YouTube Sucks!

Over the last couple of weeks, Google has really stepped up ads on YouTube for possibly every video I watched. This was especially so during the holiday weekend.

The ads were not just on videos with political content. They were even on videos without political content, like some video game playing. One that I enjoy watching is chuckaaconroy (YouTube — chuggaaconroy). He has a very endearing personality—very enthusiastic—with his games. I was watching him play the 2010 Nintendo Wii game Super Mario Galaxy 2. Ads were there right at the beginning. (I will post three videos at the bottom; two are from Super Mario Galaxy 2, which chuggaaconroy started publishing a month ago; one is from the Nintendo 3DS game Animal Crossing: New Leaf, released in Japan in 2012 and the U.S. in 2013, which chuggaaconroy began publishing in 2013.)

These ads are often about five minutes in length. Some ads I have come across, not just in the recent days but from months prior, are not advertisement. Some of infomercial-type content. They are inserts. I have come across, as I am sure others have, of Prager University. I have come across ones of Ben Shapiro. And those have been ads not just five minutes in duration but ones which would last around 30 to 45 minutes. (I may underestimate. Perhaps they were 50 to 60 minutes in running time.)

Google LLC has been the owner of YouTube since 2006, one year after it was founded. I thought to look into subscribing to YouTube without commercials. I forgot about this option. So, I was thinking $5 per month. Well, it is YouTube Premium (formerly Red). And it is plenty more than $5 per month. It is $11.99 per month. Call it $12 per month. For a family membership rate, it is $18 per month.

Those prices are ridiculous. They are on par with a premium-movie programming subscription from the likes of HBO, Cinemax, Starz, and Showtime. Those premium-movie programmers have costs to their programming. Content published to YouTube does not compare.

I want to see a competitor rise, catch on, and surpass Google’s YouTube.

Howard Stern Interviews Hillary Clinton

Last week was, perhaps, a surprise as Howard Stern welcomed as his guest former First Lady, ex-U.S. senator from New York, and 2016 Democratic presidential nominee Hillary Clinton.

I can’t say I was very receptive. In fact, I have not yet watched any of it. But, I do have the following attitude: The more Hillary Clinton speaks and puts herself out there, to expose herself, the better it is for progressives. Hillary Clinton is a gift which keeps giving—to the Republican Party and Donald Trump, yes, but also to an awakened progressive movement demanding better from the Democratic Party which is held hostage by corporatism. The politics are changing. A realignment. It is necessary.

Here are the videos, published on December 6, 2019 to YouTube, by The Howard Stern Show:

Kim Iversen: ‘Predicting The Next Democratic Nominee’

In the above video, Kim Iversen speaks to a historic pattern she observes which may determine the 2020 Democratic nomination for president of the United States.

All 50 states and District of Columbia have been participating in the two major political parties’ presidential primaries since 1976 (Democratic) and 1980 (Republican).

With exception of 1992, a Democratic pickup of the presidency to Bill Clinton (who unseated then-Republican incumbent George Bush), all general-election nominees won at least one of Iowa or New Hampshire. (Clinton came closer to prevailing in New Hampshire.)

This is recognizing Iowa and New Hampshire—the first a caucus state; the second a primary state—as the two states selected to begin the presidential primaries season because, for both the Republican and Democrats, they are well-established predictors for who will end up with a party’s nomination. (Frankly, I see Iowa and New Hampshire, specifically, as the first two chosen states as yet another way for both parties to continue exerting as much control as they can over their nominating system. By the way: In 1976, New Hampshire was not the second state scheduled. That was Mississippi.)

The point is this: Kim Iversen, as of the published date of her video [Tuesday, December 3, 2019], senses which two 2020 Democratic presidential candidates may become positioned for the nomination—and that is reason enough for me to make her video this particular blog’s topic.

✩ ✩ ✩ ✩ ✩

Notice

During the remainder of this current month, December 2019, I will be scheduling the publishing of blog topics on Sundays and Thursdays, at 06:00 a.m. ET. This isn’t motivated by anything that may be ideal—Sundays/Thursdays vs. Mondays/Fridays—but this has played out, to some extent, recently. And it just so happens the upcoming Christmas Eve/Christmas Day and New Year’s Eve/New Year’s Day fall on Tuesdays and Wednesdays. Prior to those mid-week holidays, I think it makes sense to schedule blogs on the Sundays of those particular weeks. So, it dawns on me to simply run this schedule throughout the month of December 2019.

Possibly Revising Election 2020 Predictions

On Sunday, November 3, 2019, four weeks prior to this publishing date, I wrote and posted a one-year-out blog topic on anticipating and predicting Election 2020. (Link: Anticipating and Predicting Election 2020.)

I opted to predict the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination will go to Massachusetts U.S. senator Elizabeth Warren.

I am no longer confident that possible nomination will happen. This is with recognition of Warren making recent campaign calculations, especially on Medicare for All, that may become the catalyst for her to not go on to win the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination.

Warren was looking good for some time. But, during much of November, that changed. And several readers, and this includes me, have posted videos on Warren pulling away from Medicare for All. And, frankly, I have written it before and will do so once more: The Democratic Party will not win back the presidency of the United States with a nominee who does not truly support—and is not determined to deliver—Medicare for All.

The general take on who will win the nomination is commonly reduced to four people. In alphabetical order, they are: Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. Dark horses are: Tulsi Gabbard and Andrew Yang. Others supposedly in contention, like Cory Booker, Kamala Harris, and Amy Klobuchar—and other recent candidacies, like Michael Bloomberg and Deval Patrick—are not viable. Anyone else that I did not mention are each just one more number.

I may write and post a future “Anticipating and Predicting Election 2020”—more likely with attaching the word Revised—but have not yet decided. If I do come up with such future topic, it may happen either with by the end of 2019 or in early 2020.

Happy Thanksgiving!

I wish all readers of Progressives Chat a… Happy Thanksgiving! 

(Next blog topic will be published Sunday, December 1, 2019, at 06:00 a.m. ET.)

‘Why Bernie Sanders Is Missing the Moment’

A very strong and insightful opinion, on Bernie Sanders’s 2020 presidential campaign, was presented in this video, published Saturday, November 23, 2019, by Status Coup’s Jordan Chariton.

I agree with the overall message.

I hope Progressives Chat readers will give their two-cents as well.

(Next blog topic will be Thursday, November 28, 2019, at 06:00 a.m. ET.)

‘He Predicted Both Trump’s Election and Impeachment. What Else Does He Know?’

From time to time comes an expert with a considerable track record of predicting, fairly well in advance, the outcome of an upcoming United States presidential election.

One of those people is Allan Lichtman.

He is known for “The Keys”—which is really a checklist, a guide created by Lichtman, which is used in determining his prediction of a winning candidate and/or political party.

The above screen shot is the article. Just below is the article’s link.

He Predicted Both Trump’s Election and Impeachment. What Else Does He Know?


(The next blog topic will be Sunday, November 24, 2019, at 06:00 a.m. ET.)