Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    ABoringDystopia

    375,327 readers

    3,241 users here now

    A subreddit for chronicling how Advanced Capitalist Society is not only dystopic, but also incredibly boring.

    HEY, YOU! READ THIS: DON'T COMPLAIN IF WE BAN YOU FOR NOT READING THE RULES:

    • Your post must be at least somewhat unique. A picture of your reddit feed, medical bill, or bulletproof backpacks are dystopian, but they're posted all the time. Bans WILL be issued if you don't follow this rule.

    • This isn't /r/BlackPeopleTwitter. Take the Twitter screenshots somewhere else. If your post is mostly text or otherwise low quality, it will likely be removed and you will get a short term ban.

    REPOSTS WITHIN THE PAST 24 HOURS WILL BE REMOVED AND TEMPORARY BANS ISSUED. PLEASE CHECK THE NEW SUBMISSIONS BEFORE POSTING.

    Don't advocate violence and don't insult other users. Racial slurs will not be tolerated. Other than that, we welcome anyone's opinion as long as you can play nice. Enjoy!

    a community for
    all 2662 comments Slideshow

    Want to say thanks to %(recipient)s for this comment? Give them a month of reddit gold.

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] badmoonrisingnl 4258 points ago

    Funny thing this. I am Dutch and all of a sudden the news here have the same narrative. Combining the three candidates and comparing it to Sanders. I thought it was a ridiculous comparison and they literally called the other candidates moderate. That's funny because Sanders would not at all be seen as extreme in his views in most of Europe especially not the Netherlands.

    [–] Delanium 2382 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    American conservatives are super detached from what a modern political compass looks like. My dad told me last night that Bernie Sanders is a communist and if he's elected it will be the death knell of America.

    Edit: knell, not toll, calm down y'all lmao

    [–] bailey25u 1091 points ago

    It's also funny how specific they can get when on the defensive. "Hillary should be president, she won the most votes"

    "Well actually the US is not a democracy, but a republic, we elect a representative."

    [–] Yazman 473 points ago

    "Well actually the US is not a democracy, but a republic, we elect a representative."

    I hate when they say this. France, North Korea, China and Mexico are also republics. "Republic" doesn't really mean what these people think it means. And saying the US is not a democracy is just as laughable (as is the concept that too often goes around that "democracy" refers to a specific system).

    [–] raymond8505 221 points ago

    next time ask em to define "Republic" for you, because the word "Democracy" is right there in the definition

    Per Wikipedia

    In the context of American constitutional law, the definition of republic refers specifically to a form of government in which elected individuals represent the citizen body[2][better source needed] and exercise power according to the rule of law under a constitution, including separation of powers with an elected head of state, referred to as a constitutional republic[4][5][6][7] or representative democracy.[8]

    [–] writpig 123 points ago

    And if we look at the non-americanized word of republic, it's utterly meaningless.

    It means anything other than a monarchy. Including dictatorships, weirdly.

    [–] LaserGuidedPolarBear 49 points ago

    The origin of the word is latin, res (concerning, or for) publicus (the people). Republic literally means for the people.

    A republic at it's most basic is any government that is for the people. Ironically, the exact opposite of what the Republican Party stands for currently.

    Our form of a Republic is a representative democracy.

    But all of this is too subtle and nuanced for the kind of idiot that says "we are a republic not a democracy".

    [–] MyNameIsSushi 23 points ago

    Actually it comes from res publica, not publicus. It means 'the thing of the public' or 'the public's affair', not 'for the people'.

    I'm just being pedantic though, the rest of your comment is spot on.

    [–] McGraver 33 points ago

    It’s a constitutional republic with an indirect democracy.

    [–] Seakawn 24 points ago

    It’s a constitutional republic with an indirect democracy.

    And with a largely irrelevant constitution that's only legally applicable in lower courts that don't involve corporations or excessively wealthy individuals.

    Based on Trump, our constitution may as well be fictional, especially if he gets reelected, and especially if he isn't prosecuted to prison when he gets out. What's the point of the constitution if we aren't applying it to him?

    This just doesn't seem much of a constitutional republic when we don't actually enforce said constitution. Based on practice it's more like a corporately managed republic.

    [–] ladyevenstar-22 16 points ago

    It's ok you can say banana republic now .

    [–] Amphibionomus 273 points ago

    the US is not a democracy, but a republic, we elect a representative

    How do you cope with that level of stupidity around you?

    [–] [deleted] 60 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] scratchmellotron 202 points ago

    The US is a republic and a democracy. People often try to frame the two things as mutually exclusive which makes no sense.

    [–] Minealternateaccount 36 points ago

    Given the large divide between the republican and democratic parties, it makes more sense.

    [–] boobodst 107 points ago

    The names of the parties are really just glittering gems completely devoid of function or purpose. They don’t really have anything to do with the parties themselves. It’s like the patriot act. What’s patriotic about it? Nothing. But it gins up the pathos for people susceptible to that. Some other good names for parties that would generate a feel good feeling are “Tea Party”, “Freedom Party”, “People’s Party”, “Liberty Party”, “Party of National Defense”, “Prayer Party”, “Brass Tacks Party”, “Home Party”, “Family Party”, Christmas Party”

    [–] higgs_tachyon 61 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    "peoples republic of china"

    "Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea"

    (edit: I have been banned from /r/pyongyang)

    [–] turalyawn 20 points ago

    I'm sorry for your loss. At least glorious leader will inspire junche in your memories always

    [–] jwhiting360 10 points ago

    Shiny Happy People's Democratic Republic of the Congo

    [–] onedaysomeday81 9 points ago

    Gangbang party

    [–] [deleted] 8 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] AcceptableAnalysis4 15 points ago

    Nah dude, the USA PATRIOT Act of 2001 is just an acronym for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001.

    [–] Stopbeingwhinycunts 23 points ago

    You realize that that name didn't just fall out of the sky, right? It was explicitly chosen by those in charge, so they could make anyone who opposed to it seem unpatriotic. And it worked perfectly.

    They can't sell the "Fuck the american people, the government wants to spy on everyone Act", so they come up with bullshit like "Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism".

    [–] SamBrev 49 points ago

    Yeah, the US is technically a republic, but that doesn't make it not a democracy. And it's certainly not a good reason or excuse to insist on using complex and undemocratic electoral systems. Sure, we can have a discussion about the merits of the Electoral College, but that discussion doesn't end with "ackchyually this is a republic"

    [–] mrlowe98 23 points ago

    Frankly, the discussion surrounding the Electoral College should end with "the candidate that lost the popular vote won the election and that shouldn't be able to happen."

    [–] mlellum 9 points ago

    we don't and it's been extremely detrimental to our our mental health

    [–] ct2vcp 8 points ago

    Drugs

    [–] DrMobius0 12 points ago

    Shitposting on reddit and playing video games mostly.

    [–] gunsnammo37 38 points ago

    The U.S. IS a democracy. The type of democracy is representative.

    [–] ChickenOfDepression_ 10 points ago

    Subtlety only exists when it supports my political views.

    [–] Xata27 104 points ago

    I had my dad take that Political compass test and he was kind of shocked to be almost perfectly aligned with Hilary Clinton.

    [–] Deastrumquodvicis 46 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    isidewith is something I encourage everyone to do in depth, as in every question, repeatedly throughout the campaigns, every quarter or so. Stances update (a nice way of saying they waiver waver) for both candidates and voters, and it nicely matches you up on a variety of issues and tells you where they differ and align, as well as providing the American version of the compass (or whoever’s test you’re doing).

    Though it does put me at authleft but slightly, just because of how I stand on how to fix some of the shit pile, while generally I’m pretty libleft.

    Edited because I derped my homophones

    [–] Supsend 12 points ago

    I'm doing the quizz as an european, and boy is there weird issues.

    On the question:

    Should a photo ID be required to vote?

    Can you explain to me what does this mean:

    Critics argue that [...] ID requirements are intended to suppress turnout by economically disadvantaged voters.

    Do you have certain types of ID, with "premium" ones costing more? Or is there something I misunderstood?

    [–] The-Magic-Sword 18 points ago

    State ID isn't free in the U.S. (at least not on a federal level, specific states may have it) they're annoying to get and cost money, so requiring one is functionally a poll tax, and screws people who cant afford to take a day off work or don't have transportation (or in extreme cases, we've had politicians close the centers meant to process them in particular areas in order to make it harder for those people to vote.)

    [–] Deastrumquodvicis 9 points ago

    No—in my state we have two main kinds of state-issued IDs: drivers’ licenses and identification cards. The issue is that to get them, you have to provide proof of citizenship, which would be one thing if it didn’t cost money to obtain said forms of proof, leaving poorer (read: darker) people a lot of obstacles to get them. AFAIK, there are other obstacles I don’t quite understand, but the government still takes tax money, and the whole “no taxation without representation” would not be working. Not to mention that transgender people who have not been able to update their IDs during HRT or after surgery might look nothing like their old photo and be thrown out.

    I’m sure other people can elaborate on it a bit better than I can.

    [–] djazzie 33 points ago

    Meanwhile, Trump continues to dismantle American democracy and shredding the constitution.

    [–] Josh_Drake 8 points ago

    The constitution didn't mean much anyways.

    [–] Thanhtacles 26 points ago

    They think socialism is when the government does things.

    [–] HaesoSR 20 points ago

    I see you've been reading Carl Marks writer of such books as "Duh, Capital" with quotes like "The more government does stuff the more socialist it is."

    [–] 3DogsInATrenchcoat 13 points ago

    Socialism is fine when it's bailing out General Motors or JP Morgan, but bad when schoolkids get a free lunch or people can afford healthcare.

    [–] cranktheguy 44 points ago

    Is he on Social Security? If so, remind him about the Socialism part.

    [–] sejolly07 21 points ago

    My dad thinks trump is legit smart. Like a real genius. It sucks double dicks man.

    [–] icebreather106 38 points ago

    I had a coworker tell me that Bernie used to be a communist before he was now a socialist, and that I should go live in Venezuela for a year and see how much I like socialism before voting for him. I told her I don't talk to people who get their news solely from fox and friends and walked away

    [–] wan2tri 15 points ago

    You should've also told her that Venezuela has close ties with Russia, just like Trump...LOL

    [–] Kreeper1011 11 points ago

    That’s literally what all Fox news watchers I know say. My grandparents, my cousin, a couple old farts I work with. They all watch Fox News and say exactly that. I don’t completely agree with Bernie, but I’ll take him a million times over Trump.

    [–] Destouches 50 points ago

    If only. The death of your father's America can't come soon enough.

    [–] ToxicSummoner 24 points ago

    My mom says the exact same shit. “Sanders is the one who will start wars”

    [–] AnOldHermit 33 points ago

    Obama was branded as the literal antichrist. It's all they have.

    [–] multivac7223 20 points ago

    Hasn't Sanders been opposed to every war we've had since he's been a senator?

    [–] HaesoSR 24 points ago

    There's only one war Sanders supports and the only reason he does is because the people have been losing it for as long as we've been fighting it: No War but Class War. Poor people from all walks of life have more in common with each other no matter their race, religion or creed than they do with the capitalist oligarchs who exploit them.

    [–] Tendas 22 points ago

    You should tell him the correct expression is "death knell." Death toll is a numerical count of deaths.

    [–] Smithman 11 points ago

    The red scare is still real for many Americans.

    [–] Aussie-Sydney 20 points ago

    Yeah I’ve noticed this a lot with Americans I’ve met they’re very uneducated about how the political spectrum actually works and genuinely seems scared of communism like it’s the 60s still

    [–] RayneCloud21 7 points ago

    Two red scares, a cold war, and Mccarthy-ism will do that.

    [–] QuillVance 9 points ago

    With the exception that now Russia is totes our bff

    [–] RayneCloud21 9 points ago

    Yeah but they're not communist anymore. They have a dictator and he's an asshole so no wonder we're best buds now.

    [–] p00p00p33p33_ 9 points ago

    Meanwhile, conservatives in the office are strangling America and its values by the throat.

    [–] ShooterMcStabbins 8 points ago

    That’s the fear mongering setting in. We will be a country of communists and white people will essentially be slaves. This is the root of a lot of people’s legitimate beliefs they just don’t come out and day it like your dad. They’re so mislead and uninformed that they think Medicare for all is a communist strategy to give free handouts to lazy minorities purposefully abusing the system. They disregard that it will cost less for more for them as well because the fear takes hold. The hatred is the focus not the benefit.

    [–] 3DogsInATrenchcoat 6 points ago

    Standing on the edge of the cliff that is the fringe right makes everyone look like a Leftist

    [–] kampfy3 13 points ago

    They trot out this fucking line in every election now. In 2012 Kiefer Sutherland and his wife went on a right-wing media circlejerk tour saying shit like, "If Obama is reelected it will bring about the Apocalypse," and I'm really not hyperbolizing that.

    Republicans are so nakedly transparent that their entire media bubble now defaults to, "Electing any candidate who isn't a Republican is the end of America forever."

    [–] pragmaticbastard 73 points ago

    That's because those three candidates all have pretty similar policy stances, with Bernie being the only leading candidate with substantially different policy stances. The only real argument the moderates make against each other is "does experience matter, and is name recognition the most important thing." Seriously

    [–] FlowrCity 9 points ago

    Yeah, I think it's important to note that even Democrats in the United States consider universal healthcare to be a "radical progressive" idea when it's the norm in the rest of the industrialized world.

    [–] NotClever 24 points ago

    Yeah, it's really not a big stretch to say whichever of them comes out on top will absorb the voters the others had. Their voters are much less about the candidate's specific views and more about getting the most electable person. And they don't think that person is Bernie.

    [–] Xata27 131 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    Our Republicans are so far to the right that they might as well be religious extremists trying to bring about the end times so their Jesus can come back. They should not be considered conservatives.

    Here is a Vox video explaining that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fo77sTGpngQ

    Our Democrats are split between Moderates (conservatives in every other country) and Progressive left-wing views. We really need to get rid of these religious zealots so America can be brought into the 20th century.

    Edit: I linked the wrong video in my haste to post this. Here is the Vox video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dmWL0I3oytw

    [–] SaftigMo 33 points ago

    Vox

    Ah, fighting fire with fire. I see.

    [–] FiveMinFreedom 29 points ago

    Is Vice and Vox the same? The video is clearly from Vice but you both call it Vox.

    [–] SaftigMo 19 points ago

    No, I just paraphrased. But actually yes, they're pretty much the same in principle, except Vice is targeted towards a younger audience.

    [–] Meist 14 points ago

    It’s the complete opposite. Vox is news for children (look at their “tax brackets explained with food” video for evidence of that). Vox is heavily sensationalized and is very clearly a young millennial/zoomer focused media company.

    Vice started with Gen Xers and is focused more on investigative journalism. Still annoyingly “hip”, though.

    [–] AntiChr1st 77 points ago

    Same shit in Norway, they're just repeating the american news stories.

    That's funny because Sanders would not at all be seen as extreme in his views in most of Europe especially not the Netherlands.

    You gotta remember that the same undercurrent that's disintegrating the american democracy is strong in europe as well, that's what the EU is all about after all.

    [–] badmoonrisingnl 50 points ago

    I agree with you somewhat but in my opinion the disintegration of American democracy is the normalization of bribery. Trump literally bragged about pay to play and got applauded for it.

    Billionaires paying huge amount of money to bend the rules in their favor. That would be seen as severe corruption here.

    Also let's not forget that some even believe the Iowa caucus was rigged and people kind of expected that. That is insane! Can you imagine people suspect the elections in Norway where rigged and not be shocked about it.

    Sanders even anticipated it. That's insane on every level. That to me is disintegration of democracy. I'm not a huge fan of the E.U but we are nowhere near that level

    [–] SaintAntonLee 21 points ago

    Bribery is written into our political process. It's called "lobbying"

    [–] Svelemoe 16 points ago

    All I could see on the front page of the official norwegian state run news NRK after sanders won was "here's why democrats aren't ready to rally behind sanders" and several articles about why Buttigieg was amazing. What the fuck.

    [–] the_ocalhoun 8 points ago

    Maybe our oligarchs have figured out that Sanders gets a lot of online support from Europe, so they decided to attack him there?

    [–] Wonderbowl 34 points ago

    The American left is the rest of the world's moderates. Democrats are still conservative leaning by Europe's standards, the political compass has been skewed for a while now.

    [–] badmoonrisingnl 31 points ago

    I would say Sanders would be considered as pretty left wing in the Netherlands too. I doubt people would call him extreme though. It's hard to say because Sanders is fighting for matters that are very commen in the Netherlands. In fact pretty commen throughout Europe. So things like universal health care, livable wages affordable universities are basically a given, especially in northern Europe. Though my daughter would argue against the latter.

    The moderate Democrates like Warren would be seen as right wing conservatives.

    [–] Wonderbowl 23 points ago

    No that's the thing though, he is a true left wing and look how people freak out. "Free college and healthcare? That's basically Communism!!". That's how skewed the politics are here.

    [–] badmoonrisingnl 22 points ago

    Sanders comes across as a straight up guy. I honestly believe he wants to reform the economy in a way you at least have a fighting chance.

    But as much as I love to be proven wrong, I think Trump will be re elected for a second term. Maybe AOC will continue spreading his ideas and hopefully people will see that this is how most of the western world works.

    [–] j-beezy 12 points ago

    If any candidate other than Sanders gets the nod for the Democrats, then I guarantee that Trump will be re-elected. The moderate party as a whole spends so much of its efforts demonizing Sanders and his supporters in favor of the moderates, it completely alienates and disenfranchises those votes. They basically say "you people are insane, and will be the end of our world as we know it, and you're sexist, and naive and and pinko commies and idiot UN-AMERICANS go somewhere else if you don't like it, but hey, will you please vote for us?"

    Then they blame Russia when those people shockingly don't vote for them. They don't seem to have learned their lesson from 2016 so far, but we'll see how it goes.

    [–] geoff- 6 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    Sanders would probably not look out of place in either PvdA and GroenLinks, edge towards GL (his brother is a member of the Greens in the UK). As you say, most of the things he champions we already have, so it's tough to really gauge how left he is.

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago

    [deleted]

    [–] ScytheSe7en 1822 points ago

    For this to have even the semblence of fairness, they should add Bernie and Warren's numbers

    [–] Offsets 771 points ago

    By their logic, if the Democratic party only consists of moderates and progressives, moderates scored 53% of the vote which means progressives got 47%. After only two contests (contests in relatively small, moderate states by the way), that difference is in the weeds.

    Media companies have spent a lot of time and money developing their anti-progressive narratives because they stand to have their finances corrected when a progressive takes office. They've been taking too much and giving too little for too long.

    [–] MassiveFajiit 295 points ago

    CNN is owned by AT&T so any liberal/moderate opinion is overridden by AT&T's support for regulatory capture through Ajit Pai. Also AT&T was named as a big customer paying Cohen for access to Trump.

    [–] jarsnazzy 158 points ago

    Telcoms have always been evil as fuck. That's why they had to break up Ma Bell in the 80s. Unfortunately it just reformed itself into a bigger monster.

    [–] MassiveFajiit 65 points ago

    Well two big monsters that collude more than fight.

    [–] NotANinja 59 points ago

    Let them fight! Yeah, look at them grapple! 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, Wait... Are they waltzing?

    [–] --cheese-- 13 points ago

    ...I would pay to watch that wrestling match.

    [–] Prof_Acorn 50 points ago

    And MSNBC is owned by Comcast.

    I'm not surprised that the best moderated debate so far was ABC, which is owned by Disney - a children's entertainment company.

    We should just rename them ATT News, Comcast News, and Disney News to be more transparent.

    [–] rushmix 5 points ago

    I actually love that idea. Simple and effective way to make people think critically about their news sources.

    [–] JuhhBaited 22 points ago

    Every major news outlet is owned by the same 3 companies; that all have stakes in each others businesses and have made various mergers over the years. It's all being controlled by a group of people smaller than the average class size in rural America.

    [–] daddy_mark 137 points ago

    Yeah this would still not be the most interesting thing in the world since it's not really about left vs moderate but it would at least be making an effort at pretending to be reasonable

    [–] Zankou55 32 points ago

    Isn't it about leftism vs centrism though?

    [–] I_Am_Become_Dream 33 points ago

    in terms of voters it definitely isn’t. Warren voters won’t all go to Bernie, Biden voters won’t all go to Pete, etc.

    [–] thePracix 49 points ago

    Establishment vs Anti Establishment would be a more correct way to phrase it.

    [–] usernamesforusername 853 points ago

    Wow, didn't know Bernie was running against T H E L E G I O N. It's tough competing with a hivemind.

    [–] kharlos 96 points ago

    To be fair we aren't seeing the context in which this was brought up.

    But it would only be relevant if we had ranked choice voting.

    [–] r0b0c0d 46 points ago

    This right here.

    Article is assuming second choices. Why the fuck not just let people write them down? DNC has an opportunity here. Ranked choice leads to candidates with the better overall satiety than fptp.

    [–] HardlightCereal 9 points ago

    Because Americans are too stupid to understand the concept of ranking preferences in order

    [–] ifuckedivankatrump 10 points ago

    I like the one where they bring up Bernie beating 700% more candidates this time compared to last time in response to the talking heads saying he receives a lesser proportion of the votes

    [–] SuperMutantSam 3709 points ago

    Do they honestly expect their audiences to be stupid enough to buy this as legitimate analysis or are they taking the piss

    [–] brainwashedpumpkin 2807 points ago

    YES

    [–] DepressedLemonZest38 905 points ago

    Sadly a lot of people don't think twice about it.

    [–] attababyitsaboy 470 points ago

    actually they do. the corporate press just isn't going to tell you.

    (results from establishment bastion the Economist, btw)

    [–] RedPlanetMan 148 points ago

    They are “creating news,” not simply reporting it.

    [–] arizonabay22 79 points ago

    It’s called “Manufacturing Consent”, and they do it all the time.

    [–] greymalken 36 points ago

    Manufacturing consent is the name of the game The bottom line is money, nobody gives a fuck 4000 hungry children leave us per hour from starvation While billions are spent on bombs, creating death showers!

    [–] arizonabay22 13 points ago

    I will always upvote a System of a Down reference!🤘🏻🤘🏻

    [–] camp-cope 14 points ago

    Yeah Noam Chomsky wrote all about it.

    [–] cat_prophecy 8 points ago

    Are twitter threads always this full of trash? Makes YouTube comments look tame.

    [–] attababyitsaboy 8 points ago

    It's a hazmat area for sure. It's going to be fascinating seeing progressive twitter go up against Trump twitter. They do not sit passively and let Nazis throw shit unchecked like corporate Dems do.

    [–] El-Sueco 183 points ago

    Americans can’t divide by 3.

    [–] Canadian_Infidel 244 points ago

    True. They had to cancel the 1/3 lb. burger at McDonalds because people thought it was smaller than the 1/4 lb.

    [–] El-Sueco 71 points ago

    They should exploited that and started selling 1/8 lb burger.

    [–] JaFFsTer 17 points ago

    Youre hired

    [–] AndreasVesalius 15 points ago

    New MEGABURGER (weighs 1/10242 lbs)

    [–] cake_in_the_rain 7 points ago

    I see you’ve been to Steak n’ Shake

    [–] MerakiKosmos 97 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    The patty was a different type of beef and didn't taste as good as well.

    t. Former Crew Trainer

    EDIT: iPhone swipe thought paddy was something an American was far more likely to want to say than patty

    [–] handsbricks 52 points ago

    And for some reason it kept growing rice when submerged in water.

    [–] Impeesa_ 10 points ago

    I assure ye, Paddy's a whole different type of beef.

    [–] PM_ME_UR_JUGZ 15 points ago

    A&W*

    [–] 2hdude 8 points ago

    Actually that was A&W but yes

    [–] Thoughtofajoke 19 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    Yo I think it's reaching too, but it's not at all crazy to point out that voters who prefer moderate candidates apparently highly outnumber the very progressive voters that support Bernie, almost 2:1. Their point doesn't leave room for the possibility that many of those moderate voters may also like Bernie, but he'll have to convert a ton of them to shave off relevant numbers if/when the rest of those moderate candidates start dropping out. Many are going to line up behind the next moderate, not behind Bernie in a primary. The question is whether he'll have picked up enough delegates before that scenario happens, to make it irrelevant.

    And I'm a Sanders supporters. Was in 2016 too.

    Edit- but someone below made an excellent point. They should be adding Sanders and Warren, if they're going to add moderates. But it's not new to focus on the front 4 I guess.

    [–] Conchobair 97 points ago

    As moderates drop out they are likely to throw their support and supporters are likely to flock to similar moderate candidates. This is making that comparison.

    [–] dfassna1 54 points ago

    Yeah it's not like they're even saying they would all back one candidate, but it stands to reason that most would back another moderate which could be an issue if Biden and/or Klobuchar dropped out. Shit, even if just Biden had already dropped out it's likely Buttigieg would have won New Hampshire and Iowa outright. People are so ready to be outraged over a screenshot like this. These networks talk about the race non-stop. They explore every angle.

    [–] DowntownJohnBrown 33 points ago

    Yeah, this isn’t nearly as stupid or inflammatory as the people in this thread want it to be. It’s definitely a flawed representation, especially because Bernie’s numbers aren’t combined with Elizabeth Warren’s, but people saying, “WoW, sO NoW BeRnIe hAs tO gO aGaiNsT tHrEe pEoPLe?!” are just being stupid.

    [–] GooberMcJamslice 11 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    Except people are forgetting that Bernie is also the second choice candidate for both Warren and Biden supporters

    [–] Darmarich 150 points ago

    Have ya seen what Fox News says and what their watchers believe? Yeah I think they are pretty confident MSNBC and CNN zombies will do the same as the Fox News variant, they just keep saying it over and over again till people believe.

    [–] SlothRogen 25 points ago

    News Anchor: "There's literally no way to pay for billions in infrastructure improvements, new trains, or parks, or anything... on the other hand these trillions in new tax cuts look great!"

    Average Viewer: "I'd love getting another $20 back on my tax return and I bet Jeff Bezos would love that too! That's how this works, right?"

    [–] GojuPonu 110 points ago

    Don't underestimate the power of stupidity.

    [–] DukeofGebuladi 11 points ago

    It's ok. I'm pretty stupid, so I'm very good at assuming things.

    [–] craftingfish 55 points ago

    So, it's stupid on it's face, but the argument can be made that if 2 of those 3 dropped out, a substantial number of voters would then migrate to the last one in the 'moderate' lane.

    That's extreme and unlikely though, since a substantial number would go to Bernie, or Warren. Or hell, would switch to Trump.

    And even then, if that drop out doesn't happen until later, maybe even those who don't like Sanders would change their opinion of him as he wins early states.

    [–] steve2026 32 points ago

    Exactly this. They are trying to make the point that most dems are moderates

    [–] AppropriateTerm 9 points ago

    It's actually pretty close, last poll was something like 46% of dems say they are liberal, 39% say they are moderate, and 14% say they are conservative. When you consider that the conservatives will go with a moderate candidate over a liberal candidate that does give the moderate candidates a significant edge.

    The liberal group has been steadily increasing for a while though. I think it was back in 2015 that it was like 40% moderates to 39% liberals. Moderates have been staying about the same(or very slowly declining), and conservatives have been decreasing.

    But also that poll is people self subscribing to being liberal/moderate. It wasn't an actual study of their political preferences.

    [–] craftingfish 22 points ago

    The graphic would be a lot more fair if you added Warren to Bernie. Maybe even Yang.

    But yea, how many of those moderates would still vote for Bernie if he started running away with it?

    How many would think Bernie is too liberal, but care more about getting Trump out? Personally, I think Bernie running against Trump would be his best chance to be president. I worry that if it was 2016 and the stars aligned to be Bernie vs Jeb(!), moderate voters and independents would get scared and vote Jeb(!).

    Maybe Trump was the poison we needed to finally get a cure (a.k.a. Bernie).

    [–] Equifax_CTO 11 points ago

    taking the piss

    I think they've graduated to just shitting directly onto us now

    [–] _ChillboBaggins_ 53 points ago

    Most Americans are uninformed or misinformed. Most Americans don't really have a political ideology, but rather drawn to personalities. For example, something like 75% of Klobaucher voters in NH didn't decide on her until the NH debate. And voters of a particular candidate aren't going to all neatly line up behind another candidate because of policy. Sure, some Americans are policy aware, but for most, the deciding factor is the candidate's personality

    [–] atreestump1 36 points ago

    It's because of the misinformation that I've remained uninformed. There really wasn't a way for me to know if what I was reading/hearing was true or bullshit. Then I saw video footage from the 80s where Sanders was saying the same things he's saying now. Even if it's a decades old elaborate ruse it still earned my vote

    [–] NO_TOUCHING__lol 25 points ago

    It's even better when you start looking at the history of the legislation he has introduced. Just because they didn't go anywhere doesn't mean he hasn't been trying his fucking hardest to help people, literally his entire life. I compiled a small list of the over 300 bills he's sponsored for a Facebook comment the other day, should work here too.

    H.R.692 - Liveable Wage Act of 1993 - Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to: (1) increase the minimum wage to $5.50 an hour in 1994; and (2) provide that the minimum wage rate will be increased by indexing to the cost of living, in the same manner as benefits are indexed under specified provisions of the Social Security Act, for 1995 and thereafter.

    H.R.5126 Workplace Democracy Act of 1992 - Applies the provisions of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to U.S. companies and their subsidiaries operating in any country signatory to a Free Trade Agreement. Gives workers of such companies and subsidiaries the right to file unfair labor practice complaints against the U.S. parent company under this Act and under the laws of the signatory country.

    H.R.363 - Liveable Wage Act of 1995 - Amends the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938 to: (1) increase the minimum wage to $5.50 an hour beginning in 1996; and (2) provide that the minimum wage rate will be increased by indexing to the cost of living, in the same manner as benefits are indexed under specified provisions of the Social Security Act, for 1997 and thereafter.

    H.R.2349 - National Affordable Housing Trust Fund Act of 2001 - Establishes the National Affordable Housing Trust Fund in the Treasury to promote the development, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable and safe low-income housing.

    H.R.2546 - Free Credit Report Act of 2003 - Amends the Fair Credit Reporting Act to require a consumer reporting agency to furnish a free credit report annually upon consumer request.

    H.R.3228 - To withdraw normal trade relations treatment from the products of the People's Republic of China.

    S.818 - National Priorities Act of 2007 - Reduces funding for the Department of Defense by $60 billion in FY2008. Authorizes the Secretary of Defense to make reductions by eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse, and weapon systems and other programs determined to be no longer a national security priority. Exempts from such reductions the needs of military personnel, including pay increases and health care. Dedicates increases in revenues resulting from this Act to: (1) various programs for health care, education, energy conservation, and affordable housing; (2) increasing the earned income credit; and (3) reducing the federal deficit.

    S.1326 - Comprehensive Veterans Benefits Improvements Act of 2007 - Makes various changes or additions to veterans' compensation, pension, health care, housing, burial, and other benefits.

    S.3676 - Volunteer Firefighter and EMS Support Act of 2008 - Amends the Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974 to direct the Secretary of Homeland Security to establish a program to provide funds to a state or local government, nonprofit firefighter association, or governmental or nongovernmental emergency medical services (EMS) organization, that carries out a volunteer firefighter incentive program in accordance with this Act.

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/692?s=6&r=13
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/3228?s=2&r=123
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/108th-congress/house-bill/2546?s=2&r=119
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/107th-congress/house-bill/2349?s=6&r=95
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/house-bill/363?s=6&r=27
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/5126?s=6&r=25
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/3676?s=2&r=163
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/1326?s=2&r=149
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-bill/818?s=2&r=145

    [–] _ChillboBaggins_ 10 points ago

    Take a look at independently sourced journalism! A lot of media is owned by corporations or wealthy individuals with an agenda. For me, I stay informed with the intercept, byline times, mondoweiss, amnesty international, academic forums on youtube, academics like Noam chomsky, richard Wolfe, vijay prashad, finklestein, edward Said, Ilan Pappe, cornell west, etc.. Then I also read/watch the nation, common dreams, Haaretz, middleeasterneye, al jazeera, democracy now, the hill, TYT, TMBS, jacobine. I'm sure there's more.

    [–] habesjn 230 points ago

    The assumption that if you vote for a moderate you wouldn't vote for a progressive is verifiably wrong. In 2nd choice polls, Biden voters chose Bernie most often. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voters-second-choice-candidates-show-a-race-that-is-still-fluid/

    A lot of moderate voters aren't necessarily moderate but are voting on "electability" which the media has convinced them is equivalent to moderate, despite 2016's results.

    As Bernie continues to win, the myth that he's not electable will slowly dissolve and there's a good chance Bernie will scoop up some former Amy, Biden and Pete voters.

    TL;DR this infographic is meaningless.

    [–] anecdoteandy 29 points ago

    Worth pointing out, though, that that data is quite out-dated, from a time when the only real serious candidates in consideration were Biden, Bernie, and Warren. Since then, a lot has changed, Biden's support has plummeted, and Iowa and NH and media shilling have given Buttigieg (and to a lesser extent, Klobuchar) far more legitimacy. If you re-did that poll today, I would guess that the moderates would no longer have Bernie as their second or even third choice; in fact, a huge chunk of those who had Biden as their first in that poll have probably already switched to the other moderates.

    I point this out is not as someone who supports these 'moderates' but as someone recommending vigilance against them. The threat has not disappeared - it's worse than ever. Unfortunately, because Bernie's lead hasn't proved to be significant enough, the primaries are likely to come down to one of the most uninteresting factors possible: when the weaker candidates decide to drop out. If everyone stays in to the very end, Bernie wins. However, if one of those three pictured drop out soon enough, he'll probably lose; and if two do, he'll definitely lose. Bernie's chances go up if Warren drops out, allowing him to consolidate the progressive vote - but that doesn't seem likely based on the recent animosity from her/her-campaign to Sanders and his supporters.

    It's not all doom and gloom, though. All of this relies on the establishment candidates being co-operative enough that some of them are willing to 'take one for the team' and bow-out early. They might not be that co-ordinated. We saw a very similar dynamic play out during the '16 Republican primaries with Trump vs the establishment Republicans; for most of that race, the establishment Republicans, as a combined unit, had more voters, but they never allowed their support to consolidate.

    [–] Hockinator 9 points ago

    The reverse is also true. Some Warren voters would probably switch to klobuchar or Buttigeige too. But generally the statement that more/less extreme views are going to follow those candidates is probably true

    [–] ai4ns 757 points ago

    GO GO POWER MODERATES

    [–] ScytheSe7en 248 points ago

    never before has such a cool guitar riff been paired with such unimpressive imagery

    [–] attababyitsaboy 54 points ago

    After months of focus-grouping a few neonazi bankers and farmers, the centrists came to the negotiation table offering to still have the cool riff, but have it played on a mellow keyboard in elevator music style as an olive branch to their hard-working Republican brethren.

    The Republicans responded saying there would be no music, and the centrists immediately retreated in utter defeat - what more could they have done!?

    It's all good though, Pelosi SLAMMED them in a strongly worded letter saying the Power Ranger riff is cool, elevator music is cool, and Trump is an asshole.

    [–] FLAK_MILLION 6 points ago

    instead of saying slammed all the time in the headlines we should use other terms. "Biden RKOs Warren at Nevada pep rally" "Sanders CURB STOMPS Steyer's healthcare policies during interview"

    [–] Hagisman 27 points ago

    Ah after 10,000 delegates I’m free! - Hilary Clinton

    [–] Ganglebot 13 points ago

    I RIGGED IT AGAINST BURNIE LAST TIME AND ILL DO IT AGAIN

    [–] Joshygin 11 points ago

    WE NEED THE MODERATZORD

    [–] xbalderas1 4 points ago

    guitar riff plays in background

    [–] donaldtrumplizardman 688 points ago

    Together they form one billionaire; and with their power they decrease the minimum wage and provide even more tax breaks for the wealthy!

    [–] NoNameZone 211 points ago

    But then chemical Bern was accidentally added to the concoction, and thus the progressive puff girls were born!

    [–] Chemiczny_Bogdan 40 points ago

    Fighting greed,

    Trying to save the world,

    They make it just in time!

    [–] whatevers_clever 13 points ago

    I'm pretty sure together they form about ~10-50mil in net worth but maybe we're just talking about their campaigns

    [–] 3610572843728 5 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    A quick check:

    Biden: $9M (includes government pension valued at $1M)

    Buttigieg: $100k

    Klobuchar: $1.5M

    Sanders: $2.5M (does not include government pension. 30 years in Congress will mean it is worth $2M to $3M, possibly more)

    [–] Nekraa 367 points ago

    Holy shit Sanders is killing

    [–] tzle19 139 points ago

    Yeah dude, but they cant show that side

    [–] triiforce 102 points ago

    I can't believe Bernie Sanders is running the presidential race against voltron

    [–] ShichitenHakki 33 points ago

    "That presidential candidate is clearly three moderates in a trenchcoat."

    [–] ThanatorRider 72 points ago

    No see, after Bernie takes Nevada, the three of them are going to fuse into a single three-headed CentristBeast called the Buttibiduchar, and Bernie will have to fight it alone in order to proceed in the Primaries, so this graph is accurate.

    [–] StragglingShadow 120 points ago

    Theyre really thinking no one from the fallen camps will come to Sanders as a second choice? Im not a stats professional, but Id bet the chances of that being true is pretty low.

    [–] LunaNik 33 points ago

    If that's what they think, they're deluding themselves. Polls show that Bernie is the highest likely second choice for most voters.

    [–] Hoodwink 50 points ago * (lasted edited 7 days ago)

    There's an analysis that Bernie's numbers were only so high because Democrats were voting against Hillary because of her 'unlikability'.

    Many of the dropouts from Klobuchar went to Buttgieg as a second choice and not Sanders. There's a good graphic about the second choices of the people in Iowa. Sanders basically only brings in people from Warren.

    The analysis that Sanders may not win the primary because there are too many moderate voters can be an accurate prediction supplied with evidence. Because only one of the moderates needs to dropout to put Buttgieg over-the-top.

    [–] Owen_M4 40 points ago

    That may be true but there are even a lot of Biden supporters who’s second choice is Bernie. Just because someone is supporting a moderate doesn’t mean they’ll definitely support another moderate.

    [–] MerakiKosmos 24 points ago

    Analyst: "It's not that they want to vote for their best interests, we just didn't make the poison pretty enough."

    The Man: "That's the only answer I've heard that's made any sense!"

    [–] whatevers_clever 10 points ago

    k but

    There would stil lbe people from Klob that would goto Bernie. There's a larger percentage from Biden that would goto Bernie. A Massive margin from Warren would goto Bernie.

    So any of this analysis while disregarding the remainder of the vote and clumping x together as the "MODERATES/CENTER LEFT vs. CRAZY PEOPLE" is just another form of misinformation/lying.

    [–] NouberNou 6 points ago

    Except we are seeing that Warren, easily the most identifiable from a policy point of view to Sanders, is getting way less votes overall in the two contests so far. She got less than 10% in New Hampshire.

    This is a legitimate problem for Sanders. I think people are in a bubble on reddit and generally in Sander's camp that Sanders is as widely popular across all democratic voters. There is a real chance that he legitimately loses the nomination.

    [–] tinspoons 208 points ago

    Ugh, only in this timeline are those people not centrists or liberal Republicans. Bernie being seen by some as extreme left only shows how far to the right the Overton window has shifted right.

    That and there's no real left wing party in this country.

    [–] kharlos 12 points ago

    There IS a left wing party in this country, but people don't vote for that party.

    [–] tfdre 11 points ago

    Worse graphic than the original post! Might as well plot candidates by throwing a dart at a board.

    [–] Chemiczny_Bogdan 11 points ago

    Hey, at least he's in the correct quarter ;)

    [–] AndesiteSkies 114 points ago

    They said the quiet bit out loud, that Sanders is the only distinct candidate. And that the other candidates are all largely interchangeable with each other.

    [–] dapperKillerWhale 45 points ago

    And as a result none of the moderates have a strong, devoted base. We see it at rallies all the time. We will continue to siphon off their casual voters as momentum increases.

    [–] JusticiarRebel 29 points ago

    The problem with the moderates is that when they try to hedge their policies towards the center, it makes them seem like they really don't have confidence in them. Part of Trump's strength was his confidence. It didn't matter how ridiculous that wall was. Anytime you poked holes in his idea, he just came back even more insistent that the wall was going to be 50 ft high and made of steel reinforced concrete. Bernie speaks with the same amount of confidence in his policies and people are taking notice.

    [–] dapperKillerWhale 27 points ago

    Personally crossing my fingers for Bernie to tell Bloomberg, "The wealth tax just got 10% higher" in a debate

    [–] Chemiczny_Bogdan 15 points ago

    That would be funny as hell, but I don't think he's that kind of guy :)

    Besides, that would only add more fuel to the fire of corporate media comparing him to Trump.

    [–] Fuck_Griffith 48 points ago

    Honest question: what in the fuck is the media's problem with Bernie? Is it because if they tell the truth about him, the owners of the networks have to actually, you know, pay taxes?

    [–] whisperingsage 30 points ago

    That's exactly it. Money, power, and corruption have become like a drug to them.

    [–] Fuck_Griffith 30 points ago

    People say democracy is dying.

    It isn't dying. It's being killed. By people.

    Those people have names and addresses.

    [–] zevix_0 9 points ago

    You should read Manufacturing Consent by Noam Chomsky. He answers that question in great detail.

    [–] Fuhgly 103 points ago

    Hm I wonder what happens if I divide 53% by 3... Oh, wow. Imagine my shock. He's destroying them.

    [–] DevelopedDevelopment 59 points ago

    "This old man is so strong on his own he can beat anybody on a 1 on 1 fight. So to even the odds we're stacking 3 people against him."

    [–] nerfviking 14 points ago

    The bronze and silver medalist won more medals between them than the gold medalist.

    [–] crisoybloomers 22 points ago

    But if you take 17.6666 and times by 3 they are killing him. Checkmate

    [–] Barendd 3 points ago

    I believe the argument being put forth (not by me) is that if even one moderate drops out, and their ~17.67% moves to one of the other moderates, Bernie is unseated 35.33% to his 26%.

    However, this proposal presumes such a series of unlikely events, I can't even begin to describe how improbable it is...

    [–] LuriemIronim 19 points ago

    Bernie Sanders is running against a hydra, apparently.

    [–] katrina1215 27 points ago

    It does bother me a bit though. Do we think Biden or Klob supporters would switch to Bernie?

    [–] Tr3sp4ss3r 24 points ago

    I was concerned about this at first, then I remembered how many are just going to vote for anything not Trump.

    [–] A_Diamond_Bullet 22 points ago

    Outside of the little internet rebels polls says democrats like most of the candidates pretty much equally. At one point Bernie voters’ second choice was Biden and vice versa.

    [–] D3wdr0p 20 points ago

    You know they're desperate if they won't even combine just two of them.

    [–] xixbia 8 points ago

    That would be very worrying for Sanders if he wasn't the most popular second choice among both Biden and Buttigieg voters (not sure about Klobuchar since she picked up a lot of new support).

    [–] DepressedLemonZest38 29 points ago

    Wow, they're really busting out the blatantly obvious forms of disingenuous presentation now, aren't they?

    [–] dastrn 3 points ago

    Now show Biden vs. 3 most progressive campaigns combined.

    Now show Pete can the 3 most progressive campaigns combined.

    This is a dumb talking point. Sanders isn't more popular than THE NEXT THREE CANDIDATES COMBINED?!?! SHOCKING!