I'd like to throw in one important observation from an outsider's perspective. I have accustomed to the political discussion and debate in the Finnish media and while there are ideological paradigms that are accepted implicitly in the coverage that is inevitable. Most of the media will lean by default towards the center ground of whatever the borders of Overton's window are in its environment. When tuning on to the American debates I expected that the implicit perspective would be from the center to far right compared to my environment.
The very scary observation I made is that the American coverage is very different. In general, the debate moderators wear this ideological bias in their sleeve instead of implicitly in the background and there is an artificial narrative construction is very clearly present the analysis parts. If a Finnish TV channel would broadcast a debate in the vein of those I watched it would be pilloried by political journalists; some moments might even end up as headlines in the yellow press.
There were moments where I felt they were channelling a mirror image of the Soviet propaganda machine. A huge difference to the more crude propaganda is that most of the time the questions and discussions were while more superficial than I've used to pretty fairly presented when you account for the different Overton's window. The actual propagandistic moments were precision strikes in between the more fair coverage. I am genuinely confused: is this really what passes as politically neutral coverage in the US?
Honestly, I feel like Sanders would be a better choice for VP.
Hell no. I say this as someone whose clear favourite he is. Both Biden and Sanders would need a younger VP since there is a very real chance they would end up taking over.
Edit: I just realized my username and profile image are very appropriate to this discussion. Stig Carpelan is satire of a dreadfully dry and boring political journalist from a sketch show.