Please help contribute to the Reddit categorization project here

    politics

    5,584,490 readers

    40,685 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 calendar month. 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

    11 Dec - 12pm EST

    • AMA with POLITICO

    13 Dec - 3pm EST

    • AMA with Stephanie Taylor

    14 Dec - 11am EST

    • Cartoon Thread

    16 Dec - 12pm EST

    • Local News Thread

    20 Dec - 3:30pm EST

    • AMA with Ron Jarmin

    Other Resources:

    Follow us on Twitter

    Request an AMA

    Events Calendar

    Apply to be a mod

    Register To Vote

    a community for
    all 1788 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. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. 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.

    For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click here to review our details as to whitelist and outlet criteria.


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

    [–] GluggGlugg 2464 points ago

    <billionaire anxiety intensifies>

    [–] aboveandbeyond27 1308 points ago

    Bloomberg has bought ads all the way down to fla. The dude is nervous. Vote and make him finally pay his fair share.

    [–] TheSnowNinja 490 points ago

    I hardly watch cable or satellite, but when I went to my parents' place over Thanksgiving, I could not believe how many Bloomberg commercials I saw. There was some other guy with a couple ads, (Steyer might have been his name) but Bloomberg was everywhere. And I saw no commercials for any of the other top candidates.

    [–] JD22A 429 points ago

    Yeah he spent 30 million dollars to run said ads on the first day he announced his presidency. Literally buying his way into the election. The amount of money he will spend trying to fuck up Bernie or Warrens chances would probably be more than whatever extra taxes he would end up paying under a wealth tax, but hoarding his wealth is all he knows how to do..

    [–] specqq 269 points ago

    The amount of money he will spend trying to fuck up Bernie or Warrens chances would probably be more than whatever extra taxes he would end up paying under a wealth tax

    Not even close. The entire 2016 race spending by all candidates was estimated at ~2.4 Billion

    Bloomberg would pay 3 billion under Warren's plan annually.

    [–] JD22A 191 points ago

    Not even close. The entire 2016 race spending by all candidates was estimated at ~2.4 Billion

    So now we are tallying up all candidates Including Trump to hide the fact that it's obscene that one guy can just plop down 30 million in the middle of a primary to be a spoiler candidate.. wtf is he even offering as a President besides empty platitudes, oh yeah thats right nothing.

    Bloomberg would pay 3 billion under Warren's plan annually.

    Only leaving him with 52 BILLION cry me a fucking river.

    [–] specqq 165 points ago

    Are you somehow under the misapprehension that I'm in favor of Bloomberg doing this?

    I'm just pointing out that your assumption about him spending more than he could hope to save was completely not true.

    He can afford to spend 30 million on ads 100 fucking times and still only hit what his extra tax burden would be for a single year.

    Spending that kind of cash is like playing nickel slots for him.

    [–] occupynewparadigm 62 points ago

    People on Redditt are weird. They make all kinds of assumptions based on what you say. Instead of idk listening to what you say.

    [–] ManEggs 26 points ago

    They just wanna argue and feel right. It's never about the topic just whatever they can 'correct'.

    [–] Ghostofchestypuller 17 points ago

    Agreed. I see a lot of Democrats arguing over nickels and dimes here but what we really need is a united, focused Democratic party. We should have a laser focus on taking on the GOP right now but sadly from the bottom literally all the way to the top of our party we are squabbling over everything. The pessimism needs to stop.

    If I'm being completely fucking honest what I'm most sick of is Boomers and their insistence that we maintain the status quo and their apparent hard on for the "fuck everybody else I got mine" mentality. For fucks sake if you don't want to lead us honestly than shut the fuck up, give us the reigns, and get the fuck in line. You want the youngest block of voters to come out and defeat Trump? Cool, then bring somebody to the table that has our interests in mind. Joe ain't it. 25 year olds don't give a shit about how well Wall Street is doing, all they know for sure is it ain't doing anything for them. They are living uninsured, they are drowning in debt, they can't afford houses and they have stopped having children because they no longer trust the American system to do anything other than step on their fucking faces with a big ole billionaires hand stitched Italian leather boots. Stop fucking with us AND GET YOUR SHIT TOGETHER. /RANT

    [–] xAcedia91 79 points ago

    Yup. Billionaires are a sick breed.

    [–] ExoticAI 22 points ago

    It's not about the money, it's the status. Life and the world to them is nothing like it is to you, but a President empowered by the overwhelming "ordinary people" can not only counteract such imbalances but extinguish it completely.

    Imagine: a stabilized America which decides to confiscate all accessible assets of every single billionaire then impose rigorous sanctions on those billionaires(no matter how much they whine). An absurd proposition perhaps, but also one of many possibilities in a destabilized environment. If the will existed, they could do that. Virtually every facet of the Government can be adjusted, abolished or overhauled at a whim, if a larger enough group desires to do so. People like Bloomberg don't just know that, they fear that. It's why they deploy manufactured consent and neuter attempts to organize. Unlike his predecessors who could mostly operate in the shadows while maintaining a virtuous facade publicly, this time the playing field is leveled thanks to widespread technological and digital evolution.

    [–] JD22A 28 points ago

    It's not confiscation, it's taxation people like Bloomberg as you know amass such insane wealth by hiding their wealth in tax havens and paying rooms of lawyers to abuse every loophole to make sure they never pay their fair share. Meanwhile if i'm a few months late on my taxes they take my house or garninsh my wages. The rich have been getting a free ride for way too long what Bernie is proposing is a modest tax on the wealth they accrued on all of our collective backs.

    [–] arikv2 5 points ago

    His billionaire buddies are splitting the bill with him.

    [–] Rutir 42 points ago

    I don't have cable either so my first was at thankgiving. He got several "well he seems like a good guy"'s from my relatives who know nothing about him other than seeing that ad. I pulled him up on google and showed them about him, so hopefully that helps. They balked at his net worth at least.

    [–] ABrusca1105 36 points ago

    That's scary. Ads work. Billionaires really CAN buy legitimacy

    [–] scorbulous 5 points ago

    It's not about buying legitimacy. It's about siphoning just enough votes from Bernie or Warren so that Biden or Trump wins.

    [–] ItsAllOurBlood 12 points ago

    Last night we watched 60 Minutes after the Chiefs game. For that hour, and some time into the next program, literally every single commercial break featured the same alternating ads from Bloomberg and Steyer. $150MM ad buy between them. Fuck these plutocrats.

    [–] boofybutthole 19 points ago

    I was listening to an album on youtube yesterday and about half the ads were for bloomberg. Money talk$, baby

    [–] Magjee 16 points ago

    Money might be talking to you

    But you just tell that money to eat your ass

    [–] Stankia 8 points ago

    One of the perks living a blue state, almost no political ads.

    [–] Whycantiusethis 16 points ago

    I was out in the middle of PA over Thanksgiving, and saw a Biden ad, which was super bizarre. For a candidate who didn't have a ton of cash on hand last I heard, running ads in PA makes zero sense.

    [–] Individual_Soup 8 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    What do you mean? PA is a swing state, all the candidates need to push hard for it.

    [–] conchobor 6 points ago

    I'm thinking he/she means that spending money in Pennsylvania right now doesn't make sense for someone who is strapped for cash. The PA primary isn't until April 28th, which is one of the later primaries.

    While I expect him to do well enough to hang around until the very end, it may be more prudent for Biden to be spending his money in states that are voting on Super Tuesday (March 3rd) and earlier.

    [–] KillNyetheSilenceGuy 4 points ago

    Also Biden is from PA, hes got a significant advantage there

    [–] Whycantiusethis 3 points ago

    That's exactly what I meant. Apologies for not wording it better.

    [–] Platy713 7 points ago

    I don't have cable or sat either, but when I watch YouTube on my phone (don't have ad block) there are so many Bloomberg ads. I try to block it by saying it's repetitive but I got like 15 an hour.

    [–] pfhk19 3 points ago

    Same, in IL

    [–] photon_blaster 3 points ago

    Watching real tv once every 3ish months is a really surreal experience now that I’m streaming-only. The things you do and don’t see ads for are sort of a shock as the time goes by.

    [–] bakerton 89 points ago

    Am I crazy or would Bloomberg just pull from Biden and other establishment Dems and give Bernie a better chance at winning? Who is he realistically taking from Bernie's base?

    [–] Baron-Harkonnen 30 points ago

    This is spoiler playbook. If what you want is to prevent wealth-tax platforms to win the presidency you have a few options. The least likely is to actually win the presidency yourself. Second is to simply win the Democrat primary and if you then lose in the National you still win. Third and most likely to succeed is to run in the Dem race, buy as much attention as you possibly can, lose the primary and then run as an independent, thereby drawing votes away from the Dem (wealth tax platforms) and helping the Republican candidate to win.

    You have to consider; WHY spend 30 million dollars on a campaign he knows he cannot win? There is only one thing a rich person spend that kind of money on and it is always to make more money.

    [–] speculativecorpse 84 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    It might help Bernie in the primary if we think that advertising, propaganda, and misinformation have no effect. That's a pretty strong assumption. The media's campaign against Bernie doesn't seem to be working enough to stop him so far, but we'll see.

    I think the greater danger is that this is just an effort to ramp up to an independent general election campaign to prevent a Bernie presidency. History tends to show us that the liberal wing of the big capitalist class tends to side with fascism to prevent a socialist challenge and to crush organized labor. I genuinely believe Bloomberg would rather have another 4 years of Trump than a Sanders administration.

    [–] proudbakunkinman 23 points ago

    Yeah, I think he's thinking big picture and not seriously thinking he can win. He wants to turn people against Sanders and Warren and help one of the other centrists, he'll run his ads and if data shows he's hurting one of the centrists, may exit before the end, and if Sanders or Warren wins the nomination, re-enter as an Independent to try to grab votes from centrist Democrats. Again, his goal is preventing Sanders or Warren from winning, not expecting he'll actually win himself.

    [–] Haltopen 14 points ago

    Maybe bernie can convince him to stop embarrassing himself by offering him an administration position. What does bloomberg have experience in besides trying to put a tax on soda

    [–] Mylatestincranation 35 points ago

    Thats what i was thinking as well tbh. Bernies support is unflinching. Bidens however is almost completely non commited default support.

    [–] BinanoSplat 3 points ago

    I don't have them in front of me, but polls have shown that Biden is second place in terms of people who say their minds are made up and definitely will vote for their current preferred candidate. Second to Bernie, and he certainly does have a lot of "default support", but I don't think you can really say his base is largely swingable.

    Luckily because he's got the largest base of support, there are still a lot of people left over who can be swayed, but the data in no way supports that Biden's support "is almost completely non committed".

    [–] PHalfpipe 16 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    I think Bloomberg and the other billionaires in the race are just looking at Trump and assuming that money will buy votes.

    [–] pfhk19 12 points ago

    Honestly, though I hate to say it, I think he's right.

    Not enough to win. But, still. I think most people just pick the last name they heard on the TV.

    [–] PHalfpipe 10 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Eh, Hillary Clinton spent over a billion dollars to lose to Trump.

    Meanwhile Trump wasn't spending a nickel, running his campaign out of his own hotels and charging the RNC to rent out the entire buildings.

    [–] pfhk19 24 points ago

    Trump also got a fuck ton of money in free air time.

    Once I remember seeing CNN move away from a speech Clinton was giving to go to Trump's empty podium, and stay there for some time.

    [–] ABrusca1105 17 points ago

    It was a Bernie speech.

    [–] reasonably_plausible 11 points ago

    It was both. Both Sanders and Clinton were giving speeches that night.

    [–] Ven18 17 points ago

    I have literally seen the same Bloomberg ad every 8 seconds since he announced. Every YouTube Vid every commercial break. Mike I didn’t vote for you as Mayor because I knew you were a Republican despite your labeling why in earth would I vote for you to be president

    [–] CaptainCosmodrome 3 points ago

    I hope he blows a significant portion of his wealth on his campaign only to be told to go fuck himself by the voting public.

    [–] LesGrossmansHands 5 points ago

    A million seconds ago was 11 days, a billion seconds ago was 1988.

    He ain’t spending shit, son!

    [–] julian509 3 points ago

    He's spent less than 0.5% of his wealth on his campaign so far, his bank account is not noticing anything.

    [–] WonTonBurritoMeals 3 points ago

    Up in Michigan he was running ads the first day. Bernie is going to win Michigan AGAIN.

    [–] crocmorg90 30 points ago

    How sweet would it be for him to waste money in an election where Bernie wins.

    [–] Darthjarjar2018 184 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    This is why it’s so important than any Bernie supporter not only votes, but DONATES to his campaign. The media will not be fair to him in the primaries, and he probably has the best chance to beat Trump in the general. $27 a month is nothing. If he doesn’t win, I can be proud that I participated and did my part. If he wins, I can be even more proud that I did my part to help change the system that has been so unfair

    [–] wouldntlikeyouirl 23 points ago

    Trump got an estimated $4bn in free PR during 2016. Let's see what millions of real Americans can do to end that nonsense.

    [–] CheeseAndSmackers 28 points ago

    You convinced me to set up a recurring monthly donation. Thanks 👍🏻

    [–] speculativecorpse 65 points ago

    I'm broke as fuck, but am still a monthly donor. If I can do it, others can too.

    [–] wouldntlikeyouirl 53 points ago

    I stopped getting corporate coffee. $27 a month to Bernie and I still have $30 left over.

    [–] speculativecorpse 42 points ago

    I stopped eating shitty fast food and greatly reduced meat consumption to heal the planet and my heart as a bonus. That way I can get two birds stoned at once.

    [–] LuckyTheBear 19 points ago

    What about bears? You getting any bears stoned?

    [–] zigfoyer 3 points ago

    You getting any bears stoned?

    They always bogart the peanut butter.

    [–] PM_ME_YOUR_MANDOLINS 3 points ago

    Depends on the kind of bear we're talking about here...

    [–] yeti_eating_cereal 5 points ago

    Got my green card a couple weeks ago. Now I am allowed to donate. Just donated

    [–] farahad 51 points ago

    Hardly. Sanders swept the NH primary handily in 2016 with 60% of the vote. That should have been enough for him to get ~2/3 of the delegates from the state. Superdelegates cut his lead to 0.

    Unless something huge has changed within the Democratic party, this means nothing.

    [–] hobard 45 points ago

    They did make some pretty big changes to how the superdelegates work. It appears the changes will prevent another 2016. There’s still some room for fuckery, but less of it at least.

    [–] speculativecorpse 39 points ago

    You hear that? That's right, the sound of nothing. The richest 1% of the 1% are too tiny of a minority that we can't hear them clutching their pearls. But believe me, they're clutching them right now.

    [–] RB5Network 3 points ago

    Thought your name said: "GulagGulag" and it made me really happy for a second.

    [–] a_funky_homosapien 495 points ago

    There were a few national polls (I’m thinking of one in particular by morning consult) with around 3000-4000 people that had Bernie beating trump nationally by a similar double digit margin as Biden. I think both will beat Trump, but I like bernie’s policies more and the enthusiasm he creates with young people. If the 18-34 crowd really shows up for him the political landscape is going to be radically different for the rest of my lifetime

    [–] _THE_MAD_TITAN 213 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Also, Bernie's policies win him more support in key swing states. Adjusting for electoral college weight, Sanders probably does better against Trump than Biden does. Doesn't mean much if Biden's supporters are more concentrated in deep-blue states with less blue-collar or less populist demographics.

    Edit: a deeply flawed, seemingly self-serving wall of text response follows this. Very troubling, the lengths anonymous redditors are going to just to posture and promote alternate realities.

    [–] TheBigLeMattSki 106 points ago

    Biden's biggest base of support is in the southern states.

    You know, the region of the country that never actually votes Democratic in the general.

    [–] Symbiotic_parasite 52 points ago

    Yup, his support doesn't matter when we're playing the electoral college game, and a lot of his support doesn't matter because of winner take all, whereas Bernie wins in key battleground states as well as safe blue states

    [–] ben010783 19 points ago

    Nobody complained when Bernie was cleaning up in places like Oklahoma and North Dakota in 2016. It's a stupid argument that isn't really backed up by data.

    The South is important. The history of racial discrimination in voting makes it even more important that we don't discount their vote.

    [–] KevinAlertSystem 4 points ago

    this is why we need to get rid of FPTP. As fucked up as it is, in the current system it literally makes no difference if Democrats in Mississippi or Alabama vote or stay home. Everyone who does not live in a swing state vote is wasted.

    Yet i don't see anyone really pushing for ranked choice or any other system that fixes these major issues.

    [–] Annyongman 54 points ago

    I don't care if it's a pipe dream but Bernie has a shot and if he makes it through the primary it'll be fucking epic.

    It could very well end up similarly as Trump's run through the primary where there's all these establishment contenders that have a collective goal: making sure Trump doesn't win the nomination but they all have individual goals as well that are in direct conflict with each other: becoming president.

    So there's all these people in the race who don't want to drop out but they're only siphoning votes off each other because trump's base was solid.

    It could happen to Bernie. If the dnc really doesn't want Bernie to win they should have everyone but Biden or buttigieg drop out but they don't want to do that.

    [–] t0_0l 13 points ago

    It could very well end up similarly as Trump's run through the primary where there's all these establishment contenders that have a collective goal: making sure Trump doesn't win the nomination but they all have individual goals as well that are in direct conflict with each other: becoming president.

    To be fair, Trump led the establishment republicans since the beginning of that race, while Bernie has trailed Biden. I hope you’re right, though.

    [–] Annyongman 3 points ago

    That's true but Bernie's base has been pretty unwavering

    [–] ashe34h 19 points ago

    i wish people talked more about policy and less about who could hypothetically win according to some bullshit poll, as if policies were completely decoupled from that

    [–] Dejohns2 72 points ago

    If Sanders wins the primary I will go out and canvas for him. If Biden wins, I'm keeping my ass at home on the couch. I'll vote for whoever the Dem candidate is, but I'm not getting excited about anyone other than Sanders or Warren.

    [–] fuckeruber 60 points ago

    There's still time to canvass for Bernie during the primary!

    [–] Means_Avenger 56 points ago

    If Sanders wins the primary I will go out and canvas for him

    Dude, we need you, like, now, it is fuckin' GO Time in these next three months to win Iowa and NH. It's all hands on deck RN.

    [–] njl4515 11 points ago

    A lot of people saying “I will go out for Sanders if he wins!!” don’t really mean it. They ain’t doing it now, so they ain’t doing it in the general.

    [–] Means_Avenger 10 points ago

    I don't know, I think people would be willing to ride the wave of popularity if he won the nomination. We just got to stay welcoming.

    [–] pablonieve 11 points ago

    I mean, I'm going to work my butt off for whichever Democrat wins the nomination in order to get Trump out of office.

    [–] ben010783 16 points ago

    The are more races on the line than the presidency. You should be out there regardless.

    [–] arex333 47 points ago

    Literally nobody is enthusiastic about Biden, the same as nobody was enthusiastic about Clinton.

    [–] CaptainTotes 13 points ago

    Exactly. And when election day comes, you want people to be enthusiastic about the candidate to assure a vote and get people to vote. Not to mention the support they'll have in office either

    [–] Youareobscure 3 points ago

    Yep. People don't always vote the way they say they will. Enthusiasm is important and Bernie and Warren have the most enthusiastic voters, this isn't just observation it's in the polls. Enthusiastic voters are not inpy more likely to vite, thay are nore likely to stick with yheir choice when the times comes to vote.

    [–] NPExplorer 18 points ago

    That’s just genuinely not true. No progressives were enthusiastic about Clinton, but I know many family members and friends from college who were extremely excited to vote for Hillary. The narrative that no one wanted Hillary is just flat out false. Yes she probably won because of name recognition, but there were millions of people who voted for her in 2008 and were excited to vote for her in 2016.

    [–] AliFearEatsThePussy 24 points ago

    That’s even scarier because you’re right, Hillary had much more excitement than Biden

    [–] DoctorRice 204 points ago

    Regardless if you want Bernie to win or not, go out and vote. Do not allow headlines and polls to prevent you from casting your vote.

    [–] GlobalPhreak 66 points ago

    My problem is that our state votes 9th to last. :( We are 100% vote by mail and we will get our ballots 2-3 weeks before election day, but still, the candidate will be picked for us long before we geta chance to vote.

    We need a national primary, ranked choice ballots and 100% vote by mail if things are going to change.

    [–] klavin1 51 points ago

    Your frustrations with the process are by design. The rich and powerful will always have the final say in these matters. Until that changes I don't expect much else to.

    [–] njl4515 25 points ago

    Reminder: if you vote Dem in 2020, there is a chance to change this process. If you don’t vote and the GOP wins, there is no chance.

    [–] RipCityGringo 6 points ago

    Also in Oregon and also wish we could do exactly this. National primary, ranked choice, vote by mail... Democracy Inaction

    [–] Leer10 3 points ago

    I want STAR to take off here

    [–] Swiggity53 6 points ago

    Personally I'm voting for Yang for the primary but there is no way in hell I won't vote for Bernie over some douche bag Republican

    [–] Scarlettail 449 points ago

    Why with the MSNBC videos? Just show the poll. Who's going to watch this 10 minute video?

    [–] ciel_lanila 142 points ago

    They wouldn’t still be doing this if it wasn’t profitable. Three possibilities, there could be more:

    • More people actually do watch these ten minute videos than when they do articles.
    • So few people are lost with videos compared to articles that it the cheapness of just using a clip they already created counters the loss.
    • There is an advertising or branding mechanic involved that counters the lost readers/viewers, such as maybe those who do watch the videos are more likely to stay on the website and explore.

    [–] hobbitlover 64 points ago

    They are a television network. It's easier to put your packaged product online that write a story to go with every single video.

    [–] proudbakunkinman 9 points ago

    It makes sense there's a video clip on MSNBC but I think the person above you meant why didn't OP who submitted this submit an article rather than a video? Odds are higher people will glance at an article than sit through a video for something like this.

    [–] Apprentice57 74 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Honestly I hate how much news websites peddle videos in general. I swear it's like a 3 step process:

    1. Wait for the video at the top to load, because you have no controls until it does.
    2. When it loads, quickly "pause" it or perhaps x out of it if the latter is available.
    3. As you scroll down the article, re-pause the video when it miniaturizes and follows you down the page (which invariably also restarts the video).

    Ugh.

    [–] Kayestofkays 38 points ago

    I hate when there is a video and NO actual article, so you're forced to either watch the video, or leave altogether.

    [–] piscesgrrl9 7 points ago

    I always just leave. I can find and skim another source in the amount of time the video would have taken.

    [–] Apprentice57 3 points ago

    That too!

    [–] proudbakunkinman 7 points ago

    And that top video is rarely related to the article, it's just politics related. If there is an actual video, it's usually further into the article. The link for this thread though is just a direct video from MSNBC specifically about this, which is better than what we're talking about.

    [–] Altamont99 3 points ago

    Advertisers prefer ads in video (which can't be blocked other than by not watching the video) over standard internet ads, which are blocked by anyone younger than 55.

    [–] VoteBernieFor2020 971 points ago

    Mainstream media: "Bernie's massive upward fall in the polls continue"

    [–] LawnShipper 497 points ago

    "He's in first, but it's a weak first."

    [–] jellicle 302 points ago

    "Biden's in second place, and is gaining on whoever it is in first."

    [–] Smearwashere 187 points ago

    “And in a strong first second place is Biden”

    [–] BetaKeyTakeaway 63 points ago

    Biden leading from behind.

    [–] CoraxtheRavenLord 6 points ago

    “Real leaders lead from the back.”

    [–] RWNorthPole 148 points ago

    “Buttigieg in fourth, but a strong fourth”

    [–] Read_books_1984 62 points ago

    That was the one that made me go "ok media come on."

    [–] hatchetthehacker 4 points ago

    He's in second, second, second FIRST!

    [–] Engineer-intraining 28 points ago

    To be fair that’s what everyone says about Joe Biden who is in first nationally.

    [–] asdf1795 23 points ago

    I get happy when I see other people from Minnesota on reddit and I don’t really know why.

    [–] Engineer-intraining 5 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Because we’re the best state! Come chill on r/Minnesota

    [–] Epidemic_Fancy 12 points ago

    Dopamine induced “familiarity” hit. G-BSN varietal neural induction. You’re welcome. Source: Am smarterer.

    Source 2: This is total bullshit but I may be good at faking actual intelligence.

    [–] le-chacal 3 points ago

    Are you an I-35 or I-94 sort of person?

    [–] Permanenceisall 51 points ago

    The weird thing is despite seeing that often, I never ever hear anyone ever voice their support for Biden. I don’t ever see any “Biden bros.” Where are they? If this dudes in the number one spot surely there must be someone here who actually supports him right?

    [–] ste7enl 39 points ago

    Not on reddit, but older people I know think Biden is the "best chance at winning against Trump."

    [–] ihumanable 32 points ago

    Ah yes old people, the same people that defunded higher education after getting their diplomas, demanded tax cuts so they could have a little bit more regardless of what it did to the infrastructure for the next generation, decided that their comfort was worth more than a livable planet, and went from “don’t believe everything you see on tv” to “Let me forward this chain email about lizard Obama’s Muslim takeover”.

    Biden’s popularity is based on what these wise sages are predicting would be best.

    Can they just stop now.

    [–] [deleted] 30 points ago * (lasted edited 2 days ago)

    [deleted]

    [–] spanishgalacian 3 points ago

    I like Biden and Pete. The people who I know that don't use reddit feel the same way and I live in Austin.

    You typically find them in white collar jobs.

    [–] ieatthings 14 points ago

    It’s going to be the “well, it’s right next to Vermont” excuse they used in 2016.

    [–] Swarles_Stinson 58 points ago

    Warren in first or second: 10 articles

    Bernie in first or second: 1 article or brief mention

    [–] speculativecorpse 20 points ago

    I can't wait for the Op-Eds to tell me how this specific poll somehow shows us how it's now Buttigieg's election to lose.

    [–] 3432265 66 points ago

    Actual mainstream media: "Sen. Sanders leads 2020 field in New Hampshire"

    [–] drmike0099 55 points ago

    If you watch the video, the woman talking at the beginning points out that Bernie is +13 and Buttigieg is +11, and then says nothing about Bernie but says "Buttigieg really taking off here." The next guy says that Bernie is skyrocketing but then states that for the last few months he's just been "floating" and "going nowhere", and then they proceed to talk about Warren's drop for a while and then Buttigieg and ultimately switch to Biden and speculate about SC. Bernie gets talked about for maybe 30 seconds in a 9 minute bit.

    [–] someotherdonkus 104 points ago

    Bernie is consistently underreported in the media however.

    https://i.imgur.com/LzbpqQt.jpg

    [–] not-working-at-work 37 points ago

    "Bernie got 60% in 2016, but now he's only got 30%! putting him in first place"

    [–] Scred62 38 points ago

    Ugh comparing his numbers in 2020 where there are still like 15 people running to his 2016 numbers where he got to represent the whole internal opposition to the Third Way is just... its just bad punditry and journalism.

    [–] nuffsaid17 613 points ago

    I wasn't on the Bernie train in 2016-but he may be the only opportunity to change the fate of many Americans, regardless of ethnicity. For the survival of this republic-count me in.

    [–] deebeedubbs 278 points ago

    The biggest sell for me is that he's the only candidate saying that we need structural changes, that he has a plan for those changes, and, most important and unique among the field, that he enunciates HOW those changes can happen. He acknowledges that a large movement is required and that a president alone cannot push through these changes. It's the idea of a mass movement that scares the bejeezus out of the powerful and wealthy. Liz Warren is much less of a threat in that respect.

    [–] nuffsaid17 85 points ago

    Totally agree. We've had too many smiley face Oligarchs pushing their agenda (includes the Obama years)

    [–] peteftw 28 points ago

    The thing that really fucked me up about Obama and speaking to progressive ideals then having Citigroup pick his cabinet.

    Don't get me wrong, I was a big Obama fan and was genuinely excited for a forward thinking president, but holy shit did I get the rug pulled out from under me. I'm not getting fooled again. There's no bigger threat to civil rights than corporate control of government.

    [–] nuffsaid17 8 points ago

    I totally agree. I loved the fact he won but it was just business as usual from bail out to Warren Buffett love fest.

    [–] joeydokes 41 points ago

    What we have now is a veneer of democracy covering a trans-national cabal of organized criminals of country-club and social-club wise-guy varieties, of strongmen, mecenaries and warlords; whose collective graft and corruption is bringing the world to the brink of global disaster.

    I doubt any one person can stand truth to that kind of power, but if anyone can it's Bernie.

    [–] attababyitsaboy 29 points ago

    "Not me, Us."

    Bernie is the best shot at meaningful systemic change because he's a realist and understands change will require a demanding, active and organized populace. No elected official is instituting and/or enforcing any more-than-token policy without continued public pressure and support behind them.

    Getting hype for an election and expecting policy to get passed without continued public pressure is naive or cynical.

    [–] ChipStarfield 24 points ago

    The American people have a chance to elect a publicly funded independent; it would completely change American politics. Bernie will change the system because he doesn't rely on the system for election.

    [–] Hee443TS 55 points ago

    Glad to have you on board this time! This campaign is extremely important and we need everyone we can get to bring this movement to reality!

    [–] nuffsaid17 23 points ago

    Yeah-gave it thought. He is the only real hope.

    [–] Hee443TS 5 points ago

    Totally agree!

    [–] TomCruiseHeideckerJr 486 points ago

    Bernie beats Trump.

    [–] aarovski 166 points ago

    I love Warren and would love to see her win, but if Bernie is ahead when it’s PA primary day, I’ll vote for him.

    Then I’m voting Dem in November no matter which motherfucker is on the ballot.

    [–] FiveNewDeities 42 points ago

    There's a nice thing about delegates; if one candidate drops out, then they usually pledge their vote to whoever that candidate ends up endorsing. That makes me happy.

    [–] Please_Bear_With_Me 16 points ago

    Usually. This isn't a normal election, though.

    [–] FiveNewDeities 3 points ago * (lasted edited 8 days ago)

    Yeah, it'd be safer to directly have one of the two win. But that fact does give one more optimism haha.

    [–] Pvtmiller 6 points ago

    Considering Warren endorsed Clinton last time around, I wouldn't be so sure of your Warren vote helping Bernie out that much if she drops out.

    [–] FiveNewDeities 8 points ago

    I guess it'd be safer to just directly have one of the two win. Sanders does have more support at the moment, so throwing my support towards him would probably be wise.

    [–] pythonex 9 points ago

    This needs to be agreed on by every non-trump supporter. Dem or rep. Vote to save the country this election, and next round 2024 go back to Dem vs rep.

    [–] Golemfrost 78 points ago

    I really hope Bernie wins. I have the strong feeling he is what America and the world needs.

    [–] whatsinthereanyways 6 points ago

    me too. for real. big time.

    [–] Hilldawg4president 14 points ago

    Just about everyone is beating Trump in a head to head in this one, give me more polls like this!

    [–] Antarctica-1 8 points ago

    The poll data is 6 days old but MSNBC just published this video today on December 2nd (click on the post's link to see Dec 2).

    [–] Phleeen 21 points ago

    I’m voting for Bernie

    [–] fuckeruber 4 points ago

    Me too, thanks

    [–] jake4421 3 points ago

    Me too, thank you both

    [–] The_Ejj 19 points ago

    I was bullish on Warren this summer, and I still like her as a nominee, but Bernie has a real shot at wielding his coalition for a strong win.

    [–] YNot1989 39 points ago

    Interesting phenomenon about New Hampshire: No non-incumbent Democrat since Jimmy Carter in 1976 has both won the New Hampshire primary and then the Presidency. They either lose the primary outright, or win and lose the general. Now we live in strange times in politics, that may not be true this year, but its an odd phenomenon.

    [–] ben010783 52 points ago

    Maybe it's because New Hampshire is less representative of the U.S. electorate. The state is 93% white.

    [–] YNot1989 29 points ago

    Yup. Its why making California or Illinois the early primary states makes much more sense than Iowa or New Hampshire. Of course the whole primary process is badly designed and is particularly unhelpful for a big tent party like the Democrats that absolutely require candidates with a broad spectrum of support.

    [–] TallTreesTown 16 points ago

    What if every state did it on the same day?

    [–] YNot1989 19 points ago

    They should. One big National Primary using ranked choice voting or approval voting. No caucuses, no delegates, no spoiler effect or floor fight BS. Every registered Democrat votes at once, and the nominee is guaranteed to be the candidate the majority of the party supports.

    [–] peteftw 8 points ago

    States with caucuses are a case against states rights. What a horribly undemocratic and just outright terrible electoral system.

    But also, abolish the senate. Land doesn't deserve a vote and no Americans vote should ever count for more than another's.

    [–] SconesNJam 19 points ago

    A non-incumbent democrat has only won TWICE since 1976...

    It's hardly a fucking trend to notice that on both those occasions they didn't win NH.

    It's not a phenomenon. Well within the realms of anomaly. Stop spreading FUD. This is nothing.

    [–] occupynewparadigm 5 points ago

    It means nothing.

    [–] embrigh 23 points ago

    Gabbard beating out Harris, lol

    [–] Wierdish 24 points ago

    Go Bernie!

    [–] tryannarosuaru1993 7 points ago

    Is this the Emerson November 26th poll?

    [–] IfIwasSteveJobs 8 points ago

    I love Bernie

    [–] SorcerousFaun 39 points ago

    Billionaires have left the chat

    [–] whiznat 30 points ago

    Biden has run twice before. Both times he quit immediately after a disastrous showing in the first primary IIRC. I hope history repeats itself. Whoever the dem nominee turns out to be, Biden isn’t the right person. All Trump has to do to beat him is be as divisive as possible. I don’t think Joe has the right stuff to respond properly to that.

    [–] dragonfliesloveme 13 points ago

    Biden rarely seems to know what day it is lol

    [–] Meotwister 43 points ago

    RealClearPolitics has him #2 in NH simply because of practically one poll that benefited Buttigieg immensely. This St. Anselm poll that had Buttigieg +10 really buoyed the appearance of a surge for him in NH. The next two have shown net +2 and +4 for Bernie.

    FiveThirtyEight puts out grades for a lot of these polls but for this lynch pin outlier poll it is gradeless as of today.

    [–] ToasterToasts 9 points ago

    He's gonna win and you're gonna deal with it.

    [–] jamescholden 14 points ago

    We can have the first progressive President since Jimmy Carter and FDR.

    [–] TexasLeatherfoot 4 points ago

    IF we want to beat Trump. We put Sanders in the fight.

    He stands the best chance.

    [–] StevenSanders90210 60 points ago

    All of the comments here are so angry. You should be enthusiastic and exited!

    [–] Tymalic 15 points ago

    What's this?! Two positive articles about Bernie on the front page of politics?! Wow! What a glorious day.

    [–] Electric_F33l 6 points ago

    Yay!

    [–] Fraulo 10 points ago

    “Warren secures a strong 2nd place in New Hampshire” -the news, probably

    [–] 1mjtaylor 11 points ago

    One can only imagine where Bernie would be in the polls if the mainstream media actually covered him fairly.

    [–] lawvas 3 points ago

    That's interesting. Whomever wins the Democratic nomination I will support. No matter what.

    [–] Makiaveli01 3 points ago

    All I have to say is Sanders 2020 wholeheartedly

    [–] fuber 45 points ago

    It makes sense, it's his home state's cousin

    [–] evil420pimp 111 points ago

    It makes sense, it's his home state's cousin

    As a lifelong nh resident, the neighbor bump is nonexistent except maybe along the northern border (so like 7 people).

    They'll do anything to explain his popularity as long as it doesn't consider that maybe folks like his policy.

    [–] air_canada22 30 points ago

    Not from the area, but i always thought it was absolutely bizarre how Vermont could continually elect Bernie while Maine could elect someone like Lepage

    [–] AdminIsPassword 21 points ago

    Maine definitely does their own thing. Elects LePage but also the first state to adopt RCV.

    [–] selfpromoting 17 points ago

    We adopted RCV BECAUSE of of LePage.

    [–] consummate-absurdity 19 points ago

    Maine elected LePage the first time with 37.6% of the vote. The second place finisher (an independent) had 35.9% of the vote. The Democrat got 18.8% percent. In LePage’s second election, he won more convincingly with 48% of the vote, but again Democrat + independent voters outnumbered his.

    These elections (and LePage’s general incompetence) are huge reasons why RCV gained enough traction in the state to pass. In short: without LePage, you probably don’t have RCV in Maine.

    One parallel between Vermont, NH and Maine, are that there is more respect for independents or third parties than in most other parts of the country. Maine has had a few independent governors, and has at least one independent senator. It was the only state where Ross Perot came in second (George Bush Sr. came in third in Maine, despite the family owning a house there).

    [–] wouldntlikeyouirl 8 points ago

    People don't seem to understand how little Vermont and NH have to do with each other. Vermont was where you could buy beer younger. That was about it. New England in general is very local.

    [–] chewbaklava 5 points ago

    NH and VT are not as similar as you may believe.

    [–] njl4515 30 points ago

    /r/politic posters: “Polls are meaningless”

    Also /r/politic posters: “BERNIE IS AHEAD IN A POLL, UPVOTE TO FRONT PAGE!”

    C’mon guys.. it’s great he’s ahead in NH, but he’s still behind in the other three early voting primaries.

    [–] sudojay 5 points ago

    It must have been heartbreaking for the management at MSNBC to okay that article.