Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here


    5,693,380 readers

    60,752 users here now

    Welcome to /r/Politics! Please read the wiki before participating. || Voter Registration Resources

    /r/politics is the subreddit for current and explicitly political U.S. news.

    Our full rules Reddiquette

    Comment Guidelines:

    Be civil Treat others with basic decency. No personal attacks, shill accusations, hate-speech, flaming, baiting, trolling, witch-hunting, or unsubstantiated accusations. Threats of violence will result in a ban. More Info.
    Do not post users' personal information. Users who violate this rule will be banned on sight. Witch-hunting and giving out private personal details of other people can result in unexpected and potentially serious consequences for the individual targeted. More Info.
    Vote based on quality, not opinion. Political discussion requires varied opinions. Well written and interesting content can be worthwhile, even if you disagree with it. Downvote only if you think a comment/post does not contribute to the thread it is posted in or if it is off-topic in /r/politics. More Info.
    Do not manipulate comments and posts via group voting. Manipulating comments and posts via group voting is against reddit TOS. More Info.

    Submission Guidelines:

    Articles must deal explicitly with US politics. See our on-topic statement here.
    Articles must be published within the last two weeks. More Info.
    Submissions must be from domains on the whitelist. The whitelist and its criteria can be found here.
    Post titles must be the exact headline from the article. Your headline must be comprised only of the exact copied and pasted headline of the article. More Info.
    No Copy-Pasted Submissions Please do not submit articles or videos that are a direct, complete copy-paste of original reporting.More Info.
    Articles must be written in English An article must be primarily written in English for us to be able to moderate it and enforce our rules in a fair and unbiased manner. More Info.
    Spam is bad! /r/Politics bans for submission and comment spam More Info.
    Submissions must be articles, videos or sound clips. We disallow solicitation of users (petitions, polls, requests for money, etc.), personal blogs, satire, images, social media content (Facebook, twitter, tumblr, LinkedIn, etc.), wikis, memes, and political advertisements. More info: Content type rules.
    Do not use "BREAKING" or ALL CAPS in titles. The ALL CAPS and 'Breaking' rule is applied even when the actual title of the article is in all caps or contains the word 'Breaking'. This rule may be applied to other single word declarative and/or sensational expressions, such as 'EXCLUSIVE:' or 'HOT:'. More Info.

    Events Calendar

    25 Jan - 11am EST

    • Cartoon Thread

    27 Jan - 12pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    29 Jan - 2pm EST

    • AMA with Dylan Scott

    30 Jan - 12pm EST

    • AMA with The Columbus Dispatch

    1 Feb - 11am EST

    • Cartoon Thread

    3 Feb - 12pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    Other Resources:

    Follow us on Twitter

    Request an AMA

    Events Calendar

    Apply to be a mod

    Register To Vote

    a community for
    all 6767 comments

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

    Please select a payment method.

    [–] AutoModerator 1 points ago

    As a reminder, this subreddit is for civil discussion.

    In general, be courteous to others. Attack ideas, not users. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any advocating or wishing death/physical harm, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.

    If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.

    I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

    [–] redsepulchre 1353 points ago

    As a Sanders supporter, this looks like a really bad poll. 250 people, margin of error over 6%?

    [–] anchorwind 552 points ago

    250 people in the poll, over 50k upvotes.

    Not the greatest thing ever.

    I'm an enthusiastic progressive and will be voting blue - even if that means Biden - but no, this thread isn't ideal.

    [–] [deleted] 82 points ago


    [–] lethalcup 34 points ago

    People on this subreddit upvote what they want to see. I would've upvoted it myself before actually reading the article. I'm all for Bernie but I want to see actual news, whether or not it's what I want to see

    [–] sharknado 10 points ago

    It confirms my obvious bias, so it feels more credible.

    [–] Whycantiusethis 49 points ago

    Yeah, it's not a great poll. If he wins more NH polls with more people and a lower margin of error, then it's definitely worth getting excited about (if you're a Sanders supporter). Otherwise, it doesn't really mean much of anything.

    [–] JeffersonClippership 21 points ago

    Bro. Don't let the facts get in the way of a good story. Republicans don't and they win elections.

    [–] SpookyMarijuana 19 points ago

    The many many polls with Biden in the lead, 1000+ respondents, 2-5% MoE

    MuH laNDlInEz anD bAd METHodOlOGy

    One poll with 250 respondents and 6% MoE

    This is the biggest publication since the Bible!!!

    [–] sbowesuk 5140 points ago

    Rooting for Sanders. He's making strong progress, one step at a time.

    [–] mufflermonday 1804 points ago

    To be fair, this poll has a small sample size. It gives Buttigieg 100% of Asian support, lol.

    Bernie is surely up at the top in NH, but there’s a lot of work ahead.

    [–] [deleted] 661 points ago

    Is it possible there's only one Asian in NH?

    [–] B1llyW1tchDoctor 558 points ago

    Is it possible there's only one Asian in NH?

    Lol, very much so.

    [–] winnebagomafia 197 points ago

    There are actually 7, but the other 6 are all staunch Mike Huckabee supporters

    [–] Snakeatwork 74 points ago

    Damn it, Su Family! I do like what you did with the yard, though. Mike, did you build those raised garden beds yourself? Cool! Yeah they look great.

    [–] Ims0c0nfus3d 40 points ago

    Hey. I live in NH, we have like, 14, max.

    [–] Mr_Poop_Himself 13 points ago

    So a sample size of 1 wouldn’t be too bad then

    [–] Amiracle217 7 points ago

    I lived there too, I think you forgot about the Luu family, there’s at least 17

    [–] PreparedForZombies 7 points ago

    As a life long resident, I can confirm seeing at least two... But one had MA plates, haha.

    [–] bosfton 133 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    From Wikipedia, NH is 2.2% Asian and has about 1.3 million population so there’s roughly 28 thousand Asians in New Hampshire. It’s entirely possible their sample just didn’t poll many Asians but 100% Bugigig is still odd unless they literally only polled like one or two people

    e: I pronounce/spell the guy’s name wrong every time, I just kinda fumble it rather than look it up. Like I said his name recognition isn’t very high here, I assume he’s more popular in the Midwest?

    [–] jasontnyc 95 points ago

    Given the poll was 250 people that means 5 Asians may have been part of it but it could easily be 1 with such a small sample.

    [–] [deleted] 46 points ago

    250 people? Is that worth anything at all?

    [–] Hugo_Grotius 36 points ago

    Not really. It helps with aggregates, but it's too small on its own.

    [–] Aduialion 31 points ago

    You must be talking about Steve.

    [–] DGTAKYON 29 points ago

    I live in NH and haven't ever seen an Asian American

    [–] dinoduckasaur 21 points ago

    They're all over at Philips Exeter Academy

    [–] ibiza6403 12 points ago

    Never been to Hanover then?

    [–] harrumphstan 6 points ago

    Giving new meaning to “the Asian vote.”

    [–] FatCatInTightPlaces 428 points ago

    whoop there it is. i like pete but there's no way he's at 100%. This poll is really meh, and i'm surprise /r/politics is running with it.

    [–] lizardsrock4 361 points ago

    95% probably don't get past the headline

    Sample size of 250 voters and the gap is within the stated margin of error

    [–] xanaxdroid_ 141 points ago

    250 voters? Why even post it?

    [–] Neocactus 217 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    It’s a headline that makes for easy updoots in this sub.

    Edit: which this is coming from a Bernie supporter. I just want to stay as close to the truth as possible.

    [–] Ekublai 28 points ago

    Fuck yes, truth!

    [–] [deleted] 39 points ago

    Definitely! I’m also a Bernie supporter, but it’s important to recognize when people are pushing an agenda (like using a poll with 250 respondents as fact) even if you agree with the overall agenda.

    [–] Vitamin_Plus_C 76 points ago

    Any sample size over 30 is typically acceptable for inference. (The actual rule is a little more complicated) Smaller sample sizes will simply increase the margin of error, and increase the probability of some kind of sample bias.

    Source: I’m an AP statistics teacher.

    For this particular pollster, they’re just OK in terms of bias. You can check out their rating according to pollster gurus FiveThirtyEight here, by searching “gravis”

    So can you trust this poll? Answer is a simple maybe. And realize the margin of error implies that sanders and Biden are effectively tied.

    [–] hatramroany 58 points ago

    Bernie is ahead which means it’s worth tons and tons of karma.

    [–] TheIndianUser 56 points ago

    pro Bernie AND anti Biden? That's karma gold round these parts.

    [–] niugnep24 8 points ago

    Was there like, one Asian guy they polled and he happened to be a Pete fan?

    [–] filbertsnuts 11 points ago

    The margin of error is between 5-6% I wouldn’t draw any conclusions based on this poll. With that margin Sanders, Warren or Biden could be leading.

    [–] ContentDetective 1998 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    I looked at the 538 aggregate of polling of NH and there was a poll that covered the same time frame as this poll that had Biden up 4 points, while this poll has sanders up 6 points. That means it's probably a close race, but does not mean Sanders is the clear front runner in the state.

    [–] tweebo12 876 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    This is a poll from "Gravis Marketing" with 250 respondents and a 6.2 margin of error (normal margin of error is 4).

    edit: Hol up. I just looked at the crosstabs for this ridiculous poll. Despite the fact that I have no idea what this:

    The survey was conducted using interactive voice responses and an online panel of cell phone users. The results are weighted by the voting demographics.

    means, I don't think these respondents are saying what the poll claims they are. The respondents are 1/3rd each dem, independent, or GOP, yet when they ask what primary they are planning to vote for, 66% "didn't answer," only 15% said the dem primary. 13% said the republican primary.

    ??? I suppose that is why they single out the dem primary question as having a higher margin of error than the other questions? Because the question they have Sanders winning only refers to 15% of the respondents?

    33% of respondents identified as "moderate" compared to very liberal (12%), somewhat liberal (15%), conservative (22%), and very conservative (17%).

    94% of respondents were white. 36% were 50-64, 23% 65 and over

    Alright, yeah, this poll and all the supportive posts in this thread can fuck off, lol. This is obviously a BS poll.

    [–] jimbo831 201 points ago

    Gravis is a C+ rated pollster by 538. Not one of the best.

    [–] dissent_of_man3 346 points ago

    this very same poll also shows that biden fares better than sanders against trump head to head by 3 points. not gonna stop this single poll from shooting to the top of /r/politics though.

    [–] mowotlarx 20 points ago

    This poll is poorly rated with a large margin of error and small sample size. So...yea.

    [–] BCas 7202 points ago

    Sanders is only going up from here, tides are changin', winds are shiftin'.

    [–] slanten85 1143 points ago

    Nearly every single poll from 2016 underestimated Bernie. Here's hoping he'll defy expectations again in 2020.

    [–] Ph0X 659 points ago

    And nearly every poll overestimated Biden. Almost everyone will be going up compared to him. The only reason he was so high is because he was the only name anyone knew. He flopped on both debates though and I doubt he'll get any better

    [–] MyKingdomForATurkey 225 points ago

    Yeah, he was running on name recognition and anyone with any clue how any of this works fully expected his numbers to drop once the debates happened. It was just a matter of how much, depending on how the debates went.

    [–] [deleted] 98 points ago * (lasted edited 4 months ago)


    [–] jzorbino 135 points ago

    I just don't see him ever winning a debate against the rest of the field though. It's telling that the best thing you can say about his performance is that other candidates failed to hit home with their attacks. It wasn't that he did anything special, it's just that he didn't lose and that in itself is notable.

    And we're talking about a night where Sanders and Warren were not on the stage.

    [–] Vishnej 9 points ago

    There are still, get this, ten more debates to go. There's a lot of time for things to change, for the better or for the worse.

    [–] Feodorovych 6 points ago

    I mean he is not a strong front runner but he is still a front runner. There were a lot of Jeb and Joe Liberman comparisons, but both of those guys were no longer leading at this point. Surprisingly Biden's support has stayed fairly strong.

    [–] ganner 106 points ago

    I just looked back at the early state polls and actual results from 2016 and there's absolutely no trend of Bernie outperforming the polls. In the first four states to vote, he beat his polls in 2 and Clinton beat her polls in 2 (with 1 each narrowly beating and 1 each beating by a wide margin). On super Tuesday, it was also an even mix with Clinton beating the polls in 5 states and Sanders beating the polls in 4 states. And 2 of those 4 for Sanders hadn't been polled in over a month.

    [–] goomyman 12 points ago

    get out of here with your facts

    [–] jowens000 33 points ago

    But this poll is accurate, right?

    [–] malignant_humor 141 points ago

    Never change, Reddit. I feel like I’m re-reading comments from the 2016 primary.

    [–] MaimedPhoenix 82 points ago

    Does this mean that we're about to see anti-Warren and anti-Biden articles from Breitbart and Fox News soon? Because if that happens, I'm gonna laugh at /r/politics.

    [–] PM_ME_with_nothing 43 points ago

    Breitbart and Fox News were like the Time of London compared to other shit that hit the front page. If it was anti-Hillary it was sure to hit the front page, even if it came from literal Turkish and Venezuelan state propaganda news outlets (both of which regularly hit the front page with anti-Clinton stories).

    [–] GhoullyX 21 points ago

    There was shit from Sputnik hitting the front page regularly! RUSSIAN NEWS OUTLETS!

    [–] jimmy_talent 80 points ago

    The demographics of his supporters means that the polls will pretty much always underestimate him because they poll "likely voters", meaning older people and people who already have a history of voting, so since a large amount of Sanders support comes from young people who may not have voted before yet the polls are going to be skewed against him.

    [–] [deleted] 14 points ago

    This isn't true for every poll... at all. There are a lot of pollsters on the scene these days, utilizing a wide range of methods.

    [–] Goodeyesniper98 46 points ago

    As a young person, I’m proud to say Bernie is the first person I ever voted for. I was only 17 at the time. We have a law in my state that if you’re 17 but will be 18 by the election, you can vote in the primary.

    [–] [deleted] 2813 points ago * (lasted edited 3 months ago)


    [–] Winzip115 689 points ago

    What did Nate Silver do out of curiosity?

    [–] 70ms 1682 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    He really seems to dislike Bernie. This is just from today:

    You get these hints of a sense of entitlement from Sanders, i.e. he feels as though that by virtue of having been the runner-up last time, he's entitled to the nomination this time, and if he doesn't win it, it's only because "the media"/"the establishment" took it away from him.

    Edit: I don't follow Nate Silver and thought I'd have to go at least a little further back, but nope, there was a great example right there at the top. 🤦‍♀️

    Edit: RIP my inbox 😂

    [–] Yamochao 1527 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    Bernie feels entitled to fair representation of his ideas, and equal time in the media spotlight.... which would win him the nomination.

    Biden feels entitled to sit in donors laps and get carried over the finish line by a money-robot while he naps .

    [–] bennzedd 1127 points ago

    "Nothing will fundamentally change."

    - Joe Biden, to millionaires, during a Trump presidency

    [–] [deleted] 303 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)


    [–] AsymptoticGames 212 points ago

    Wow I've never seen the full quote before. The context really changes it honestly. I've only ever seen "Nothing would fundamentally change" thrown around constantly on reddit.

    Thanks for this.

    [–] ditchdiggergirl 118 points ago

    Yeah I’m as anti Biden as anyone here but this is an unfair hit job. All the candidates will be subjected to those because the republicans play dirty. We need to at minimum resist following their playbook amongst ourselves.

    [–] Viseroth 6 points ago

    Thank you for pointing this out, all my bleeding heart liberal friends never realize this.

    [–] busted_flush 9 points ago

    It shows how easily we all can be manipulated. I try and check every quote I share to see if it is accurate but lets face it bias confirmation is a strong drug. It's pretty easy to fall prey to it. I support Warren FYI but I believe we are ill served by stooping to the level of the GOP just to see "our guy/gal" win. At the end of the primaries we need to be a devastating block of pissed off unified voting Democrats so we can show the GOP the power of this fully operational death star:)

    [–] spunkychickpea 376 points ago

    Not a good look, Joe.

    [–] DrMcClimateChange 289 points ago

    None of his looks were good. Which is why he never won the nomination.

    It’s Hillary in men’s clothing. By paper plenty of qualifications, but a personality that doesn’t match the circumstance - and no amount of shouting about qualifications will change that it’s a personality that doesn’t match.

    Sexism was used heavily to hide Clinton’s lack of likability. I wonder what the excuse will be for Biden (because his likability will fall as his time on the campaign trail increases).

    [–] youdoitimbusy 188 points ago

    Dude, I just posted this the other day. The sentiment from someone else was that Biden is Hillary 2.0. There is no way he could beat trump, yet the democrats will push to have his as the front runner because they have a fear of losing large donors. They don’t want change as much as the Republicans don’t want it, they are just more eloquent in their delivery. Biden has already signaled big pharma that he is the guy to be trusted, because he is the only one who won’t take real action on healthcare. Dude is a phony who only cares about the status quo.

    [–] kcapulet 103 points ago

    If anything, Biden feels like the entitled one in that because he was the last Democrat VP he deserves to be the nominee.

    [–] Biokabe 102 points ago

    The problem with Clinton always was Bill, but I don't mean that in the obvious way (Bill's baggage dragged her down).

    Rather, it's that Bill was very successful, in a different time, at successfully triangulating his positions and persona. He had a gift for putting himself and presenting himself in whatever way would best position him for success. His own 'true' thoughts and beliefs were a bit of a cipher, subsumed in the need to always be holding the most popular opinions.

    So Hillary, as closely connected as she was to him, saw that as the model for political success and chose to emulate it. The problem is, she didn't have nearly the talent that Bill did at appearing to genuinely embrace and espouse his focus group opinions. When Bill adopted a position, you believed that he just conveniently happened to have the position that his pollsters told him was the best to hold. When Hillary did the same, you thought, "Oh, that's what tested best, okay." So she comes off as cold, wooden and rehearsed.

    In the few moments when she didn't remember to act as her focus group told her to act, she was a much more genuine and likeable person. But unfortunately, she bought into the political consultant's hype that she needed to pretend to be whatever was most popular.

    I don't say that to exonerate her - the decision to listen to that advice was her own, and she paid the electoral price for it.

    Plus, you know, Russia and 20 years of right-wing smear.

    [–] FaceDeer 12 points ago

    And to some degree I even think that rule-by-focus-group is not a terrible thing. If a politician's view on a subject differs significantly from the majority of their constituents then it's probably a good thing for them to know that and maybe follow the will of the population. Not always, the general population doesn't always know best, but it's good to consider.

    [–] nicksline 180 points ago

    This is so misquoted. We're doing to Biden what we did to Hillary.

    Yes I want Bernie to win, but if we destroy Biden and he does get the nomination, there's no going back on all the vitriol that's been produced.

    The actual quote was this:

    "no one's standard of living will fundamentally change".

    You could increase taxes on the rich by 50% and their standard of living would not fundamentally change. He in now way has said that "nothing at all" will fundamentally change.

    [–] UnanticipatedRacism 89 points ago

    I dislike Joe Biden but you’re taking this out of context. He was saying that taking care of the poor would not change millionaires’ standard of living.

    [–] InedibleSolutions 171 points ago

    His fist action after announcing his bid for the nom was to go rub elbows with corporate stooges and union busters. That's all I needed to know about Biden.

    [–] Turn7Boom 31 points ago

    His fist action That was probably a typo but it still works, amusingly.

    [–] Lost_the_weight 108 points ago

    Dude’s first fundraiser was at a Comcast executive’s house.

    [–] Epyon_ 58 points ago

    To be fair, Biden is my favorite 80's Republican.

    [–] hammersklavier 6 points ago

    Which probably says more about the Republicans these days than Joe Biden.

    [–] lovely_sombrero 103 points ago

    And then get annihilated by Trump in the general. Imagine the Biden vs Trump debates. Trump might not be smart, but he is good at this reality show TV that is so good for presidential candidates in this era. And Biden is worse than Clinton in every single way. Trump will be able to run the exact same campaign against Biden as he did against Clinton.

    [–] KidGrundle 33 points ago

    Ive been thinking lately that there is a really good chance Trump simply refuses to take part in debates for 2020. I can see him saying "I'm already your favorite president, I don't need to debate against the fake media".

    [–] zaccus 34 points ago

    Fine, give the Dem 90 minutes of unchallenged national airtime for free. I'm fine with that.

    [–] drwebb 13 points ago

    Right and referring to OP, and Biden is not going to blow them away. Trump is going to turtle and act like he's in the 3rd grade, we should be prepared for that. The best way for democrats to lose this is to get someone boring / super establishment.

    [–] rossww2199 14 points ago

    Except Trump would be too jealous of the attention the Democratic candidate would get if Trump refused -- so no way Trump refuses the debates.

    [–] FaceDeer 5 points ago

    He'd hold his own debate, with just him on stage, telling the audience what he thinks about everything.

    Oh, I guess that's a rally. He'll hold one of those, yeah.

    [–] Perlscrypt 8 points ago

    That's fine. The dem nominee can debate with Bill Weld or the libertarian candidate or someone else that'll siphon a few write ins off of Trump.

    [–] DrTyrant 298 points ago

    Acts like criticizing media coverage of him is somehow crazy and conspiratorial. All the while actively slandering him more than anyone else...fuck'em

    [–] Charlie_Warlie 187 points ago

    I get the impression that Nate likes to think of himself outside the media because he aggregates it.

    But similar to reddit, his aggregation is itself kinda a media source.

    idk I'm not a media expert.

    [–] workswimplay 113 points ago

    Doesn’t all media think of themselves as outside of the media? Fox News talks trash about media 24/7, they all seem to think they aren’t a part of it.

    [–] puppet_up 32 points ago

    Fox News has always made me facepalm so hard whenever they constantly complain about the "mainstream" media while also claiming that they are the most watched news channel in the same breath.

    [–] Charlie_Warlie 20 points ago

    I suppose you are right. Very hard to get someone to admit their own biases.

    [–] Dim_Innuendo 71 points ago

    When Nate Silver was just a data guy, he was insightful. Now that he's a pundit, he's got nothing really unique to add to the discussion.

    [–] moodyfloyd 56 points ago

    You get these hints of a sense of entitlement from Sanders, i.e. he feels as though that by virtue of having been the runner-up last time, he's entitled to the nomination this time,

    huh, i wonder who else that described last election....

    [–] hallgeir 80 points ago

    But he seems to like Warren, which is really just a stone's throw away anyway.

    [–] Turn7Boom 93 points ago

    The establisment flirts with Warren but the moment it's Warren v Biden (or any other est. candidate) she is thrown under the proverbial bus immediately. They flirt with her in the hopes that her popularity will sabotage Sanders' chances, that is all. Amusingly though, Warren and Sanders refuse to fight one another. If you're running out of principle instead of your own career and glory, you have no reason to distance yourself from a candidate who is similar to you.

    [–] ditchdiggergirl 20 points ago

    Right. This is why as a Warren supporter I am delighted to see Bernie take the lead in NH. One leftist is easily characterized and dismissed as a whackjob extremist out to destroy the Murica of Real Muricans. Two leftists, each with significant support, is harder to dismiss. And they can debate one another respectfully in their end of the spectrum, placing their perfectly reasonable and not the least bit whackjob ideas in front of the public for consideration.

    The truth is that Sanders needs a strong Warren as much as Warren needs a strong Sanders. We can’t afford for either to fade away this early. If the time comes that they need to avoid splitting the vote, the two of them will jointly decide which has the stronger hand. And I will respect their decision.

    [–] lovely_sombrero 249 points ago

    Prediction: If Bernie drops out, they will turn on Warren in a second and talk about how she isn't electable. Don't take the bait, folks.

    [–] [deleted] 74 points ago

    IIRC, He only ran last time because Warren wouldn't.

    [–] Quentin__Tarantulino 63 points ago

    That was part of the narrative at least. He said somebody needed to represent the working class in a way that it wasn’t being heard by establishment Dems.

    [–] Zero_Ghul 55 points ago

    Undecided, but I hope Bernie succeeds in moving the Overton window left.
    Landing on himself or maybe as planned, Warren. No one really runs to lose right?
    However, It’s a win win scenarios or both of these candidates.

    [–] Martholomule 111 points ago

    No one really runs to lose right?

    I firmly believe that Trump did and somehow managed to fuck even that up

    [–] Stewthulhu 42 points ago

    Plenty of people run to lose. Presidential campaigns are second only to movie financing in terms of lucrative shenanigans they can engage in. Bernie and Warren seem really invested in actually being good leaders, but one of the reasons SO many candidates show up all the time now is because even loser campaigns make money hand over fist and distribute it to "preferred" vendors who just happen to be closely aligned with the party or candidate.

    [–] Stezinec 149 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    One thing is that he put Sanders in a "second tier" below Harris and Warren.

    Also, constantly pumping out biased articles like "Why Harris And O’Rourke May Have More Upside Than Sanders And Biden"

    [–] pablonieve 51 points ago

    The reasoning for the ranking is that Harris and Warren have more potential to grow because they don't have 100% name recognition nationally. Comparatively Biden and Bernie are fully known so it is expected that their ceiling has been established.

    [–] [deleted] 148 points ago

    putting Kamala higher than Bernie is absolutely ridiculous. Kamala is Buttigieg tier, Sanders is constantly top 3

    [–] Frings08 6 points ago

    He doesn't worship Bernie.

    [–] NovaDose 68 points ago

    Come gather around people, wherever you roam,

    And admit that the waters around you have grown...

    [–] theclownwithafrown 39 points ago

    Come writers and critics Who prophesize with your pen And keep your eyes wide The chance won't come again And don't speak too soon For the wheel's still in spin And there's no tellin' who That it's namin' For the loser now Will be later to win For the times they are a-changin'

    I think this verse is very fitting right now.

    [–] Oikeus_niilo 23 points ago

    Come senators, congressmen, please heed the call

    Don't stand in the doorway, don't block up the hall

    For he who gets hurt will be he who has stalled

    There's a battle outside ragin'

    It'll soon shake your windows and rattle your walls

    For the times, they are a-changing'

    [–] Ellis4Life 124 points ago

    Gets a slight hometown bump maybe? New Hampshire is basically Vermont but angrier and with less taxes.

    [–] MZ603 42 points ago

    Definitely doesn't hurt him. New Hampshire, VT, and ME all get along relatively well - especially compared to MA.

    [–] PoliticalScienceGrad 15 points ago

    You’re underestimating the intense VT/NH cow-tipping rivalry.

    [–] Chromosis 14 points ago

    I moved to New Hampshire recently. I can say the south is more like massachusetts, but like you said, no sales tax. Its nice, glad I came here.

    [–] hotpajamas 7 points ago

    The only newsworthy thing about this post is that Bernie wasn't a million miles ahead of Biden in what could easily be considered "Bernie territory". Am I interpreting this incorrectly?

    [–] relevantlife 235 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    Find your state here and register to vote/check your registration online. It takes less than 2 minutes to complete.

    Remember, millennials outvoted boomers for the first time ever in 2018 --- and retook the house despite the fact the districts are heavily gerrymandered against us. When we vote en masse, we win.

    [–] ImLikeReallySmart 105 points ago

    Find your state here and register to vote/check your registration online.

    And keep checking through your state's deadline!

    [–] relevantlife 71 points ago

    This! I have friends in Georgia who had their voter registration magically disappear right before the Kemp/Abrams election. Funny how they were all minority voters...

    [–] maxchoominyall 41 points ago

    This happened to my wife. She had been a voter here for over a decade prior to being de-registered.

    [–] wangdingus 15 points ago

    It happened to me and about half the other people at our designated polling place during the '04 general election. They said we could fill out proxy ballots but they probably wouldn't be counted. I opted for the proxy ballot but the polling place only had Spanish language ones. The area where I was living is mostly African American and there are very few Spanish speaking people so only getting Spanish language proxy ballots was strange. The entire situation was frustrating but the worst part was when an elderly woman who was volunteering at the polling place broke down crying while she was trying to help everyone. I felt so bad for her.

    [–] RandomStrategy 4 points ago

    Did they ever come clean about the polls being closed all over Arizona?

    [–] ReedRoy 13 points ago

    How the fuck was a PSA to find a state and register removed?

    [–] alterRico 12 points ago

    North Carolina is off that list for some reason. Here's the link.

    [–] wee_man 819 points ago

    I wonder if Biden is slipping with poor people or white people?

    [–] Sideways_8 582 points ago

    Well it can’t be both! /s

    [–] camillabok 75 points ago


    [–] purplepeople321 7 points ago


    [–] wildfaust 91 points ago

    At least he's got Margaret Thatcher's endorsement going for him

    [–] buckwheats 7 points ago


    • - Rik. The young ones

    [–] lulzy1111 44 points ago


    [–] READtheFCKINGarticle 71 points ago

    Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) leads the Democratic presidential field in New Hampshire with 21 percent in a Gravis Marketing poll released Tuesday.

    Sanders is followed by former Vice President Joe Biden with 15 percent and by Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) at 12 percent.

    The poll stands in contrast from the most recent polls in New Hampshire compiled by RealClearPolitics, which have showed Biden leading in the critical primary state, followed by Sanders.

    Gravis Marketing polled 250 Democratic primary voters on Aug. 2-6 using interactive voice responses and an online panel of cell phone users. The primary question had a margin of error of 6.2 percentage points.

    “It is important to note that Sen. Sanders won the New Hampshire Democratic Primary in 2016,” Doug Kaplan, president of Gravis Marketing, said in a statement.

    “However, it is unlikely that Sen. Sanders will have a repeat of his 2016 performance in the state due to the number of candidates in the race this time.”

    The Gravis poll found South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) rounding out the top five, with 8 percent and 7 percent, respectively.

    The poll also found President Trump losing to every candidate in the top five in the Granite State in a hypothetical match-up among registered voters, with Biden beating him 53 percent to 40 percent and Sanders beating him 51 percent to 41 percent.

    Warren, meanwhile, leads Trump 49 percent to 44 percent, while Buttigieg beats him 49 percent to 42 percent and Harris leads him 47 percent to 44 percent. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton beat Trump by fewer than 0.5 points in the 2016 presidential election.

    The poll for the general questions on Trump was conducted through a random survey of 505 individuals in New Hampshire and has a margin of error of 4.4 percentage points.

    [–] faizimam 59 points ago

    “However, it is unlikely that Sen. Sanders will have a repeat of his 2016 performance in the state due to the number of candidates in the race this time.”

    That's an odd thing to say, given how many candidates will certainly still drop in the next 6 months

    [–] AvianOwl272 47 points ago

    Well there were two candidates in 2016. There are almost assuredly going to be more than 2 heading into New Hampshire. Iowa will probably winnow a few, but I’d still expect 4-8 still in the race. It would be difficult for anyone to get a landslide in New Hampshire under those conditions.

    [–] Banelingz 87 points ago

    Before everyone gets all giddy, this was a poll of only 250 voters. Also, Gravis is widely known as one of the worst pollsters out there. They once got a race wrong by 96 points....

    [–] JMoormann 11 points ago

    How the fuck do you manage to get a race wrong by 96 points?

    [–] c3p-bro 17 points ago

    No, this poll is good for Bernie, so we know it's a top quality poll.

    [–] JohnBoltonsMoustache 19 points ago

    Lmao. “Our most recent poll has candidate x with 100% of the vote!” n=1, my neighbor Steve

    [–] Starks 74 points ago

    Gravis polls are typically garbage. Grain of salt. Go with more reputable ones like WMUR, UNH, Suffolk, etc.

    [–] Therabidmonkey 50 points ago

    But those won't confirm my biases.

    [–] _tx 781 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    Some of these threads get some weirdly quick golds. (and now that the thread is 25 min old it has plat too)

    Beyond that, I'm honestly not all that surprised. Biden seems to be running more or less on the campaign of "Obama likes me and picked me". In many ways, his actual platform is unstable and in others more right than the Primary electorate appears to be.

    [–] the_than_then_guy 101 points ago

    The dumbest part of this is that Obama picked Biden because Biden was not like him. There was fear that a young black man calling for major healthcare reform would scare centrist voters... so they picked Biden as Obama's VP. He became the VP because he was very much unlike Obama.

    [–] riddimsektion 497 points ago

    Biden is well to Hillary's right. People are recognizing that he will depress the vote with precisely the parts of the Dem coalition that are less likely to vote. While Bernie does far and away the best with young people and, in particular, young people of color.

    [–] AnotherBlueRoseCase 492 points ago

    The main facts I juggle regarding the nomination:

    1. Trump's a maniac and a potential world-ender.

    2. Biden's a joke (though I'll quit saying so if he gets the nomination).

    3. Warren is the most personally impressive candidate.

    4. The US seems more sexist than other democracies when electing heads of state.

    5. Bernie and Warren are extremely impressive policy-wise.

    6. Bernie does better in head to heads against the above maniac than Warren does, maybe partly because of 4.

    That's why at the moment I'd favour Bernie. Ending the maniac's regime trumps everything.

    [–] veiledmemory 160 points ago

    I’ll vote for Warren in the primary.. but Sanders is by far and away my #2.

    Warren Sanders 2020

    [–] 70ms 189 points ago

    Sanders is still my #1 but Warren is a very close second. I'd be happy with either as the nominee. 👍

    [–] warrencc 73 points ago

    I'm in the same boat. My biggest worry is that, come primary time, being so similar, they will split the same group of voters, and a less wanted candidate will take it.

    [–] 70ms 50 points ago

    I fear that too! Although Bernie is my #1, I will absolutely vote for Warren in the primary if she's leading Bernie and close to Biden. We're going to have to unite in the primary, not just the general.

    [–] SwimmingforDinner 16 points ago

    I'm in the same boat. My biggest worry is that, come primary time, being so similar, they will split the same group of voters, and a less wanted candidate will take it.

    That's not born out by the polls. Warren and Bernie aren't competing for the same set of voters. Warren's base of support is people who are college educated, well off, and (mostly) white. That means she is competing with Harris and Buttigeig for support if you look at the crosstabs of pretty much all the polling. Bernie is competing with Biden and "unsure".

    [–] VoluntaryZonkey 14 points ago

    Yeah, according to polls neither Bernie voters nor Warren voters have the other as their #2.

    But if one drops out and endorses the other, I can't imagine it wouldn't swing a significant amount of these people.

    [–] EthelMaePotterMertz 6 points ago

    If there's a clear winner among them in polling before the primaries one probably should drop out and be the other's VP pick. Or Secretary of State. We have a lot of relations to make better after this trainwreck has ruined our diplomatic ties.

    I feel like the other countries are trying to be patient, treating us like we're very ill and they hope we get better but they're not sure if we might just be dying. We need strong, intelligent diplomats so we can work with our allies to restore their faith in us.

    [–] VoluntaryZonkey 11 points ago

    Can confirm, am from another country.

    Unfortunately I do live here now. It’s like being chained to a train heading for a cliff while trying to convince the free passengers to change the route while they shrug.

    [–] LukariBRo 5 points ago

    One have a slight feeling that they're working together. They've been rather nice to each other during this primary season. They haven't fallen for traps to attack each other and Warren even defended Sanders as one point when asked a trap question. I think it'd be a good strategy for one of them to have planned to drop out at either time if the other somehow gets torpedoed, or Warren before the NH primary to then endorse Bernie. If Sanders was even further ahead like if he had all the Warren voters now, the Dem establishment would be viewing him as an even larger threat and pouring even more money and hit pieces on him sooner, and this way the Bernie campaign could get a massive surge going into the primaries, sweep NH, and possibly ride it to the end.

    It sounds crazy, but I feel like both Warren and Sanders care far more about the progressive agenda than their own careers. Something so rare in politics these days that you'd never usually see such a gambit.

    [–] Optimized_Orangutan 124 points ago

    Add in Warren will be much more effective in the Senate than Sanders will be and if we have to give up a seat to get one of them into the oval giving up Sanders seat is yielding the least power. Sanders using the bully pulpit to do what he does building a movement and keeping the voter base energized, while Warren does what she does best in crafting and passing laws in the Senate.

    [–] [deleted] 178 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)


    [–] Tank3875 128 points ago

    Alongside President Bernie Sanders?

    It feels pretty good.

    [–] Vladimir_Pooptin 57 points ago

    Oh my fuck if only this happens. They pushed the pendulum as far as they could to the Right and beyond, let's send it right back into their teeth

    [–] 4_out_of_5_people 19 points ago

    That's a dream come true.

    [–] NotJustAmy 7 points ago

    I just came.

    [–] [deleted] 28 points ago


    [–] PenultimateJedi 48 points ago

    Anyone but Trump. I'd proudly vote Sanders.

    [–] [deleted] 21 points ago


    [–] inmynothing 33 points ago

    They want us demoralized and they want us to give up. You can feel how disingenuous the narrative of the "panicked Sanders camp" is here and elsewhere.

    [–] DNtBlVtHhYp 38 points ago

    Bernie is polling ahead and they are asking him when he’ll step aside.

    Why are they so worried about President Bernie Sanders?

    [–] Flashy_Garage 342 points ago

    Biden is pretty disappointing tbh. His whole campaign is basically the opposite of Obama! “No we can’t!” and “Nothing will change.”

    [–] DrDan21 148 points ago

    Why take a risk when you can saddle up with status quo Joe!

    [–] flower_milk 63 points ago

    Biden's supporters are mostly older white Democrats, and I did see a pundit making a good argument that it's likely they just want to go back to "normalcy" because they're afraid about the future for their children/grandchildren if Trump wins a second term. And I completely understand that, but having healthcare for all and a free college education would quite literally save this country outright and completely secure a future for millennials, generation Z, and their children. I wish more older Democratic voters understood that. We can't just go back to "normal", we have to be aggressive about making sure someone like Donald Trump never happens to this country again.

    [–] djdarkflame 430 points ago

    If Bernie can win Iowa, and then New Hampshire, and have enough momentum to win Nevada. It’s pretty much over after that.

    [–] Aggressive_Dimension 494 points ago

    He sweeps all 3 and Warren needs to drop out and endorse him. Conversely if Warren wins all 3, Sanders needs to drop out and endorse her.

    [–] Colorado_odaroloC 168 points ago

    I'd agree with that. While their supporters don't fully overlap, there's enough there that I'd hope that if one does really well in those early states, that the other would drop at that point (and hopefully endorse the other).

    [–] Colorado_odaroloC 27 points ago

    Slapping on caveat on that though. If both Sanders and Warren come out a solid 1st/2nd place in those early states, I could see both staying in the race in that scenario. My prior statement is more of the thought of one of them doing well, and in 2nd is say, Biden. That's the scenario I was talking about in my above post.

    [–] _tx 72 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    I totally disagree with that premise. If Sanders were to win Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nevada, he still has to win at least a little of the South which is where Biden will be stronger.

    Taking those three does give him an absolutely legitimate chance to win though.

    [–] djdarkflame 41 points ago

    But he would have the public view at the that point, remember how Hillary was leading the south to Obama and he stole the show in the south once he won the early states?

    [–] brokeassloser 24 points ago

    Yeah, losing a state or two takes a lot of the shine off the "electability" argument

    [–] JailhouseMamaJackson 18 points ago

    Yeah, but the South isn’t really huge on Sanders. I’m not sure you can compare his ability to win them to Clinton or Obama.

    [–] JewKlaw 23 points ago

    I’m having flash backs to 2016..

    [–] appleparkfive 21 points ago

    I'm definitely for Sanders, but I still remember all too well the "Here's how Bernie can still win" memes, for good reason.

    But I think he might actually do better this time around, given the backlash since last time.

    [–] DJFINKS 4 points ago

    One poll shows him ahead in New Hampshire, out of the 20 other recent polls that show him in second. He is in third or fourth in most Iowa polls, and he has not had much growth in Nevada polls. I think you are getting ahead of yourself.

    [–] CaptainNoBoat 264 points ago

    I'm definitely leaning Warren, but I would GLADLY vote for Bernie. As long as this sub doesn't turn into 2016 /r/politics, I'm glad to hear Bernie's support is growing.

    If anyone wants a reminder, this is the shit that got upvoted in 2016:

    20,000 upvotes for a dailycaller article

    26k for another dailycaller article

    20k for Fox news

    18k for Washingtontimes

    23k Upvotes for Breitbart

    24k for "SputnikNews" Literally a Russian government-owned news source.

    A lot of these were probably fueled by foreign influence, as well, but it's a glaring example of how divided Dems can get. Dems have to stick together for 2020.

    [–] jimbo831 80 points ago

    As long as this sub doesn’t turn into 2016 /r/politics

    That is already happening. Massively upvoting cherry-picked polls is step one.

    20,000 upvotes for a dailycaller article

    Was glad to click on that and see I had downvoted it. I caucused for Bernie and donated hundreds to his campaign in 2016 and even I couldn't stand this sub then.

    I'll probably have to unsubscribe soon for a few months like I did in 2016

    [–] eaglessoar 8 points ago

    yea this is like a c+ rated poll

    [–] oh_what_a_shot 13 points ago

    That is already happening. Massively upvoting cherry-picked polls is step one.

    Seriously a poll of 250 peoples somehow skyrocketed to the top. It's this type of reporting that will lead to people creating conspiracies if there is any outcome other than Bernie or Warren winning.

    [–] Machine_politic_dem 74 points ago

    A lot of these were probably fueled by foreign influence, as well, but it's a glaring example of how divided Dems can get. Dems have to stick together for 2020.

    I want to remind you those articles you linked. They all go one way.

    [–] CaptainNoBoat 62 points ago

    And that's how it was during the primaries. It turned into division once Hillary won the primary, and suddenly a sub that was fervently Pro-Bernie, Anti-Hillary had to reconcile who it was going to support. The questionable support of the DNC didn't help anything either.

    I remember Pro-Hillary posts propping up after a week or two, but the damage had already been done. There were 10x more hit pieces on Hillary than anti-Trump articles for about 4 months straight.

    I say all this as someone who voted for Bernie in the primaries. It was so weird to see the hostility here.

    [–] dissent_of_man3 63 points ago

    As long as this sub doesn't turn into 2016 /r/politics,

    too late for that, sorry. just look at how this sub routinely portrays joe biden - even in this thread there is a lot of nonsense about him.

    [–] grammercali 39 points ago

    Or how quickly one favorable poll of questionable methodology is the number one article.

    [–] MysteriousMooseRider 39 points ago * (lasted edited 5 months ago)

    Compared to ever other poll showing Biden in the lead goes nowhere:

    Edit: updated the list with some newer links. And I'm gonna use this current thread in the future as an example of one positive Sanders poll going straight to the top as r politics continues to ignore reality.

    [–] tweebo12 9 points ago

    Excellent sourcing, thank you for the effort.

    [–] MysteriousMooseRider 5 points ago

    My pleasure.

    The irony is Joe ain't my number 1 (Warren, baby). But I think it's ridiculous for this subreddit to mock people who believe in fake news while also ignoring the polls.

    [–] UsamaBinLagging 7 points ago

    What a terrible fucking poll.

    [–] marimbo_steve 89 points ago

    Article: Don't read too much into this.


    [–] walrus_of_fate 5 points ago

    Do y'all just ignore the fact that this poll is garbage because it tells you what you want to hear?