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.

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.

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.

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.

… using the internet for fake bullshit? Impossible.

Funniest comment I’ve read in a pretty long time, props.

He specifically withheld an order of cluster munitions over concerns the Israelis were using them improperly, well after the invasion was underway.

Not too different from Biden withholding the bomb shipments over Rafah.

A politician loyal to his own laws and courts, sure, I absolutely trust them more. They’re aren’t all, though. Ultimately a terrorist and a politician with no regard for their own law are very similar. Power-mad. A terrorist can even become a politician, it happens sometimes.

Yes, hamas is not good people, I do not trust them. I don’t trust politicians either though, especially the more extreme ones.

That’s why I say what sort of people the Israelis are remains to be seen. We don’t know yet. We won’t know until this is all over and we see what has become of those Gazans that are innocent. Will they be alive or dead? That will be telling.

I’m sorry for upsetting you, but don’t put words in my mouth. I’m not arguing to let Gazans “do whatever they want”, I have not said that or anything similar. If you remember, I said earlier that terrorists need to be dealt with, right?

It’s those innocents, those that are not part of hamas, that’s the sticking point. For whatever good or bad reasons they cannot leave, the fact is that today, they 100% cannot leave. So, they should not be callously butchered and/or starved simply because of what their fathers and neighbors have done.

Not hamas, Gazans that have no hamas affiliation. Could they enter Egypt? Could they enter Israel? Are there any other neighboring countries? Could they get on a boat, or a plane?

While yes, some always stay behind, a great many flee. Most do not stick around. Mariupol was encircled quickly, look at the towns in Eastern Ukraine where they had a lot of warning before the enemy arrived. Jews usually fled, that’s why Israel was founded in the first place, right? A place to flee to.

At any rate, in Gaza, almost nobody has fled. Some should flee, right? But they actually cannot. Physically cannot, prevented by other people.

There’s immigrants moving all over the world, right? Going to Europe, America, etc. Why are Gazans still there, where there’s not enough food, fresh water, there’s only tents to live in, and a war rages around them? Millions of them. Don’t the mothers want their babies to live? Why don’t they flee like everyone else in the same sort of situation?

It’s not hard to answer, just look it up when you get around to it.

I’d say, but I’m trying to wind down the conversation.