Ten oz

Currently there seems to be a lot of political pundits predicting that there will be a lot of of Candidates in the Democratic 2020 primary field but I don't suspect that will be the case. media is reporting a wild Democratic Primary Season because that is what they are hoping for. A Wild Primary season would be great for ratings and views. By Iowa (2/3/2020) I will be surprised if the field is larger than 7-8 candidates. Announcing that one is running and filing the paperwork enables them to start collecting and allocating campaign funds. As some of the campaigns fail to raise supports their candidates will drop. Of the 8 candidates who have currently announced I think only 3 (Harris, Warren, Castro) will absolutely still be running by the time we get to the first the Iowa Caucus. Harris is off to such a strong start I think many of the other serious candidates who have been on fence may decide against running and instead select to be a campaign surrogate. It is worth remembering that media reports often speculated about Biden, Bloomberg, Booker, and Kerry back in 2016 too and none of them ended up running. Clinton, Sanders, and O'Malley were the only 3 candidates who made it to Iowa and O'Malley got 0.07% of the vote there and it ended his campaign. So the Democratic Primary was a 2 person race between Clinton and Sanders. Bernie Sanders was not and currently is not a registered Democrat. To say the Primary was biased for Clinton is a bit silly. Clinton was the only Democrat running for the Democratic party nomination. It goes without saying she would be the preferred candidate. The DNC getting hacked by Russian Intelligence, a anti Clinton media campaign managed by Russian Intelligence, and voter suppression by Republicans were not marketing choices within Clinton's control. Clinton got 65,853,000 votes in 16'. In 2012 Obama received 65,915, 000. For all the total about all of Clinton's mistakes there really wasn't much of a difference between 2012 and 2016. I think the media runs with whatever narrative is most click worthy and the narrative that Clinton messed up by doing X,Y, and Z was simply better click bait than the more complicating ones relating to Russian interference and and our (USA) convoluted electoral process which is highly susceptible to local political manipulation. Easy answers make better headlines.

I don't think O'Rourke should run. The Presidency isn't a consolation prize to the White House. I am excited at the prospect of Texas turning Blue but feel that came be accomplished if O'Rourke strong gets behind Castro (who is already in).

I found this an interesting read.

Due to our 2 party system politics are generally filtered through a binary paradigm. Left vs right, Conservative vs Liberal, Red vs Blue, and etc. In the context of how the general public feels about the Russian interference I don't think Sanders not formally being a Democrat matters. Sanders represents Left, Liberal, and blue much as anyone else. As for what Democrats have done related to Bernie Sanders: They gave Sanders a leadership position in the caucus, Link. Democrats made changes to super-delegates as a concession to Bernie Sanders and his supporters, Link. The DNC Chairman Tom Perez went on Tour with Bernie Sanders, Link. In my opinion Democrats share much of the blame. A crime was committed against them (the DNC) and against this country's election process. While Bernie Sanders was not responsible for that crime he took advance of it. Rather than rebuking that behavior Democrats embarrassed Sanders. It sends mixed messages. Should the base be upset about the crime (Russia hacked the DNC and leaked embarrassing information in a coordinated attempt to make Bernie Sanders a victim to weaken Hillary Clinton campaign) or should the base accept Bernie Sanders was a victim and make changes to the process so things are more fair in the future? While I understand both things can be true I do not believe both things are true. The Democratic Primary process was the same when Clinton lost to Obama. It was not a new process. Bernie Sander new exactly what he was signing up for. Also as your have accurately stated Bernie Sanders is not a Democrat. So it only makes logical sense the super-delegates would select a party member in a party primary, duh. Democrats capitulated to Bernie Sanders on this issue in my opinion rather than made their case which is why I am blaming them for things Bernie Sanders did.

Ironically I actually think an attempt at a joint ticket would worsen polarization to a degree as members of the base would reject it aggressively. I asked because it has been considered in the past as you mentioned. Didn't you mean Kerry had considered McCain as VP?

Not to be a-hole but you could've searched other links for yourself if the one provided left you with questions. Among the candidates who have thus far announced what are your thoughts?

I meant lurch, sorry.

I never claimed Sanders was a Democrat. I have been saying that in my opinion Bernie Sanders behavior along with that of many others on the left weaken public perception regarding the severity of Russian interference. It is a fact Bernie Sanders is a registered Independent. I am not stating otherwise.

Maybe, but more and more it is becoming Trump against the world. Trump supporters have been hurling lot of friendly fire at establishment Republicans. Trump and Trump alone is the one person his supporter trust. It is impossible for them to trust anyone else because everyone else is gone so quickly. MAGA hatters are prepared to roll the bus over anyone. It would take time for MAGA Hatters to get over Trump and build loyalty to or affinity for another Republican. I think the result would be several million Republicans voters just sitting home in 2020. As it stands Republicans lose the popular vote by a few million anyway. Millions of Republicans staying home in 2020 would be devastating.

Yes, my response was assuming you meant Trump declared victory and didn't run in 2020. Trump supporters would be left in the lurk and revolt.

Paul Ryan, Mattis, Sessions, Kelly, Priebus (former RNC Chairman), and etc are all gone. As everyone who leaves their remarks about their dealings with Trump put them at odds with Trump. The Red Hat MAGA supporters are with Trump till the end and they make up too great a portion of the Republican base at this point for the party to do without them. I think the best scenario for Republicans is Trump gets re-elected and finishes out his second term. Anything else risk revolt. Perhaps, It is just hard for me to imagine why anyone would want to make themselves a whipping post. That said I can't wrap my mind around why Romney doesn't just take his hundreds of millions of dollars and just go enjoy his life. Romney is perpetually running for stuff. Hey, loose thought just popped into my head and for the record I would hate to see this happen but if Trump did receive a serious challenge for the nomination for someone like Rubio, but manage to beat it, do you think the Democratic nominee would consider that challenger for VP? They could run a unity ticket and market it as an end to partisan politics.

I would love it if we (USA) had more than 2 parties but we don't. I don't think the way we get more parties is from 3rd party Presidential candidates. Given our system a 3rd party candidate will always favor towards one of our existing Parties. Bernie Sander in a registered independent and heavily favors Democrat. Donald Trump ran as a 3rd party candidate in 00'. Trump ran as via the Reform Party. Parties have to be built from the ground up. Other parties need Congressional Members and an established platform before POTUS becomes a good idea. Anything is possible but I do not think a 3rd party candidate could beat Trump. From the left they'd split the vote and help Trump win. From the Right they'd fail to get any traction as defending Trump seems (in my opinion) to have become a point of pride for much of his base.

Given what we know today that makes sense. However I think it is a foregone conclusion the worst is yet to come from the Mueller investigation. So a lot could still change which could potentially make the odds of impeachment greater. I think Trump losing the primary and failing to be on the ballot would a win of sorts for Trump. It would enable him to forever the process is rigged and complain about the deep state and Fake media. Alex Jones followers and flat earthers what eat it up. Why would Rubio or any other Republican bother? Whomever primaries Trump is certain to lose the general election as Trump's strongest supporter are sure to revolt.

While the list I posted was long nothing on it was meant to be ridiculous. Is there something you found far fetched? How do you think the Trump era ends?

@iNow, Your comment "My intuition is that Rubio has formally begun positioning himself as a Republican primary challenger to Trump (or replacement if he’s removed from office beforehand)." interests me so I opened a new thread to discuss it. It does seem there are a a few different ways Trump's presidency might end and all seem possible in my opinion. - Trump is removed from office via impeachment. This could happen before 2020 or during a second term should he make to 2020 and win a second term. - Trump resigns as part of a deal to avoid impeachment. - Trump resigns as part of a deal he works out to spare some combination of Ivanka, Kushner, Don Jr, Eric, or other associates from prosecution. - Trump resigns out of the blue. Just declares victory and states he has had enough of the fake media and crooked Washington Politicians. - A Republican challenger successfully beats Trump in the GOP primary following which Trump complains but doesn't file as an independent and simply isn't on the 2020 ballot. - A Republican challenger successfully beats Trump in the GOP primary following which Trump runs as an independent as loses. - A Democratic Candidate beats Trump in 2020 - A Third Party challenge wins in 2020 - Trump wins and serves a full second term.

Can you elaborate of what you feel Turkey has done or is doing?

I mentioned this in another thread recently but I think the anonymity of the internet plays a big role in how polarized Western Society (Brexit is an example across the pond) is becoming. There is a dichotomy between what people accept in public vs private. For example I think everyone accepts that graphic music shouldn't be played at work. Meanwhile the most popular music leading most charts in the West are full of graphic content. The internet exists in a unique space where it is both public and private. Public because everyone can use it and see what's there yet private because everyone is anonymous. If a Russian built robot posted up on Sunset blvd spouting propaganda people would not listen to it. Just like Religious nuts screaming about Armageddon are ignored. It would just be an annoyance. That same Russian Bot using the anonymity of the internet can get shared, liked, commented on, and etc by millions of people. People worst inclinations can be explored from the comfort of their living rooms without any social repercussions. The peer pressure or respect for others one feels to behave professionally or reasonably don't apply to the comment section of Twitter or YouTube. People can go all in exploring their phobias. As various arguments which would otherwise be too disagreeable for public consumption go viral online they slowly leak into the popular vernacular. It sours attitudes and creates divisiveness. *Edit - post is merely a statement of opinion.

Jobs will still exist. In some cases new technology will lead to greater opportunity. Camera's made hand created portraits obsolete yet also led to a massive expansion in Theater which became Cinema and employees far more individuals than hand made Portraits ever had. Also a market for hand made Portraits does still exist. All jobs are not inherently productive. Automatic doors should have already replaced door greeters at Hotels and shop yet they haven't. People enjoy the human element of things. From reality TV, Instagram fame, YouTube stars, there are whole cottage industries which exist around people just watching people. Also it isn't always the case that if one companies can do something more cheaply and faster they will corner the market. McDonald's makes a burger cheap and fast yet we can all list 10 other burger franchises off the top of our heads that all successfully compete. People like variety. In the case of bars/pubs all of them are literally serving the same product. A Jack and Coke is the same Jack and Coke everywhere yet numerous different establishments exist all over the place charging different prices for that Jack and Coke and people all have their favorite ones. The Bar serving the cheapest and fastest Jack and Coke hasn't cornered the market. Efficiency is obviously critical to the success of a company but so too is providing a product people want. That second part, what people want, isn't always logical because people are not also logical.

Here is a Forbes article which provides examples using famous wealthy people to show how it would apply.

I don't disagree with any of that. My broader point is about overall public perception regarding Russia Interference. Sanders ran for the Democratic nomination. Sanders might run for it again. I think standing on stage shoulder to shoulder with Bernie Sanders diminishes any Democrats ability to criticize Trump for collusion. Bernie Sanders was part of that game too. It is why Trump never attacked Sanders. Why Sanders was the one person on the left Trump said nice things about.

Sanders caucuses with Democrats, endorses Democrats, has a leadership position with the Party, and received millions of votes from registered Democrats in the 2016 Primary. I am a registered Democrat and I voted for Bernie Sanders in the 2016 primary. I always vote further to the left I can during the primaries. Say Sanders is not a Democrat in a conversation about public perception is semantics in my opinion. Consider the recent Roger Stone indictments. They contain information about his contact with Julian Assange. Julian Assange was treated very well by the left for years. As mentioned early Bill Maher had Julian Assange on his show in August of 2016. I could be wrong but I have never seen Bernie Sanders disavow Julian Assange but I have seen on numerous time where Julian Assange has claimed Bernie Sanders was cheated out of the Democratic Nomination. On a superficial level I can see how it appears like partisan politics as usual that anyone would care that Roger Stone was corresponding with Julian Assange yet don't care Michael Moore was doing the same. Of course there are key differences like Michael Moore wasn't part of Clinton's campaign and Michael Moore didn't help coordinate any leaks. What Stone did was criminal and what Michael Moore did was not. I am merely commenting on perception. Often in life perception colors reality. Democrats palled around with Julian Assange too. No amends have been made on the left for any of it and it looks like Bernie Sanders probably runs again. I think it is problematic. That is just my opinion though. I am not accusing anyone on the left of a crime. *Most of the sites I could link showing Julian Assanges speaking out in support of Bernie Sanders are sites I consider trash which is why I didn't link anything. I can provide links if you have questions or doubts about that.

Right, but I am not accusing anyone of a crime. Also both campaigns to include surrogates were briefed in August. I already provided a link for that. So by August, at the latest, everyone knew what was happening. I don't want to derail this thread and have previously started a thread about Bernie Sanders and Russia. The rest of my response is there:

@swansont as we have learned from the Mueller indictments Russia not only hacked individuals and campaigns but they actively supported individual candidates. Bernie Sanders was one of those candidates Russia helped. So the hacked material indirectly helped Sanders but there was purposeful help as well. I think there is a strong case that can be made that the Russian propaganda in support of Sanders against Clinton was successful. A study found that 12% of those who supported Bernie Sanders in the Primary ended up voting for Trump. That is a huge number considering how different Trump and Sanders were on the issue vs Sander on Clinton. I think the notion that Clinton and the DNC cheated Bernie Sanders, a notion Sanders has gone along with, accounts for most of that 12%. Russia instigated the hacks and specifically released the material they did to help create that narrative. Sanders and his supporters accepted that narrative and ran with it. I don't feel Sanders has owned any of this. Owned that some of his success in 2016 was aided by Russian propaganda designed to undermine Clinton and help Trump. Rather Bernie Sanders continued complaining about the DNC , pushed for changes to the primary process, and has remained a presence of criticism of the DNC through even the mid terms commenting on what he feels the DNC should and should not do. If elements on the left aren't identifying the Russian influence that helped Sanders or interested in doing anything about it I think they lose the moral authority to an extent when it comes to Trump. Clearly what Trump did was worse, what Trump did was illegal, but Sanders has exercised very poor judgement on the matter.

Here is an article written during the Convention in July of 2016: "AS THE DEMOCRATIC National Convention continues its week-long stay in Philadelphia, accusations of Russian hacking continue to cloud the proceedings. At this point, it seems likely that Russia is responsible. What’s less clear is what that will mean going forward. It’s been a bad stretch for the Democratic National Committee. Hackers broke into its servers months ago, stealing private emails, opposition research, and campaign correspondence. Last Friday, Wikileaks made nearly 20,000 of those private emails public, revealing embarrassing details of the political machine’s inner workings. DNC official allege that the Russian government is behind the breach. The New York Times reports that US intelligence agencies increasingly share that opinion. " Link Also this was a talking point during the campaign. Clinton mentioned it during debates and U.S. intelligence is know to have officially briefed by campaigns in August of 2016. As a comparison to the other issues polled in the same link 2/3 was lower. For example 82% of Democrats felt wealthy individuals had too much influence over the electoral process and 81% of Republicans felt media bias was a major problem. Comparatively there is less concern despite all the indictments and guilty pleas. In my opinion it should be a greater concern. Especially among Democrats.

In that embarrassing information wasn't criminal in nature I wouldn't expect those who are suppose to be my allies to make a mountain of stink out of it. Also it was known Russia was behind this by the Convention. I am just posting my opinion on the matter. I don't believe Bernie Sanders committed a crime nor do I think it is a crime to interview Julian Assange. I do think a lot of poor judgement was used and I think that plays a role in what seems to me as national indifference towards Russia's interference.