I’d say both the parties are pretty capitalist. The repubs were interested in finding their challenger, they didn’t know who it would be yet. The dems, all the way down to the majority of voters, were interested in supporting their incumbent, not interested in a chaotic primary fight.

I think that’s still largely the case.

So, that’s pretty much the same order as always, not seeing how that helps anyone.

And you can look up who runs if you want. You do not need to see debates to figure it out, someone announces after they file their paperwork, then its up to them to convince people to support them. You’re pretending like the DNC needs to do all this work to serve us up a platter of great options, but ignoring that it’s the candidates that determine how they get received. Don’t forget, most Americans still hate the idea of communism, too, even if they don’t actually know what it is.

This conspiracy theory nonsense is getting tiresome. The real world isn’t that simple.

Okay then, next was SC and Nevada. How far do we have to go before we see these changes? And who was the contender that was hurt by the changes?

That’s funny, I remember Iowa and NH going first like they do every year.

Polling, usually. Otherwise primary results. Most states did have their primary, btw, only a handful cancelled. Each state has their own way of doing it.

Can you name a candidate that was doing well at any point? Better than low single-digits? Dean was the only one I heard much about.

edit: You do remember the write-in uncommitted thing, right? Those were primaries.

Not a lot of options. Gretchen Whitmer perhaps, she can also appeal to moderate independents.

Bernie decides if Bernie runs. He has already said he won’t though, he’d have to change his mind. He’s also getting up there in years unfortunately.

This is true, it is very possible.

One thing not enough people are discussing is the incumbent advantage though. We’d lose that edge, and be subject to the standard backlash-against-the-last-party phenomenon.

We’d need a candidate strong enough to compensate for that lost advantage. And there’s the big problem, dems have had very few strong leaders since Obama retired. Bernie was our strongest, and he’s not even officially a dem.

I’m leery of polls these days. One thing I like about the Bulwark is they do a lot of focus groups, where you can hear from voters at a more detailed level, in their own words.

It’s still not a great method, since its such a small sample size. But I think it’s better than polls of poll-taking Americans.

That actually sounds like a very interesting question. Regular tennis has far greater cardio load and a slower mental pace. Chess is purely cerebral and memory-heavy while being sedentary, while D&D is an exercise in creativity that is also sedentary.

And why? Because Dean Philips was doing so strongly, garnering appeal from progressives with his centrist positions?

If you want strong candidates, they need to run. If nobody good runs, then I think we’ve found the problem.

“Party leaders” did not shove Biden down our throats. Unless you’re arguing that the party leaders of the dems are all the suburban soccer moms of the countries, and their consistency at voting. Then yes, that’s true.

And just pulling in revenues with clickbaity tactics.

Yeah, prohibiting extremely biased sources is probably a good idea, and that list sounds like it has a sound basis.

I agree, that does sound plausible, if they had a listening station nearby.

While I agree with the broad strokes of what you’re saying, we do have enough intelligence penetration into the Russian military to predict an invasion even their own soldiers did not know about. We could potentially find out where their listening stations are. One would have to be very nearby.

Also, we have multiple subs. Revealing one temporarily does not compromise our deterrence. Nor is this move without any value, I think it’s important that we occasionally sabre-rattle back at them. It seems to be a language they understand.

All that said, I doubt nuclear WW3 is around the corner with MAD still being the case. I doubt non-nuclear WW3 is around the corner unless China joins Russia in a military alliance. What I do think is within the next few years is chipping away at the Russian economy and morale of the populace until they sue for peace in Ukraine.

It does not provide the details, but I highly doubt the polling was done anonymously online. You’re right, that would be completely useless.

However, polling done offline also needs to be anonymized, even though it is offline and the pollster knows the identities of the participants, simply to protect them from repercussions.

After WW2 everyone felt really bad. And it was a west-leaning country in a region full of oil and big trade routes.

Most of the calculus has slowly changed over the years. The Congressionally-passed treaties all still remain though.

… using the internet for fake bullshit? Impossible.

Certainly, a journalist could be an asset or informant or whatever you’d want to call it, for an intelligence service. He’s putting himself and his professional reputation at risk though. If the intelligence service wanted x piece of information about whatever, there are simply easier ways to get it. Bribe a Russian.

You don’t need to ask the American guy that everyone already knows about and is probably being watched to go look at it for you.

I also haven’t heard of any journalists being arrested for espionage in the west.