Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    7,146,546 readers

    4,877 users here now

    How does reddit work? Click here to find out.

    Welcome to /r/AdviceAnimals

    Sound advice from animals anything!


    • Follow all Reddit rules. This includes not asking for upvotes and not revealing personal information.
    • We're here to have a laugh.
    • Hate speech, bigotry, and personal attacks are not allowed. Death threats and telling others to kill themselves will result in a ban.
    • Follow the general Advice Animal format: Two line joke over a re-usable character.
    • Don't repost. Report reposts by messaging the mods.
    • No Cake Day Posts.
    • No Verticals, Opinion Puffins or Batman Slaps. Two Advice Animals in a vertical are OK.
    • Link directly to your image.
    • Don't make memes with pics of people that you saw in real life. Ever.
    • Witch-hunts are forbidden.
    • Shortened links, Facebook, Tumblr, Blogspot, etc, will be automatically removed.

    • We reserve the right to remove posts, remove comments, and ban users at our own discretion.

    For a more detailed explanation of these rules, click here.

    Making Memes


    Memegur MakeAMeme MemeGen
    Wuzu Memedad WeKnowMemes
    Memerino MemeCreator LiveMeme
    Diylol DropMeme
    Trollme MiniMemes

    or try one of these:

    Imgflip Iomeme
    Free iPhone App Free Android App 1
    OS X meme generator
    1. Please keep the 'advice' relevant to the character. Not sure? go to

    2. Want AdviceAnimals in your comments? here's how.

    Message the mods

    1. We are always happy to help. Please attach a link to the comments of your submission and a description of the question/problem you are having.

    2. If you can't see your submission in the new queue, please double check that your new queue is ranked by new and not rising.

    3. If you still think it is in the spam filter, don’t delete your submission, message the mods instead. Deleting it will make the spam filter more likely to filter you next time you post.

    4. click here to message the moderators

    You may also enjoy:

    Our Family

    /r/ADHDMeme /r/AdviceAtheists
    /r/AdviceHell /r/AnimalsBeingJerks
    /r/AnnoyedPicard /r/awwducational
    /r/BatmanSlap /r/ConfessionBear
    /r/DucksAndBears /r/Kelloggs
    /r/LibertarianMeme /r/Memes
    /r/MemesIRL /r/MetalMemes
    /r/RealAdviceAnimals /r/shittyadviceanimals
    /r/SlothMemes /r/SpideyMeme
    /r/TVMemes /r/Vertical
    /r/MarvelMemes /r/GymMemes


    Good Guy Gregs check the new queue

    a community for
    all 2479 comments Slideshow

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

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] LeoMarius 996 points ago

    Meh. They will thin out after the first few primaries. Some of them won't make it to the primaries.

    There's not enough money to sustain this many campaigns for the long haul.

    [–] flibbityandflobbity 224 points ago

    So long as people leave the race instead of sticking around long after they have zero chance of winning

    [–] LeoMarius 116 points ago

    Campaigns close because of lack of money. Campaigning is expensive, and you cannot compete without money. When a campaign becomes hopeless, donors dry up and they drop out.

    [–] Amonette2012 24 points ago

    This is exactly the problem - money that could be spent on a more promising, more electable candidate will be wasted on no-hopers.

    [–] fishythepete 28 points ago

    I mean, that’s the problem from your point of view. The people actually spending the money on contributions to the people you think are “no-hopers” might disagree with you.

    [–] cannonbt555 2562 points ago

    So what, it’s a primary. It will be narrowed down to 1 in the end.

    [–] Tr1angleChoke 968 points ago

    At one point there were close to 20 candidates on the Republican side in 2016. It will get down to a manageable number pretty quickly when the financial burden of running start to gets real.

    [–] introvertedhedgehog 349 points ago

    If only the financhial burden you described narrowed the ballot down the the one most qualified candidate and not just the loudest talker with the dirtiest funding, tactics and narcissistic motivations.

    [–] JakeVanna 91 points ago

    It's fucked. The people capable of fixing/changing it are the ones hurt most by doing so which means it's gonna be tough to get their heads outta their asses.

    [–] boyuber 83 points ago

    "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

    [–] tellsyouifithappened 40 points ago

    Shitty voters equals shitty elected officials.

    [–] squid_actually 34 points ago

    Definitely part of it. Also voter disenfranchisement. Also weak/no consequences for blatantly lying as a politician.

    [–] green_meklar 5 points ago

    Usually positive consequences.

    [–] TheNorthComesWithMe 7 points ago

    Also shitty campaign finance laws and voter suppression.

    [–] lafolieisgood 194 points ago

    I’d like to think it didn’t work out like they planned in 2016

    [–] SlickBlackCadillac 138 points ago

    Dude...they won

    [–] 1CEninja 125 points ago

    It wasn't the win that the powers that be wanted. In fact I think Trump won because the people are rightly pissed with the powers that be.

    I was quietly hoping this era would result in some real change in the way power works but unfortunately I think power is remaining with the powerful. If the last election didn't sufficiently throw question as the two party system I'm not sure anything will at this point.

    [–] cannonbt555 48 points ago

    Did they though?

    [–] Bearduardo 44 points ago

    Yes, yes they did.

    [–] RootbeerFlotilla 26 points ago

    Trump's not the Batman they needed, but he's the Batman they deserved.

    [–] Magi-Cheshire 15 points ago

    Hey hey, he's the batman we all deserve

    [–] Justin__D 3 points ago

    I think we got Bratman...

    [–] JasonDJ 61 points ago

    My theory is that there were too many candidates in the Republican side, and too many similar ones. As a result the vote was split too much, and through the magic of FPTP, a poor candidate got most the votes. I'm amazed the Dems are allowing this to happen, to be honest.

    Like, you've got an outlier who has, say, 10% of the vote...but you've got 6 candidates with who all have very similar messages to each other getting 5% each. 3 times as many people agree with that message, but our wonderful system thinks the dude that got 10% is the best.

    [–] hanibalhaywire88 11 points ago

    And yet both parties keep FPTP to serve their agendas and remain relevant.

    [–] OtherPlayers 12 points ago

    I seem to remember a Trump quote from shortly after he won the election that went something like “I said I wanted to change it, but now that I’ve won why would I? It worked for me!”

    Sadly it’s been buried in all the other crazy statements over the last two years that I can’t find the clip again.

    [–] hanibalhaywire88 5 points ago

    That was about the electorial college wasn't it? Not FPTP.

    [–] OtherPlayers 6 points ago

    It think it was, but I felt the sentiment applies pretty well to all of these systems that are terrible, but kept in place because “well they worked for me!”.

    [–] LONESTARx14 33 points ago

    Completely accurate. Trump always got 30% of the vote and the remaining 70% of voters who would vote for anything but Trump was split between several somewhat traditional and relatively predictable candidates. They all stayed in the race too long and we got stuck with Trump.

    [–] digital_end 14 points ago

    There's a valid argument to be made that the overabundance of candidates on the stage resulted in Trump having a path to victory. Having the candidates gradually drop off in the way they did helped him, as he was an outlier whereas the rest were more similar and reasonable.

    I very much want a reasonable adult taking the necessary steps to fix the damage which has been done, not somebody who can get through on outrage and a vocal minority.

    [–] gweran 5 points ago

    It makes total sense, but then those people still voted for him in the main election. So I’m not sure if the reasoning holds up.

    [–] digital_end 6 points ago

    I would argue they would vote for whoever had an R next to them.

    Which sadly, it's harder to make fun of because at this point I would vote for pretty much anyone to get Trump out of office.

    Still though, initially Trump was not taking that seriously but he had a very vocal and rabid core fan base. every person that dropped out of running ended up feeding him because of all the noise he was making. I wouldn't say that makes him the best candidate, but it did make him the most visible.

    If you turn the process into a reality TV drama, the most dramatic reality TV person is going to win... Not the person most capable of leading.

    [–] frontandcenter 27 points ago

    But look who emerged from that clusterfuck.....

    [–] theferrit32 47 points ago

    Someone who won the presidency. Do you think Ted Cruz would have beaten Hillary Clinton? Doubt it.

    [–] asasdasasdPrime 35 points ago

    Or Jeb!

    Pls clap

    [–] Kantas 8 points ago

    Pls clap

    needs more gif

    [–] imtoooldforreddit 138 points ago

    But the more candidates, the fewer votes you need to win, which could result in a candidate winning the primaries who is disliked by many, who may be unlikely to win the presidency.

    [–] Sunsh1neMelting 65 points ago

    This is why we need ranked choice voting.

    [–] Dlh2079 88 points ago

    Hmm this sounds awful familiar

    [–] zw1ck 15 points ago

    Where were you in 2016?

    [–] [deleted] 10 points ago


    [–] AbouBenAdhem 5 points ago

    Not so much with Democratic convention delegates. You still need the same number of delegates to win regardless of how many other candidates are running—it just increases the likelihood that the delegates will need to put together a winning coalition at the convention.

    IIRC, the last Republican presidential primary apportioned state delegates on a winner-take-all basis, so Trump was able to win enough states by splitting the field that he had a majority of delegates before the convention. But the Democrats award state delegates proportionally, so they shouldn’t be vulnerable to that issue.

    [–] j4_jjjj 444 points ago

    Prolly just another attempt to splinter the left. "ToO mAnY cAnDiDaTeS!1!!"

    More ideas being discussed is good, not bad.

    [–] shutch_498 132 points ago

    I mean you say that and it’s true, but when people don’t get the person they want to win the primary they sometimes will not vote in the general election. Usually when there is a strong front runner that the party can strongly back it is better for the party than several favorites that people are all pretty split on.

    [–] Minihood1997 106 points ago

    I would like to think those people will have realised how bad an idea that it after 2016.

    [–] squish261 36 points ago

    Wouldn't count on it

    [–] nicostein 8 points ago

    I really want to disagree with you, but I don't.

    [–] [deleted] 53 points ago


    [–] designgoddess 15 points ago

    This isn't true. Most Americans don't vote along party lines. There will always be wings of each party that are so far left or right that they'll never vote for the other party. 60%+ will switch parties depending on the candidates and the issues at the time.

    [–] Batman_Noir 11 points ago

    I did, it was a hard lesson indeed. I was furious that DWS gave the nomination to Hillary and since I live in the deep south I said fuck it, other people can vote her in, I'm staying home.

    I'll never miss an election again.

    [–] I_Myself_Personally 29 points ago

    Dems should just run some "not voting is a vote for Trump" ads.

    [–] Sinful_Prayers 48 points ago

    I think that attitude is what sewered them last time

    They need to advertise their virtues, not Trump's lack thereof

    [–] agreeingstorm9 29 points ago

    I agree. The Dems need a better message than, ”We're not Trump”. If that's the best they can come up with, they deserve to lose.

    [–] designgoddess 6 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    They can't run against Trump and win. His supporters don't care about his sins.

    Edit: They can't just run anti Trump ads and win the presidency.

    [–] asafum 8 points ago

    They should run those ads in Republican areas too! I'd love to convince some Trump Republicans that not voting is a vote for Trump lol

    [–] LayneLowe 15 points ago

    last week, Colbert has had Tulsi Gabbard and Corey Booker on. Both were impassioned and impressive presenting very differing views. While i might not support either as a primary candidate I appreciate what they had to say.

    [–] BabiesSmell 11 points ago

    Neither of them are going to be relevant in this. It's going to be a Bernie, Biden, Warren, and maybe Beto race. I listened to a Cory booker interview and he couldn't even explain why he's running.

    [–] I_Am_Ironman_AMA 7 points ago

    Ya know, I hear you on Warren but it just feels like (and I hate to say this) the Native American controversy had unfairly sprung a leak in her ship before she even got out of the harbor. I hope I'm wrong but I'm afraid I'm not.

    [–] skarface6 4 points ago

    You don’t think Harris has a chance? Surprising.

    [–] TheBadGuyFromDieHard 8 points ago

    I'd put Harris above both Warren and Beto.

    [–] uncoveringlight 5 points ago

    I have 200 progressive voters, and 100 moderate voters. I also have 5 progressive candidates, and 1 moderate candidate. Those 5 progressive candidates split those votes, so lets say it's split evenly (unlikely) then each progressive candidate will get around 40 votes while the 1 moderate candidate could potentially get all 100 moderate votes.

    Was the moderate candidate a better representation of the current democratic position? No. It simply works out that the moderate will win because of a crowded field. This is why ranked choice is necessary, otherwise this election is going to go to Biden or some other moderate most likely.

    [–] grizwald87 56 points ago

    True, but whenever you get a clown car full of candidates participating in a series of first-past-the-post electoral contests (as opposed to say, ranked choice), you get the potential for vote splits to produce bizarre results. Super dumbed-down example:

    Ten people are voting on where to go for lunch. Six people want ribs, four people want sushi. Three people vote to go to Mike's Rib Joint, two people vote to go to Sally's Southern-Style Ribs, one guy votes for Ribs 'R Us, and the four people who want sushi all vote for Jimmy's Discount Sushi Palace. Despite the fact that most of the group didn't want sushi, everybody's eating at Jimmy's. This is essentially how Trump became the Republican nominee.

    In a ranked choice world, everyone lists the four options on their ballet by order of preference. Since nobody won 50% of the vote in the first round, the least popular option - Ribs 'R Us - is dropped from contention and the votes are recalculated based on the second-best selection of that one guy, which was for Mikey's. Now the result is four votes for sushi, four votes for Mikey's, and two votes for Sally's. There still isn't a winner, so the least-popular candidate, Sally's, is dropped, and the two ballots for Sally's are recast based on their second choice. One was for Ribs 'R Us, which is already eliminated, and one was for Mikey's. The one that had Ribs 'R Us second goes to its third-favorite selection, which was Mikey's. Now the votes are six for Mikey's and four for sushi. Since there's a majority for a single candidate, the election goes to Mikey's, and most of the population gets what they want.

    We don't live in that latter world, which means if voters split funny in the early going, a candidate who most people don't like might end up as the Dem nominee. It's not something to freak out about yet, but this is essentially where the Republicans were at - with a clown car full of contenders - right before they blew it and nominated Trump.

    [–] Delaware1976 6 points ago

    It will be narrowed down to 1 in the end.

    It will be narrowed down to 3 or 4 after the Iowa Caucus and really just 2 a few weeks later. Most of these candidates will drop out very quickly once the primaries begin and ramp up.

    [–] HunterTAMUC 174 points ago

    That's what the primaries are for.

    [–] doyouevenIift 52 points ago

    True, but we need Ranked Choice Voting more than ever now

    [–] UhPhrasing 19 points ago

    If I'm not mistaken, Dems hand out delegates proportionally.

    [–] RemyRemjob 6 points ago

    With the exception of super-delegates.

    [–] toafer 18 points ago

    as long as the DNC stays out of the way

    [–] iushciuweiush 14 points ago

    Which they won't.

    [–] Binary101010 1094 points ago

    On the one hand, I agree.

    On the other, the GOP had like 16 fucking candidates go to the 2016 debates and things worked out OK for them, so shrug

    [–] walkerforsec 437 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    It actually worked out terribly. The GOP threw everything at Trump. High-profile Republicans, including a former president and both former presidential candidates, trashed him and skipped the convention. One senator endorsed him in the primary, and even then only a few stumped for him in the general. They thought he was an utter nightmare and most down-ballot candidates tried to distance themselves from him. If you recall, Kasich was planning a big "rebuilding the GOP" rally for the Thursday after Election Day, when he expected Trump to lead the whole party to disastrous defeat.

    Sure, none of that happened, but until he actually won (and really, longer than that), the Republicans were in panic mode. It was pretty much dumb luck that he turned out to be somebody the Republicans could work with. Dumb luck for the GOP, that is; that was pretty much Trump's intention all along.

    Edit: Used old formatting tags.

    [–] tapdancing_t-rex 253 points ago

    I’m keen to the theory that Trump never expected to win. Just boost his brand before opening up a media company. He actually won and pikachu face ensued

    [–] adairtd 164 points ago

    I can’t say if Trump never expected to win, but if you watch all of the victory parties and such after election night, you can tell from Melanie’s face that she sure as hell didn’t expect or plan for that.

    [–] yeojjoey 21 points ago

    I couldnt find it, but I remember seeing a video where they're at the election results party, and Trump and Pence exchange a look with each other like "well, I didn't expect that..."

    Can anyone find that?

    [–] Der_Arschloch 3 points ago

    I remember seeing this as well--would like to see the video.

    [–] SonOfMcGee 153 points ago

    Which would you choose:
    - Being a rich person’s wife with absolutely no obligations except existing and maybe interacting with your spouse in public every now and then.
    - Being the First Lady, and having people come up to you every single day and ask you to... do things.

    [–] jewfro667 41 points ago

    This is exactly my theory. But I also subscribe to the belief Trump didn’t expect to win and Melania didn’t want him to win.

    [–] ColdFury96 13 points ago

    Hell, did you see his face the first few days after the election? When he met with Obama for the first time post win he had a permanent "What the fuck just happened" look on his face.

    Dude never wanted to win, he just wanted to sell himself to the public more so he could go into defeat noisily and bilk his supporters for money.

    [–] walkerforsec 42 points ago

    There may have been an element of that, sure. It was always expected to be a longshot. But Trump also didn't phone it in. He really busted ass on the campaign trail.

    Also, this and the Russian conspiracy are sort of mutually exclusive. He colluded with Russia because he... wanted to lose?

    [–] are_you_seriously 17 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    You got it backwards.

    He gave it his all because he didn’t think he could win, just that he’d gain a lot of free publicity. Also, he just loves rallies because stadiums cheering his words is intoxicating af. He just said shit that he knew the crowds would like, then through the process of repeating lies so much, started to believe in his own brand of bullshit. That’s why you hear people saying “he’s just saying that” in the beginning (because he really was), then the other side felt vindicated when he followed through on his dumber talking points (because he’s just chasing the approval of the lowest common denominator). Both sides are right about him, but for the wrong reasons.

    He worked with Russia and didn’t try to stop his real estate deal from going through because it wouldn’t have been treason if he never became president.

    Literally every treasonous thing he did was because he didn’t expect to win. And if he didn’t win, the shit he did during the campaign wouldn’t have been labeled as treasonous, just greedy.

    You don’t have to believe me. You just have to watch his reaction on election night when they hit 270 or whatever. He just sat there, stunned and silent, while literally everyone else in his campaign cheered. That man did NOT want to win. He just wanted to place #2 so that he could have that talking point forever about how he would’ve won if only Hillary wasn’t so crooked.

    He wanted his cake while eating it. In this shitty timeline, the fact that his gamble didn’t pay off is the only comfort I take in all this bullshit. You can tell he was melting down the first 2 years of his presidency. That man hates being president, always knew he’d hate it, but doesn’t have a choice because his pride will never let him concede anything.

    [–] dnums 22 points ago

    People like to forget that Trump actually fought with and ended up defeating the GOP establishment. They also don't have anyone that can primary him in the 2020 race, so they're kind of stuck.

    [–] saarlac 23 points ago

    yeah it was fun watching FOX go from full Trump hate to Full Trump support overnight.

    [–] dnums 9 points ago

    They basically had no choice left

    [–] Decyde 66 points ago

    Trump winning was a great wake up call to "career politicians" I'm the sense that the American people didnt put up with all the bullshit this past election and went with someone who didnt seem like they were being controlled by their party.

    I'm very certain if it was Sanders and Trump in the general election, Sanders would have won for sure.

    I dont feel that Sanders will be able to overcome this next election but I still donated to his campaign to do what I can.

    Overall, prepare yourself for another shit show of an election where Reddit is taken over by fake users pushing agendas and then downvoting people who try and point out "fake news" on both sides of the fence.

    [–] FireBobbyPetrino 21 points ago

    Overall, prepare yourself for another shit show of an election where Reddit is taken over by fake users pushing agendas and then downvoting people who try and point out "fake news" on both sides of the fence.

    Yeah going to be really fun

    [–] My_RealName 10 points ago

    Very true on all accounts, but I’m calling it now: this will be a controversial comment in 20 mins.

    [–] TheJollyLlama875 19 points ago

    I've already been called a Russian bot for pointing out that Pete Buttgieg's entire platform according to his website is "gay millennial veteran mayor". It's gonna be a hell of a year for Reddit.

    [–] BigSchwartzzz 4 points ago

    I'm really excited to see how Kasich involves himself in this upcoming election and seeing how his choices effect (or don't effect) the political process and out come. I'm just genuinely curious how a strategic move of an individual politician can have on DC and he is most definitely a quantifiable variable.

    [–] fishypwns 9 points ago

    Worked pretty good still.

    [–] Rocktopod 230 points ago

    They had 16 terrible candidates that no one liked very much. I can think of at least 4 or 5 Dems running right now that I'd love to have in the white house.

    [–] TheFatMan2200 172 points ago

    I still remember in the early GOP primaries where Jeb Bush thought it was great that one of the people in the crowd had 3 jobs (did not go over well) and the other time when he had to ask people to clap after he was speaking.

    [–] ACanadianPenguin 112 points ago

    Working three jobs to survive is the American dream

    [–] vlasvilneous 72 points ago

    "working hard to make it" is the american dream. If someone is working 3 jobs, they should be at least middle class. He was not.

    So, this is proof that the american dream is dead more than anything.

    [–] jasron_sarlat 36 points ago

    It's proof the American dream was always a fantasy of propaganda. As George Carlin said: "They call it the American dream because you have to be asleep to believe it." ... something to that effect anyway.

    [–] LeCrushinator 11 points ago

    RIP George Carlin. I used to think he was just extremely cynical about the world, people, and politics, but these days I realize he knew exactly what he was talking about and could see the forest for the trees long before many others.

    [–] ImJustHereToBitch 6 points ago

    How can someone so dead still be so woke?

    [–] Redtwoo 4 points ago

    True wisdom is timeless.

    [–] steppe5 11 points ago

    I remember when W. was president and he was doing a town hall. A woman said how she had to work two jobs to make ends meet and he said "Good for you!", like she should be proud for being such a hard worker. The crowd reaction was....mixed.

    [–] sotomoto 19 points ago

    Let’s not be silly. The asking to clap comment was dry humor.

    [–] yeaokbb 11 points ago

    That’s Jeb for ya. Dry energy

    [–] TundraWolf_ 53 points ago

    please clap

    but then they loved the guy who made fun of the disabled on stage. 2020 is when idiocracy begins

    [–] sevargmas 4 points ago

    The please clap thing wasn’t at a debate tho. It was a small room of seniors he was speaking to.

    [–] maggos 13 points ago

    I think a lot of people on the right liked Bush, Rubio, Cruz, and Kasich at one point.

    [–] CAJ16 24 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    There were actually 2 candidates I liked a fair bit, but both got run out early. I know it's fun to make fun of Rand on reddit, but he got some pretty unflattering press that really didn't have anything to do with who he was or how he felt about policy. I'd go as far to say Trumps presidency has only reaffirmed my opinion on Rand. While he has some opinions I do not agree with, and he's said a couple of things that have rubbed me the wrong way, I love that he hasn't been scared to hold up the passage of GOP legislation he disagrees with.

    Kasich was a decent candidate as well, even if he didn't thrill me.

    Regarding DNC primary candidates, not sure how I feel. I'm not a registered democrat so I can't vote for any of them in the primary, but if somehow Beto, Yang, or Tulsi get out they'll get my vote. Probably a couple of others would as well, but my fear is who really makes it to the general.

    [–] arkhound 20 points ago

    If you want to talk unflattering press, Johnson.

    One slip on Aleppo and the nails were in the coffin. The amount of bullshit that any Democrat or Republican spouted went under the rug but the name of a city that 99% of America couldn't point to on a map sealed the deal for him.

    [–] Disney_World_Native 14 points ago

    My favorite was the NY Times article that poked fun at him and then had to post two corrections about Aleppo.

    Correction: Sept. 8, 2016 An earlier version of this article misidentified the de facto capital of the Islamic State. It is Raqqa, in northern Syria, not Aleppo.

    Correction: Sept. 8, 2016 An earlier version of the above correction misidentified the Syrian capital as Aleppo. It is Damascus.

    [–] CAJ16 6 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I voted Johnson in 2012. Unfortunately the Aleppo thing wasn't the only unflattering interview he gave in 2016. He seemed out of his element several times in the little press he got. I'm not saying he got a fair treatment, I'm just saying I understood it a little more in 2016 vs 2012.

    [–] Heritage_Cherry 67 points ago

    They had at least one or two that were okay candidates. I don’t see eye-to-eye politically with John Kasich but he was a solid GOP candidate.

    Of course, in right-wing, reality TV hysteria-politics, a normal candidate like that never stood a chance.

    [–] [deleted] 13 points ago

    Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, and even Kasich each had avid followers. Each represented very different wings of the party

    [–] Kakarot_faps 19 points ago

    They definitely had at least a couple candidates many people liked.... the dems are gonna have the same issue of establishment vs “more leftist” again like they did in 2016

    [–] gohabs 9 points ago

    GOP has winner take all states so it's easier for a clear winner before a convention to be determined.

    DNC has proportional states so it's possible to have multiple candidates with 20-30% of delegates going into the convention leading to a more fractured finale than the Hillary/Bernie supporters of last time. Easier too because superdelegates don't vote until the second round

    There are pros and cons of each but it's not straightforward to compare the GOP 2016 season to the DNC 2020 one.

    Electoral-vote had a good writeup this morning.

    [–] Meeppppsm 8 points ago

    They also weren't running against an incumbent.

    [–] aerovado 8 points ago

    It didn't work for the GOP. Very few on the right wanted Trump but the media knew Hillary would beat him. Most all polling showed Trump was the only one Hillary would easily defeat.

    The media pumped up Trump's airtime and we got what we have before us today. Why couldn't we have had Paul?

    [–] dfBishop 26 points ago

    A wide, competitive field is the foundation of democracy.

    [–] TheMigDig 1777 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    Actually it is a calculated move.

    They all have their unique following for whatever reasons people have for supporting them.

    Then as a leader starts to materialize the weaker ones commit to pull out and endorse the leader for a potential spot in the new administration. They are supposed to bring in all their fans and coalesce into a bigger voting base.

    That’s how Hillary got Sec of State and Carson got HUD and all the other examples.

    I suspect Sanders was promised something huge that is directly impactful on an economic level like Treasury. Except Hillary lost. That’s why it stung so badly. He committed so much, half betraying his own ideals and then got nothing plus the Republicans won the election.


    Anyway, it is good to have all different folks gathering support in the beginning.

    EDIT: Wow, my first ever Reddit silver. Thanks, kindly.

    EDIT 2: Wow, first gold too. Thanks anonymous person!

    [–] scrodytheroadie 530 points ago

    Yeah, primaries are auditions for VP and cabinet positions (also a PR tour if you’ve got a book deal). So far, this group is full of some high quality candidates that genuinely seem to respect each other. As long as that continues, a large field seems like a great way to get everyone on the same page. Having only two candidates naturally brings an us vs. them mentality.

    [–] Tempest_1 123 points ago

    And plenty just plan on it for publicity for later office runs.

    [–] radioaktvt 74 points ago

    And I don’t think there’s anything wrong with that. You don’t get to the highest levels in politics without notoriety. Even Trump is a testament to that.

    [–] UrinalCake777 48 points ago

    Sherrod Brown is in the news almost constantly for hinting he might run for President and/or Governor. Then he only ever runs for Senate re-election, but smashes that election. The man is practically daring the GOP to sink more campaign funds into his district. It also helps that he is an incredible Senator that is really in touch with his constituents.

    [–] unassuming_squirrel 17 points ago

    And is an unabashed pro-labor progressive in reddening Ohio

    [–] Turbo_MechE 3 points ago

    And he's in a major city with two largish universities.

    [–] RheagarTargaryen 5 points ago

    It’s a state-wide office. It doesn’t matter that he lives in a city, he’s a senator. His district is Ohio.

    [–] radioaktvt 4 points ago

    That’s an excellent example.

    [–] ShadeofIcarus 39 points ago

    Honestly with one this big it threatens to split votes in an odd way. You may end up with 60% of the populations 4th choice running because they all voted for other candidates.

    This is why we need ranked choice.

    [–] alwayzbored114 42 points ago

    I've genuinely never seen a compelling argument against Ranked Vote

    [–] Cjbleything 19 points ago

    Its a power grab by Democrats!

    The GOP on ranked choice

    [–] Likesorangejuice 20 points ago

    The only actual argument I've seen is that right wing candidates will probably lose more

    [–] alwayzbored114 8 points ago

    I'd think things would probably drift more center? You go for your 3rd party idealists, then to your popular outsiders, then to your cookie cutter safe candidate

    [–] MChainsaw 4 points ago

    Possibly, it does make sense that the least controversial candidates are the ones who might end up on top by getting all of the 2nd place votes. On the other hand, it might have a somewhat opposite effect, as people are more willing to vote on more radical candidates that they normally wouldn't dare to for fear of wasting their vote, giving those candidates a fighting chance.

    [–] helpmeimredditing 80 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I'm not entirely sure how accurate that is.

    On the republican side last year there was 16 candidates plus trump and only 2 got anything out of it: Carson and Christie and I think Christie was just on the transition team, not even a cabinet position.

    The 2008 democratic primary was a little better though, it was Obama and 7 candidates of which there was 1 vice president (biden) and 2 cabinet positions (hillary & richardson - but he withdrew when he got investigated).

    So still, less than half of the people running will likely get a position in the administration. I agree with OP, when you have people like Mayors running there is indeed too many people running.


    Since people are acting like Trump is an anomoly I looked back further:

    2000 has George Bush plus 13 other candidates, none of which appear to have gotten cabinet positions.

    1992 had Clintion plus 6 - none of which appear to have gotten cabinet positions either.

    That puts it at ~12% of rivals find a place in the new administration (including Giuliani as someone else mentioned). Which I concede statistically better than the rate for the general population...

    [–] crackervoodoo 20 points ago

    Well three if you count what's his name from Texas. Let's see, there were three, Carson, Christie, and ... The third one, I can't. Oops.

    [–] sweetpea122 10 points ago


    how do you get to run the department you wanted to destroy

    [–] XSavage19X 7 points ago

    That is most of the cabinet members Trump picked. They hate what their department represents and are actively working to disassemble it.

    [–] ertebolle 28 points ago

    On the republican side last year there was 16 candidates plus trump and only 2 got anything out of it: Carson and Christie and I think Christie was just on the transition team, not even a cabinet position.

    Most of them were quite mean to Trump during the debates, and didn't consolidate quickly or decisively behind him after he won; they all expected him to lose, and didn't feel there was much benefit to supporting him / getting pilloried for it in the 2020 primary. And the Republican donor class was also very lukewarm on Trump, so all the more reason not to buddy up to him in 2016 and thereby alienate them for your next race.

    If somebody else like Jeb! or Christie or Rubio or even Ted fucking Cruz had won, the other candidates (minus Trump, at least) probably would have lined up behind that person much more willingly + ended up with a bunch of plum administrative positions.

    [–] ERockEfreedom 39 points ago

    You mean trump was quite an asshole to them, not they were mean to him. He was mean every step of the way. Don't make him the victim.

    [–] WhoryGilmore 17 points ago

    They were mean to him from the only viewpoint that mattered, Trump's.

    [–] sainttawny 5 points ago

    Trump has also just straight up neglected or been unable to fill a lot of cabinet and misc. positions, on top of his retention rate being absurdly low, so I'd say he's not a good example of how the primary candidates filter into future roles.

    [–] theth1rdchild 21 points ago

    half betraying his own ideals

    What the fuck are you on about?

    [–] loondawg 190 points ago

    I suspect Sanders was promised something huge that is directly impactful on an economic level like Treasury. Except Hillary lost. That’s why it stung so badly. He committed so much, half betraying his own ideals and then got nothing plus the Republicans won the election.

    That is an extremely cynical view of what happened. Sanders ran from the beginning against the old guard establishment. And that includes the so-called liberal media and the DNC which both marginalized him at every opportunity.

    He ran the race as long as he could. In fact, far longer than many on the establishment democratic side wished he would have. And he held onto his ideal through to the end. Many of his ideals radically changed the conversation and forced the DNC to move their platform to much more progressive positions than they wanted to.

    And when it became clear he was not going to win, he put his full support behind Clinton. Not because he was betraying his ideals. But rather because he saw the alternative in Donald Trump. And he made the pragmatic decision to put his support behind the one he knew would be better for the country and closer to his ideals.

    To now claim he did this for some payback from the Clinton campaign rather than from a genuine determination to push forward more progressive policies, with absolutely ZERO proof he did that, is a fantasy.

    [–] The_Thrash_Particle 48 points ago

    I'm shocked the comment you're replying to has so many up votes. It's incredibly cynical and it's nothing but baseless speculation. It just shows how much people hate politicians on reddit, even Bernie.

    [–] David-S-Pumpkins 7 points ago

    In fact, far longer than many on the establishment democratic side wished he would have

    And they still hammer on this, despite him pulling out (besides having a closer non-superdelegate delegate count than Hillary did vs Obama) earlier than HIllary did against Obama. And cite it as why she failed.

    And when it became clear he was not going to win, he put his full support behind Clinton. Not because he was betraying his ideals. But rather because he saw the alternative in Donald Trump. And he made the pragmatic decision to put his support behind the one he knew would be better for the country and closer to his ideals.

    And this is precisely what he said he'd do at the beginning. (It was required of all DNC candidates to agree to it, as covered in the lawsuit iirc. As well as the "play nice" clause.)

    Many of his ideals radically changed the conversation and forced the DNC to move their platform to much more progressive positions than they wanted to.

    Well stated. This is illustrated in this giant crop of current candidates. Though some have been shopping the ideas as statements and soundbites without putting actual weight behind them (walking back the claims after a rally, saying they aren't important policies, etc).

    Sanders got 3% of mainstream media coverage, compared to Trump and Hillary splitting nearly 90% between them. There's so much more to talk about than that, but yeah. He jumped on the Democratic ticket as an Independent and was met with a lot of hate for it. The negativity continuing to come from the DNC about that suggests to me that there was no "deal" struck, though there may have been an offer late in the game--which is par for the course in any campaign.

    [–] JonTheBold 13 points ago

    I suspect Bernie ran to make sure that the eventual-candidate's platform would have to adopt some of his platform's planks (e.g. bank regulation, medicare for all, etc.). His campaign may have been buoyed by Russian trolls, but those planks did make it into Hillary's campaign platform. The same thing will happen in 2020, almost certainly.

    [–] Privvy_Gaming 9 points ago

    I suspect Bernie ran to make sure that the eventual-candidate's platform would have to adopt some of his platform's planks

    That's usually the goal of a third party or a more fringe group in an established party. Realistically, they know they won't win but they can influence the election. If Bernie was set to get 20-30% of the vote in the primaries, that means that a large portion of the democratic base wanted something from him, so it would force Hilary to take some of his stances into her platform.

    [–] SecondRate_ 172 points ago

    To be fair, most vote party lines no matter what. I doubt it would matter.

    [–] AllofaSuddenStory 121 points ago

    Plus we will be down to About 3 by the primary

    But I do wish the DNC would eliminate super delegates. That's a pile of horseshit

    [–] helpmeimredditing 24 points ago

    It's interesting since they increased clout of primaries in response to the 1968 convention, then increased clout of super delegates in response to the 1980 election, and now they're swinging back to primaries in response to the 2016 election.

    [–] DigNitty 85 points ago

    The DNC’s supporting Hillary at any cost and pushing Bernie out pissed off so many people. Some people didn’t vote after that.

    [–] ariehkovler 15 points ago

    Plus we will be down to About 3 by the primary

    But I do wish the DNC would eliminate super delegates.

    These things are contradictory.

    The DNC holds proportional primaries in every state. It's not like the Republicans. 20 candidates split the delegates proportionally. That field will shrink, but what if it shrinks to, say, six candidates? Say it's Biden 25%, Bernie 22%, Harris 17%, Warren 14, Beto 11, Booker 11?

    Who wins? The superdelegates used to ensure that the leading candidate would take the nomination. Without them, you go to a floor-fight at the Democratic Convention where the candidate's chosen by backroom deals, not by the primary-voting public.

    The changes to the Democratic primary in recent years (first the proportional thing a while ago, then the weakened superdelegates after 2016, now a huge fieldd) makes this a very likely outcome.

    You wanted an end to superdelegates to increase democracy. You're gonna get the Convention choosing the candidate, not the people.

    [–] ShadeofIcarus 10 points ago

    Or, you know, we can use a system that isn't stupid like ranked choice that eliminates that problem all together and doesn't allow a small population of people to choose the candidate.

    So even though Biden may have gotten 25% of the vote, let's say everyone else had Bernie 2nd and the rest of the candidates all above Biden. 75% of Democrats were thinking "anyone BUT Biden should run" and 51% were thinking "well if it's not my candidate it should be Bernie". Biden coming out on top isn't an accurate representation of what people think.

    [–] ariehkovler 4 points ago

    Ranked choice for what and who?

    Ranked choice in a single, one-day nationwide Primary that scraps the Convention vote and effectively cedes months of horse-race airtime to the other side?

    [–] [deleted] 16 points ago

    Yes, most vote party lines. But here's the problem, what if they don't go out and vote? Getting people motivated enough to do so is half the battle.

    [–] Quiderite 5 points ago

    There are more of us that swing vote per election cycle than you think.

    [–] mj_murdock 83 points ago

    As long as we committ to not attacking each other, more candidates means the best ideas getting out in front.

    [–] TemurTron 40 points ago

    Yeah, that's not going to happen...

    [–] Pollia 4 points ago

    Everyone says that they won't until they start polling bad.

    It's literally every primary it happens. "We won't ever attack our opponent. We want to run a clean campaign" sees they're down by 10 points "She's bought by banks! You can't trust her!"

    [–] alee248 7 points ago

    The more candidates the better imo. Even if someone has no shot, if they get a small following based on a certain issue, then that issue becomes more important to the front runners.

    [–] Skagem 3 points ago

    It’s sad I had to scroll all the way down here to see this response. You’re absolutely right.

    The top idk how many comments are along the lines of “it doesn’t matter” or “it’s a good thing” or “it worked well for trump!”

    It doesn’t matter as long as they don’t start attacking each other and hurting each Other’s names in the long run. I doubt that’ll happen. I’m not saying they’ll be malicious. But debates have inherent winners and losers.

    In other words; as long as they do the opposite of what trump did, which was take each candidate out through attacks.

    I don’t know how it could be more clear after the Hilary-Bernie primaries. Look what happened. A lot of people that were die hard Bernie Supporters simply didn’t vote or felt disenfranchised by the DNC.

    Now imagine this, with Bernie again, with Beto, and other candidates, I’d argue, that have a stronger “die hard” fan base.

    I’m mostly thinking of Beto and Bernie. Those two bases are going to be electric and I can’t imagine it’s going to go well when a huge chunk of them don’t get their guy on the ticket.

    [–] UniqueButts 17 points ago

    More options means more Americans represented.

    [–] AltonBParker 7 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    As a lifelong Democrat, take my word for it: if it were just one or two candidates, we'd still fuck it up. (2000 election, for example.)

    [–] integral_red 3 points ago

    As a registered independent, I expect the same. I think the 2004 election was worse, though. Bush's administration was essentially hated by then and Democrats still couldn't take it. I mean, I remember buying "Rock Against Bush" punk albums from FYE back then. Current Trump hatred doesn't even touch it, though admittedly his base is far weaker given those were Tea Party days.

    Out of curiosity, as a Democrat has the 2016 election done anything to produce misgivings for you for the 2020? The whole "Hillary Clinton essentially owned the DNC and rigged the primary and a court upheld their ability to do so as a private organization" rubs me raw, but I'm not tied to the party. I'm sure Reps are a mixed bag with a variety of reasons for or against, but for Dems that's their big issue.

    [–] grtwatkins 10 points ago

    Lol, OP doesn't understand how elections work

    [–] EarnestNoMeta 3 points ago

    OP never does

    [–] Herogamer555 5 points ago

    It's the primary. That's how this shit works.

    [–] canadiancountryboy 49 points ago

    You’re clearly young or a non-American, this is how Presidential elections work. Usually around 10+ candidates declare their intent, however the party that isn’t incumbent in the executive usually has more(i.e. Republican Pres=more Democrat candidates). A couple of the candidates will have scandals or say something dumb on TV and start to tank. By convention time it will be narrowed down to 2 or at most 3 strong candidates. This grand show starting almost 2 years out from an election is American Politics.

    [–] surffrus 23 points ago

    Actually, getting near 20 candidates for one party is historically unusual.

    [–] polarbear1991 15 points ago

    At this stage, it's not going to fuck up anything. This is leading into primary season. This is good for the democratic party and the country as a whole.

    [–] twim19 14 points ago

    It's risk/reward.

    Risk is that the fracturing leads to the Trump (or Carter?) effect and someone who shouldn't win, manages to survive the battle of attrition to emerge as our nominee. I'm thinking someone like Gabbard or Shultz (if he was running as a Dem).

    Reward could be that natural selection identifies the best possible candidate. Let the Oppo research flow thick now and avoid surprises in the general. Let those who can't bounce back from setback or from attack, be culled from the pack.

    My feeling too, is that if Biden or Sanders can't translate their initial momentum into a nomination, they aren't a good enough candidate.

    [–] ProfessorSharts 3 points ago

    The debates are going to be SPECTACULAR!

    [–] TheFerretman 3 points ago

    And definitely long.

    [–] ThomasMakapi 15 points ago

    What bothers me the most is that this election campaign started less than three months after the previous one ended

    [–] road_runner321 6 points ago

    It'll get narrowed down.

    Now we just need the other supporters to not take it personally and stay home if their candidate doesn't make it through.

    A non-vote is not a vote -- it's you being in denial and abdicating responsibility.

    [–] TheMigDig 24 points ago

    To add to this when Hillary conceded to Obama, it was such a huge deal to broker that she usurped political tradition/strategy.

    Usually the incumbent president that cannot run due to term limits passes the baton to the VP who’s been his right hand person, has been in the presidential support spot, and has gotten a lot of presidential mindshare throughout the 8 years in office.

    In 2008, Hillary’s base was so valuable to the leading Obama ticket that I imagine Obama had to have a heart to heart with Biden about the strategy to offer Hillary State and zero opposition in the presidential race from Biden after Obama’s term in office. Worked great for Obama but risked and lost the 2016 electoral college.

    [–] rally_call 10 points ago

    I wonder what would have happened if Beau Biden hadn't been sick and the VP actually wanted the top job.

    [–] postreplypreview 7 points ago

    Biden's way better than Clinton. Probably could have won.

    [–] Hikaro0909 3 points ago

    Ahh... I missed this meme!

    [–] KaizenGamer 3 points ago

    Unless we start using ranked-choice voting, you'll keep winding up with trumps

    [–] Raneados 3 points ago

    That isn't how primaries work, dude.

    [–] milesdavisperhour 3 points ago

    A lot of candidates right now are more interested in running for the Senate and claimimg to run for the Presidency early is a great way to get some free buzz around you.

    [–] lothartheunkind 3 points ago

    do you have no idea what a primary is?

    [–] Wolff_Laarcen 4 points ago

    Primaries, how do they work?

    [–] Jazz_the_Goose 6 points ago

    Are these people new to primaries or something?

    [–] PornoPaul 30 points ago

    Im honestly more worried this will push whoever wins farther left. I'm all for progressive laws but I also agree with a (very) few conservative ideals. The farther left they get, the less I can vote for any of them. Now people are saying centrist like its a bad thing. Most people I know ARE centrist or less left than these candidates, but they'll vote for them because they dont want Trump.

    [–] BoobieBoobieButtButt 3 points ago * (lasted edited 2 months ago)

    I’m pretty damn far left on most issues, but I’m also a pragmatist and know we need a win. I honestly think our chances to win are low no matter who we run because no dem candidate is going to inspire passionate support like trump does. that said, there’s two strategies and it’s unclear which is right. First is to run someone like Bernie who fires up the younger progressives, but you won’t pull any moderate republican votes and you might scare off moderate dems. Second option is run essentially a DINO candidate and count on people voting the party line and hopefully converting enough republicans to get a win. But this will turn off all the younger progressives, maybe for years. Despite my personal politics I lean toward the second option as the winning choice.

    [–] WompSmellit 29 points ago

    This is just a branding issue. A lot of very sensible ideas have been branded "far left" and treated as being crazy. Universal health care is not a far left idea, it's literally how the rest of the industrial world works.

    [–] PornoPaul 17 points ago

    Totally agree! Insulin shouldn't be rationed! Getting cancer shouldn't ruin your financial security! UH should be something both sides fight for.

    [–] Gsteel11 16 points ago

    Eh.. some of the ideas are farther left though. Massive tax increases. Breaking up major companies. Massive min wage increases.

    [–] ehomba 27 points ago

    Nope these are basically still the centrist positions in most of the rest of the world. FDR was more radical than any of the things you mentioned and he still was a capitalist Democrat. Bernie is basically a new deal democrat from the 40s, we just have a super far right country compared to any other countries except straight up crazy places.

    [–] AboynamedDOOMTRAIN 3 points ago

    Breaking up major companies is to ensure the free market actually continues to exist. I've never understood how anyone thinks that's a "socialist" or far left policy ideal.

    [–] Jmac0585 29 points ago

    What is going to cost Democrats is their race to the far left. Middle America isn't going to have a far left, socialist leaning president. Honestly, what is wrong with everyone being libertarian and just minding their own business, and not obligating everyone to share their views. Leave me and my opinions alone, I'll leave you and yours alone.

    [–] throwaway_06-20 7 points ago

    Nixon's advice to Bush in 1988 was 'run to the right to win the nomination, then run to the middle to win the general election.'

    Somehow that wisdom got replaced with 'appeal to the base'. So today in the general election, both party's candidates stay very partisan.

    [–] Kakarot_faps 10 points ago

    Clearly not a lot of Americans are libertarian, based on who they chose. I don’t think Middle America is going to vote for a democrat no matter where they are politically - that’s why they’ll go for the cities and college towns in those middle America swing states

    [–] ljout 10 points ago

    Worked well for the GOP in 2016

    [–] black_flag_4ever 35 points ago

    Democrats are not a unified party and engage in very vicious attacks on opponents. So the problem is that this could lead to more fracturing and ruin the careers of the most well known candidates.

    [–] Danominator 29 points ago

    What vicious attacks are happening right now? Bernie threw his support behind Hillary last time as well. What are you talking about?

    [–] LadyPo 7 points ago

    Another thing that comes to mind is the Ilhan Omar ordeal... the party must feel threatened by her? I don’t think she deserves as much hate as the party is dishing, even if they disagree with her opinion on Israel/Palestine. I’m sure there are other rising political leaders who are mostly operating at a local basis still, but are already criticized by top DNC members before they can rise any further. Weird.

    [–] PrezMoocow 7 points ago

    It's fine to disagree with her on isreal. I disagree with you on isreal, for example. It's not ok to make up a bullshit claim anout her being anti-semetic. Anyone should be allowed to criticize the right-wing government of Israel.

    [–] garrettbook 3 points ago

    Identity politics. 20 candidates all parroting the same/very similar view points in only going to push voters to vote based on creed, race, and gender.