, “Here is what we did in Colorado…” Governor Hickenlooper is pretty popular in Colorado, and more importantly, he got things done.Eric Holder (fmr AG) - No races too close to call. Trump defeats Holder 278–260.Jay Inslee (Gov. WA) - Inslee is a under the radar kind of political talent. Does he have the kind of talent to go prime time? He was chair of the Democratic Governor’s Association this year. How much of a role did he play in the Democrats gaining back 7 governorships? I do not have an answer to that, but if he did have a part in it, he’ll have a lot of friends if he runs.But my model does not take that into account. Just on the fundamentals. Montana and Florida would be too close to call, but it would not matter. Inslee would defeat Trump 279–259 even without those two states. My bet is that Inslee takes them both, and defeats Trump 318–220.Phil Murphy (Gov. NJ) - The most difficult thing to imagine here is Phil getting the Democratic nomination. The fundamentals say that Wisconsin and Florida are too close to call, but if Phil can grab the Democratic nomination, either he will do so by moving to the left, in which case he will lose both and the election, or he will stake out a position in which he is successfully able to tell the Democrats they need to grow up. If he can do that, he wins both.I say the most likely result is that he does not even run, but if he does, and if he is the nominee, flip a coin. He is either going to win 318–220 or lose with the election going to the house.Ralph Northam (Gov. VA) - Like Phil Murphy of New Jersey, Governor Northam’s biggest challenge would be getting the Democratic nomination. If somehow he could, then the only race that the fundamentals say is too close to call is Wisconsin. But I believe the same thing holds as with Governor Murphy. If Governor Northam can run on a pragmatic platform instead of a looney left platform, he will do well in Wisconsin, and with Wisconsin, he would defeat Trump 308–220.Deval Patrick (fmr Gov. MA) - Unfortunately for the very talented Patrick, he seems to be the man nobody wants. His own party would be very unlikely to nominate him, and in the General Election, he’d carry the “taint of Obama”—yes, there would be racial issues, but it is their personal relatioship that would hurt Patrick as well. He and Obama are friends, and the Republicans would play that to the hilt. Result? No races too close to call. The election deadlocks at 269 and Trump wins in the House.Gina Raimondo (Gov. RI) - for slightly different reasons, including some scandals, she’d finish exactly as Deval Patrick would, with the election going to the House where Trump would win.Bernie Sanders (Sen. VT) - Bernie Sanders also loses even if he wins Colorado, as again, the election would deadlock and go to the House.Elizabeth Warren (Sen MA) - Same result as Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, an outright loss if she loses Colorado, or a loss in the House if she wins Colorado.Conditions Improve and Divisiveness AbatesGeneric DemocratStates too close to call: Colorado, Michigan, NevadaBest Guess: All three go to Trump unless he rapes a veteranResult: Trump wins 320–218My Candidate List:Because this would be such a shellacking, and because the results are so uniform, I am only going to mention those who deviate significantly from the “generic Democrat.”Steve Bullock (Gov. MT) - Governor Bullock wins Colorado and brings Wisconsin into the “too close to call category.” Best guess? Bullock wins Nevada, but loses the election to Trump 305–233.Hillary Clinton - Ironically, this makes things no worse for Hillary Clinton. She still loses, but almost assuredly loses Colorado and the election outright.Roy Cooper (Gov. NC) - Roy Cooper could make this one interesting. In one sense, I do not believe it is possible to defeat Trump if conditions are good, but the model I used gives Roy Cooper a chance to win this one. Why? Because North Carolina, his home state, is worth 15 Electoral Votes. And the model I used not only puts him into “too close to call” races in Colorado, Michigan, and Nevada, it also puts him into “too close to call races in Wisconsin and Florida. I can understand Florida, given that Governor Cooper is from North Carolina. I’d really have to dig through the model again to see why, but my sense of Wisconsin is that he is precisely the kind of Democrat who would play well here. If Governor Cooper ran the table on his too close to call races, he would defeat Trump 303–235. Even if we took away Florida, Cooper still wins 274–264. Governor Cooper could in theory pull this off, precisely because North Carolina is his home state.As I said, it could be interesting.Maggie Hassan (Sen. NH, fmr Gov. NH) - The thing that would keep Maggie Hassan from even having a shot in this scenario is that she is not from North Carolina.John Hickenlooper (outgoing Gov. CO—term limited) - Ditto on what I said for Maggie Hassan. He’s a tad closer—Colorado is a guaranteed win, but too little, too late.Divisiveness IncreasesAlways a possibility with Trump. The red states get redder. The blue states get bluer, and the purple states get more purple. Ohio is fundamentally a purple state that votes according to the condition of the economy.Generic DemocratStates too close to call: Arizona, TexasBest Guess: Arizona goes Democratic, Texas stays RepublicanResult: Democrat wins 296–242The reason Texas is too close to call is that if this gets more divisive, the issue is likely to involve immigration, and that could draw Latinos to the polls. That could be bad news for Trump.My Candidate List:Joe Biden - Florida too close to call. With Florida, Biden 304-Trump 234. Without Florida, Biden 275-Trump 263Kate Brown (Gov. OR) - Iowa too close to call. With Iowa, she wins 285–253. Without Iowa, she wins 279–259. Note, she does this without winning either Florida or Ohio. Welcome to the new normal.Steve Bullock (Gov. MT) - Texas, Arizona too close to call. If he loses both, Bullock defeats Trump 306–232. If he wins both, he defeats Trump 345–183. If he only wins Arizona, he defeats Trump 317–221.John Carney (Gov. DE) - Being that he is an Eastern governor, there will be no races too close to call. Even losing both Florida and Ohio, Carney defeats Trump 285–253.Hillary Clinton - No races to close to call. The election deadlocks at 269 and it goes to the House, where Trump wins.Roy Cooper (Gov. NC) - My model in this scenario does not even hedge—it outrights Texas to Governor Cooper. The only race that would be too close to call would be Arizona, and so the question is, does Governor Cooper defeat Trump 385–153, or does he defeat Trump 396–142?Andrew Cuomo (Gov. NY) - Same result as John Carney. Governor Cuomo defeats Trump 285–253.Kamala Harris (Sen. CA) - Same result as Hillary Clinton: the election deadlocks at 269–269 and goes to the House, where Trump wins.Maggie Hassan (Sen. NH, fmr Gov. NH) - Much like Governor Carney or Cuomo, but Arizona is too close to call. If she wins Arizona, she defeats Trump 296–242.John Hickenlooper (outgoing Gov. CO—term limited) - The numbers are not as strong in this model as they are for Roy Cooper, but Governor Hickenlooper still wallops Trump 352–186, or 355–183 if he wins Montana, which I believe he would.Eric Holder (fmr AG) - Colorado too close to call. Trump defeats Holder 278–260.Jay Inslee (Gov. WA) - Inslee could put up big numbers in this situation, but the model suggests it is a lot more uncertain than with Roy Cooper and John Hickenlooper. The races that would be too close to call are Texas, Arizona, and Ohio. Most Democrats (except Cooper and Hickenlooper) lose Ohio in this scenario. With Governor Inslee, the State is too close to call. If he runs the table on these states, he defeats Trump 342–196. If he loses all three, Governor Inslee merely defeats Trump 285–253.Phil Murphy (Gov. NJ) - Like Carney and Cuomo, Murphy defeats Trump 285–253.Ralph Northam (Gov. VA) - Florida and Ohio too close to call. With them he defeats Trump 385–153. Without them he defeats Trump 338–200. It is more likely that Governor Northam would take Florida than Ohio if he only took one, so the intermediate result would be Governor Northam 367-Trump 218.Deval Patrick (fmr Gov. MA) - Proving that class and region have become more important than race (race is tied to region in importance) former Governor Patrick would defeat Trump 285–253, just like the other three Eastern governors would.Gina Raimondo (Gov. RI) - My model suggests that with Governor Raimondo, she would lose both Ohio and Florida, and Wisconsin would be too close to call. Still even if she lost Wisconsin, she’d defeat Trump 275–263.As a resident of Wisconsin, I can honestly say that I have mixed feelings about that result. It could go that way. Wisconsin is very unpredictable when it comes to women politicians. It does decide on an individual basis, but once Wisconsin decides it does not like a woman, there is no redemption. So, the “too close to call” feels right. Wisconsin does not know Governor Raimondo, and as they have not made up their minds, one cannot predict what they would do.Bernie Sanders (Sen. VT) and Elizabeth Warren (Sen MA) - Election deadlocks at 269 and Trump wins in the House.Economic Conditions WorsenGeneric DemocratStates too close to call: MontanaBest Guess: Montana goes Democratic. As it is a 3 Electoral Vote State, and given that this election is likely to be lopsided, it does not matter much.Result: Democrat wins 361–177My Candidate List:Joe Biden - The model is giving me North Carolina and Wisconsin as too close to call. The results are the same as the “divisiveness increases” except that Florida moves from the “too close to call” category to a likely Democratic win. Arizona moves into the “too close to call” category. So Joe either defeats Trump 315–223 or 304–234.Kate Brown (Gov. OR) - Results are similar to Vice President Biden except that Wisconsin becomes a likely Democratic victory, and Arizona a likely Republican victory, so that Governor Brown defeats Trump 314–224.Steve Bullock (Gov. MT) - No races too close to call. He defeats Trump 361–177.John Carney (Gov. DE) - No races too close to call. Carney defeats Trump 347–191.Hillary Clinton - Hillary cannot even win this one. The election deadlocks at 269 and it goes to the House, where Trump wins.Roy Cooper (Gov. NC) - Here is a case where Trump could really be poised for a slaughter. Georgia and Montana are too close to call. I believe Governor Cooper wins both of those races and soundly thrashes Trump 415–123.Andrew Cuomo (Gov. NY) - Same result as Kate Brown. Governor Cuomo Defeats Trump 314–224.Kamala Harris (Sen. CA) - Same result as Hillary Clinton: the election deadlocks at 269–269 and goes to the House, where Trump wins.Maggie Hassan (Sen. NH, fmr Gov. NH) - Montana and North Carolina too close to call. I believe she wins both of those races and defeats Trump 361–177.John Hickenlooper (outgoing Gov. CO—term limited) - Because of the close regional connection, Governor Hickenlooper draws Missouri and Kansas into the “too close to call” camp. If he wins both of those, he can finish as well as Roy Cooper, defeating Trump 415–123.Eric Holder (fmr AG) - Colorado too close to call. Trump defeats Holder 278–260 or the race deadlocks at 269 and Trump wins in the House.Jay Inslee (Gov. WA) - No races too close to call. Governor Inslee defeats Trump 361–177.Phil Murphy (Gov. NJ) - Montana too close to call. Governor Murphy defeats Trump 347–191 or 350–188.Ralph Northam (Gov. VA) - Texas and Montana too close to call. Probably he is more likely to win Montana. So the three outcomes are: Northam 388-Trump 150, Northam 350-Trump 188, and Northam 347-Trump 191Deval Patrick (fmr Gov. MA) - North Carolina and Florida too close to call. Hard to say which he would be more likely to win. The four possible outcomes are then: Patrick 347-Trump 191, Patrick 332-Trump 206, Patrick 318-Trump 220, and Patrick 303-Trump 225.Gina Raimondo (Gov. RI) - Florida, Ohio too close to call. Even without these states she defeats Trump 285–253. The three other possibilities are: Raimondo 332–206, Raimondo 314-Trump 224, and Raimondo 303-Trump 235.Bernie Sanders (Sen. VT) - Florida too close to call. If he wins, he defeats Trump 298–240. If he loses, the race goes to the House where Trump wins.I would bet on Bernie losing Florida.Elizabeth Warren (Sen MA) - Election deadlocks at 269 and Trump wins in the House.So even in an economic downturn, the Democrats can lose if the nominate a looney lefty.Best to nominate a governor.And finally:Full-Blown Economic CollapseThe kind we saw in 2008—or worse.Generic DemocratStates too close to call: Alabama, Louisiana, South CarolinaBest Guess: It really depends on the Democratic Candidate, but a “generic Democrat” will win Louisiana and Alabama and lose South Carolina.Result: Democrat wins 451–87My Candidate ListWe note that every Democrat wins in a full-blown economic collapse, even Hillary Clinton or Elizabeth Warren. But it would still be best to nominate a governor, who will enjoy much greater confidence, and will have much stronger coattails.As a result that governor will be better able to get things done.Joe Biden - South Carolina too close to call. So it is either Biden 359-Trump 179 or Biden 350-Trump 188.Kate Brown (Gov. OR) - South Carolina, Montana and Arizona would be too close to call. Governor Brown’s best outcome is Brown 373-Trump 165 and her worst is Brown 350-Trump 188.Steve Bullock (Gov. MT) - Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and South Carolina too close to call. Governor Bullock’s best outcome is Bullock 465-Trump 73, and his worst outcome is Bullock 423-Trump 115.John Carney (Gov. DE) - South Carolina, Georgia, and Texas too close to call. Governor Carney’s best result would be Carney 443-Trump 95, and his worst result would be Carney 380-Trump 158.Hillary Clinton - With this model, Hillary wins. The model pushes South Carolina into a “too close to call,” but I do not buy that. so I am going with the singular result Clinton 335-Trump 203.Roy Cooper (Gov. NC) - With only Alabama and South Carolina too close to call, and thus with a narrow range, Roy Cooper would destroy Trump. The difference between the best and worst outcomes is 18 Electoral votes: either Cooper 465-Trump 73, or Cooper 447-Trump 91.Andrew Cuomo (Gov. NY) - I do not buy that South Carolina would vote for Andrew Cuomo either, so I am going with the singular result: Cuomo 364-Trump 174. Very close to Barack Obama’s 2008 numbers.Kamala Harris (Sen. CA) - I am not sure why my model is giving South Carolina to liberal Democrats in the case of an economic collapse. I just do not buy it, so the result here would be Harris 346-Trump 192Maggie Hassan (Sen. NH, fmr Gov. NH) - No states too close to call. Governor Hassan defeats Trump 418–120.John Hickenlooper (outgoing Gov. CO—term limited) - States too close to call: Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, and South Carolina. Best outcome: Governor Hickenlooper 460-Trump 78. Worst outcome Governor Hickenlooper 418-Trump 120.Eric Holder (fmr AG) - No states too close to call. Holder 350-Trump 188.Jay Inslee (Gov. WA) - Georgia and South Carolina would be too close to call. His best outcome is Inslee 443-Trump 95 and his worst is Inslee 418-Trump 120.Phil Murphy (Gov. NJ) - Same results as Jay Inslee.Ralph Northam (Gov. VA) - Alabama, Louisiana, and South Carolina too close to call on the fundamentals, but I go with him winning those races. Governor Northam 465-Trump 73.Deval Patrick (fmr Gov. MA) - Texas and South Carolina too close to call. This one I buy. Governor Patrick’s best possible result is Patrick 411-Trump 127, and his worst possible result is Patrick 364-Trump 174.Gina Raimondo (Gov. RI) - Very similar to Governor Patrick, except that the model does not give her a chance of winning Texas, and thus, I discount South Carolina as well. Result: Governor Raimondo 364 - Trump 174.Bernie Sanders (Sen. VT) - The model says South Carolina and Arizona are too close to call. I do not buy either of those. I think perhaps, I did not tune the “socialism” parameter for Arizona high (or low) enough. Result? Sanders 350-Trump 188.Elizabeth Warren (Sen MA) - This is the only way Senator Warren wins. And as she has throughout, Senator Warren wins and loses exactly where Secretary Clinton does. Both are equally divisive figures, and both are perceived by the nation as a whole as being extremely liberal. The fact that Hillary Clinton is not does not seem to matter much.Result: Warren 335-Trump 203.For other candidates, it is easy to find a match. I’d put Kirsten Gillibrand in between Kamala Harris and Gina Raimondo, perhaps closer to Governor Raimondo. I would put Cory Booker roughly equal with Governor Raimondo, slightly behind Governor Patrick, because he has never been a governor. Amy Klobuchar, I would put right in with Senator Gillibrand.For any Democrats who may be offended by my numbers, keep in mind I am speaking about the General Election here, not the Democratic Primaries.Also keep in mind that none of this factors in personality. Personality probably cannot bump these numbers up very much but it can certainly take a chainsaw to them. For the most part this should not be an issue as most of these people are governors and have learned how to run a campaign. I am not very familiar with some of these governors on a day-to-day basis as I do not live in their states, but I can see where Governor Cuomo could rub people the wrong way. I have heard the same thing about Governor Raimondo, but I have not seen it myself, so I will withhold judgment in that regard.The Democrats do not absolutely have to nominate a governor to win. But whomever they nominate absolutely cannot be a leftist kook. To a certain extent, the best thing any Democrat can do is to run against Obama and Hillary. Not in a rude or destructive way. Honor them, but make the case that the party has to go in a new direction. That is the case that will win the general election.General Elections matter.Did I mention that General Elections matter?Maybe I should mention that General Elections matter.UPDATE: I was a bit tired when I finished this, and I forgot that I was going to remark on special candidates, and I did not get to that before posting this.My comment on the Democratic candidates is that nobody ever sees a transformative leader coming. In many ways we are ripe for such a leader. The United States goes in cycles with its “Party Systems,” and we are due for another change. Right now we are in the so-called “Sixth Party System” ushered in by Reagan—though the change began with the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s.In general, the odd-numbered Party Systems may be thought of as liberal or forward-looking systems. The even numbered Party Systems may be thought of as regressive or backward looking.Reagan was a perfect even-numbered Party System transformative leader because he was as regressive as they come.Trump appeals to the same demographic as Reagan did, but Trump is a narcissistic incompetent.If there were going to be a transformative Democrat in this election I would bet on one of the four “new Democrat” governors: John Hickenlooper of Colorado, Steve Bullock of Montana, Roy Cooper of North Carolina, or Ralph Northam of Virginia.The reason I say this is that these governors have the potential to be “anti-Reagans” and thus the champions of a new Party System. Reagan was from California, which had formerly been a Republican bulwark. but was turning liberal, even as he ran for President. Colorado, Montana, North Carolina and Virginia have been solidly Republican until recently. Of these, Colorado has come the closest to becoming a blue state. Montana and North Carolina lag behind. That is why in some respects, Roy Cooper has tremendous potential to be a transformative President. If he can bridge the divide—securing the confidence of the Democrats and appealing broadly to the independents—which I believe he would—I believe he could be the symbol of a new American political alignment.I believe any four of these governors have that potential. If it were up to me, I’d put the four of them on stage and see which one Democratic voters prefer, because any one of them would, in my initial estimate, blow away Trump in a general election.For each scenario I started with how I felt that state would vote for a “generic Democrat” against Trump, as Trump is certain to be the nominee, and that is what the question is asking anyway.I then adjusted each nominee’s chances based upon name recognition, region, public persona, political record, sex, race, home state (where appropriate), and background—in other words, the kinds of things that sway voters. Obviously, I could not take into account the kind of campaign the person has run, because we do not know that yet. Usually, however, it is difficult to add to potential outcomes. Better outcomes are more often the result of capitalizing on opponent mistakes.UPDATE - Tuesday, September 8, 2020With the possible exception of Iowa, and possibly a slight “blue-ing” of Florida, none of the fundamentals have really changed from my 2018 estimate. The difference is, we now know who the Democratic nominee is, and we have some idea of the circumstances of this race. I would rate this election as a combination of Divisiveness Increases and Economic Conditions Worsen—possibly bordering on Full Blown Economic Collapse.When I constructed the original scenario, I did not introduce a pandemic into the model. Also, Full Blown Economic Collapse isn’t quite accurate because markets have not collapsed. We are possibly experiencing what economists call a “K-shaped” economy[1][1][1][1] or recovery.Despite that, and with the changes above, the Full Blown Economic Collapse model does seem to provide the closest model.2020If we compare this with RealClearPolitics “No Tossups” Map[2][2][2][2] it seems fairly consistent:I see very little possbiility of movement. Nearly everyone is locked into their candidate at this point, so barring any sort of shenanigans, I would expect this to be the final result: Biden 352 - Trump 186.Footnotes[1] The case for a “K-shaped” recovery [1] The case for a “K-shaped” recovery [1] The case for a “K-shaped” recovery [1] The case for a “K-shaped” recovery [2] RealClearPolitics - 2020 Election Maps - 2020 Electoral College Map[2] RealClearPolitics - 2020 Election Maps - 2020 Electoral College Map[2] RealClearPolitics - 2020 Election Maps - 2020 Electoral College Map[2] RealClearPolitics - 2020 Election Maps - 2020 Electoral College Map