Joe Biden and Michele Obama are the most popular politicians in America (KOS diary with links)

to be called a Democratic politician?

Biden represents more of the centrist/center right position that we have seen in the Clinton and Obama Presidencies. If one sees this centrist/center right focus as a positive thing, Biden is indeed a possible candidate.

On the other hand, Sanders inspired enthusiasm in much the same way as Barack Obama did. And Sanders is not content with incremental solutions. Instead, he argues for moving the goal posts and expanding the definition of what is considered feasible in much the same manner as FDR did in the 1930s.

But Sanders does have that (I) behind his name.

Biden and Michele Obama are the two most important Democratic politicians.

Whether anyone likes or doesn’t like the two of them or Sanders has nothing to do with the poll.

At best she is a famous Democrat who happens to be married to a former Democratic politician.

And she has expressed no actual interest in being a candidate. But if she were to express an interest, her actual positions could be interesting to hear.

None of the rules seem to apply any more.

The fascination with "the outsider", with fresh solutions.

But perhaps I am just telling myself that.

It had twelve options for "politicians" (not all politicians), and Sanders came in first. Two of those twelve were Steve Bannon and Rex Tillerson. They're not politicians but that poll carried a lot of weight around here.

And 3 years out, much can change. The poll can be useful as an indicator for current support.

....who never ran for office.

Are you okay with that poll's results but not the results noted in the OP?

That Michelle Obama is not a politician, and she stated that she would not run for office.

Agreed?

Whereas Sanders is an actual politician who actually runs for political office.

Not so much 'obvious', as merely 'inferred'.

So, not agreed.

Dont you see ?

But I thought I

yeah but, wait.

I

wait

Oh shit, I forgot what I was gonna say

Did you forget about the South? Obama won many Southern primaries. Did Bernie win any? You can't just "inspire" the largely white Rust Belt in a democratic primary. The path to the nomination runs through the South & people of color as well.

The south, other than a few purple states, including VA and NC, which I assume is yours, are not likely to be ours in the general election.

It is more important that the candidate could win the rust belt which was traditionally ours. These states should now all be consided swing states. Add states like VA and NC and CO and NM to get a collection of all the swing states. Anything that looks at who does best in these states is better than looking nationwide because that is unfortunately not how our election works, at the South which the Republicans lose only if we win a landslude, or the very blue states.

As to Bernie, he far exceeded what anyone expected. Not to mention, some Clinton allies, like David Brock, were concerned enough they challanged and diminished his genuine record of having fought to desegregate Chicago public school.

....to desegregate Chicago Public Schools.

He was involved. Do you say that Clinton went to just one MLK talk or do you believe it changed her view? I think it changed her view.

has to be framed in what someone did 40 years ago just to keep the focus on Bernie.

happened in 2015/2016 when Bernie's past was disputed by David Brock. Would you say that I was speaking of 1969 if I spoke of what the Swiftboat liars did in 2004? Did you experience even a little bit of a cringe that Brock would question that Bernie had the record he did? Note that Bernie never pushed that as a credential or claimed more than he did - in fact, he almost never referenced it.

Not to mention, it was completely unnecessary as most POC were firm Clinton fans, both HRC and Bill, and had been for decades. Even if Bernie would have made a BIG outreach using his Chicago experience as the centerpiece to POC - which he didn't do - it would not eliminate the decade long allegiances to the Clintons. Obviously, had he become the most unlikely Democratic nominee in history - he then could have had POC use that history and the fact that he was allied in his years in the House with most of the blacks by being in the mostly black progressive caucus. At that point, it would have been useful in generating at least some enthusiasm for a nominee that they did not chose.

To make clear, David Brock and those who joined him, to me reflected on HRC as much as the supposedly independent SBVT reflected on GWB. I was horrified when a Clinton ally, Wolfson comment in 2005 showed that the lesson he got out of the SBVT was that in that time, this type of attacked worked. Before then, CW was that it could backfire badly when easily shown to be false. Obama showed that you do not need to smear your opponent with lies and win - so arguing that all is fair in politics is not true.

In the primaries, Clinton was, because of her record and the huge amount of party support, a candidate who absolutely did not need people around her sinking to that level. I think THEY harmed her by doing so.

trying to push the myth that Southern voters and the base of the Democratic party needed to be educated on how one picture from 40 years ago took precedence of a lifetime of devotion and commitment to work for Democrats. No.

No more rewriting history.

The incident about the 40-year-old picture was simply that Bernie didn't answer questions about whether that was him because someone's wife was disputing who it was. He could have simply answered a reporter's question early on and confirmed it was him.

Imagine if you had to witness the MSM indulging in nonstop attacks on Bernie. Bernie never had to go through that, but Hillary did. No more weakening our GE candidate.

I never wrote that as anyone could see writing my posts. I have no idea whether you are intentionally ignoring what I actually wrote.

I suspect that you have a vested interest in blaming Sanders as Clinton herself did. The Clinton team was at least as negative to Sanders as the other way around.

from what I said and what the reality is.* The MSM attacked Hillary. That is a fact. They gave a pass to Bernie and Trump. That is a simple fact, and you are trying to drag all manner of tangential talking points, any of which can freely be seen at sites like JPR and do not relate to the simple fact that Hillary was pilloried from all directions.

And now you have another misrepresentation about Clinton blaming Sanders. So she wrote a book after the fact -- so what. Sanders maligned her with pay-to-play smears and insinuations about Wall Street and he could not substantiate any of what he said. Trump copied Sanders attacks because he could repeat them without having to prove anything and without being questioned because the MSM gave them both a pass.

Clinton also talked about Comey and Russia, but I notice you don't bring that up -- those facts don't fit the JPR talking points that Clinton is to blame for everything under the sun. Enough.

*partly referencing the Russian attacks that smeared Clinton, along with the MSM. Bernie and Trump were not the targets of the Russian bots. Neither Bernie nor Trump were smeared like Hillary was. Simple established facts by this point.

I have answered politely, but frankly this is equivalent to talking to a wall. I seriously do not remember people supporting Gore blaming Bill Bradley for arguing he was too connected or Kerry supporters blaming Dean for attacking him as flip flopper. Though W also used those attacks.

Sanders was not tougher than Clinton was on Obama. Sanders never accused her of pay to play.

simply untrue to now claim that Sanders didn’t smear Clinton with accusations about influence and Wall Street speeches. When asked, he could not provide a single example to support his smears. Good heavens, how absurd to deny that now. You don’t get to rewrite reality. And that was only one smear/-there were many more, all unchallenged by the MSM, same with Trump.

Sanders did not make up the claim that Clinton got big money for Wall Street speeches. Knowing that she was likely to run for President, she had to know that ANY opponent would have spoken of that. Not to mention, you are claiming that Sanders spoke of pay to play - when he did not.

Even if she had no opposition in the primaries at all, Trump who made a fake populist, not a politician, campaign in the primaries and general election would STILL have used those speeches and Clinton's many years in DC, to paint her as a career politician close to Wall Street.

In any primary, there is a comparison between the choices. Bernie Sanders, a long time Democratic Socialist, had his GREATEST contrast with Clinton on Wall Street. There was no way that difference would not come up. In addition, Clinton had baggage and it was public. She would have likely won had she scrupulously abided by the Obama agreement with her on avoiding even the appearances of conflict of interest between the Clinton Foundation and her role as SoS, not given those speeches, and immediately handled the email problem by giving the State Department all her work emails when she left. The fact is that she should have regularly archived her work email during her 4 year term. At minimum, she should at least have separated personal and work and turned the work ones over when she left - especially as there were FOIA requests even in her term.

It was not Bernie Sanders who created the perceptions that made HRC vulnerable.

was smearing her about is just absurd. His whole argument was that her speeches meant she would be influenced to favor Wall Street. Now you’re trying to spin it that there was no negative spin or connotation to her Wall Street speeches—he was just pointing it out nonstop for no reason whatsoever. Really? Bernie said her paid speeches influenced policy but he could offer no proof of examples. That is a fact and you don’t get to spin it away.

And more duplicity — Clinton should have known that she would be the only candidate ever to be maligned over some speeches. And then the tired attacks about establishment blah blah blah.

All you’ve done is confirm AGAIN that Clinton was smeared from all directions, and you still refuse to acknowledge how Russia exploited Bernie’s attacks on her. No more rewriting reality.

beneficiary of considerable passes from the press to explain his attacks on our party. Everyone just let him slide. Your concern over David Brock is meaningless in the face of all the MSM networks letting Bernie's attacks go unchallenged. This kind of alternate universe is just not sustainable, and it ultimately didn't prevail.

I know you were here and I assume you saw the many threads - claiming Bernie was not the man pictured being arrested, that he really did not engage in the civil rights movement. I agree that it was MORE the Clinton "fact" sites questioning him - for something he really did do, but which was decades ago and would not affect how he would be as President.

You are the one in an alternate world.

Southern voters didn't know enough to judge who had been actually working for them from those 40 years hence. They knew, and they chose accordingly. It's time to do away with the phony myths. No more alternate universes.

Would you have said that John Kerry's time in Vietnam was 35 years before he ran for President, so it was not real. Bernie Sanders was one of many East coast Jews who actively worked in some part of the civil rights movement.

YOU make a HUGE mistake in saying "actually working with them" as if the ENTIRE civil rights movement was in Southern states. Chicago was - and to some very real extent - is - a very racist town. In fact, Keith Ellison earlier this month at a Democratic event in Burlington spoke of how that was very dangerous.

Just as with swiftboating, the goal was to take away something that defined an opponent. In neither case were they running for President based on what they did decades before, but it that REAL accomplishment was something that was part of defining who they were.

They chose Clinton because they knew and loved the Clintons - and had since the 1990s. It was not based on what either did in the 1960s or 1970s -- nor should it have been. To say, it is a MYTH -- just shows you believed Brock and his allies -- and that shows that Brock is still as evil as he was in the 1990s. He just changed his patron.

about Southern voters needing to be educated about what’s best for them.

Brock was nothing in reality. Another myth. Nothing compared to the MSM never challenging either Trump or Sanders. Both got a pass.

I remember Bernie’s own words about who he was appealing to, and apparently so did Southeners and the rest of the base.

Clinton's campaign brought a lot of what you think unfair coverage on themselves. She created the email problem and made it worse by repeatedly telling not getting the whole story out. From the stolen emails, one of the people workingwith Podesta, Neera Tandem (?), was more negative on both what she did and how the campaign handled it than most media people.

As to Trump, the WP and NYT covered everything from his taxes that they could get, his racist actions with apartment sales, that his dad was arrested at a KKK rally, that he was a troubled teen sent to military school to try to fix him, his casinos going into bankruptcy, his not paying for work he contracted that was done etc.

As you said of the South, Trump voters KNEW what they were voting for.

got a pass, emails or otherwise and everything in between. He wasn’t asked to substantiate his attacks, and neither was Donald, which is why Donald was happy to use the same attacks on her.

There were only 75,000 people spread over 3 or 4 states who were suckered, and that’s why the common wisdom is not to weaken the GE candidate.

Clinton's inexplicable choice to give million dollar speeches before running was publicly known. Also, this was an area where Bernie really was different and he was called a socialist because of it. Bernie was saying things he had said for over 30 years. It was those positions that made him an unlikely nominee - among other things.

Clinton was FAR tougher on Obama in 2008 than Sanders was on Clinton. He stayed FAR away from both the email issue and anything related to people not seeing her aa trustworthy, and he did not bring up her attacked in 2008 on Obama - like the 3 am call. I do not think any of these would have helped Bernie.

got from Clinton and he couldn’t. His attacks were copied by Trump, so it’s obvious what benefit the generalized smears were meant to have. Sorry, but the JPR talking points don’t hold water.

And Hillary could not attack Bernie in kind because of his supporters.

And where are his taxes?? He touts transparency, so release his taxes.

he was in the race.

The "what benefits" was a Clinton strawman -- and he refused to play. Bernie NEVER said that Wall Street did anything to benefit her - other than paying her for speeches given at a rate that was not inconsistent with the very small number of people at her level of power or potential power. You ignore that Bernie did not claim that Wall Street did things to benefit her and you ignore that Bernie answering at all would have been worse (for him) and more importantly, for Hillary Clinton.

You make the assumption that he said nothing because there was nothing to say. Imagine he answered with the spuriously used, but very commonly cited, open secrets information on how many "Wall Street" donations she got in her Senate campaigns, 2008, and what was available at that point in 2016. Imagine he listed the many Wall Street people who worked for the Clinton administration. He would have given Trump a fantastic sound bite had he done so. You know exactly how much traction people like me got explaining that open secrets uses information on who a donor works for to compile its information.

As to Hillary not attacking Bernie, I assure you that the attacks went both ways. Hillary had a FAR bigger campaign organization and most attacks did not come from her directly. One that did that I can assure you infuriated many Vermonters was when Hillary twisted statistics to suggest that Vermont was responsible for most guns in NY. This was done by looking at the number of guns coming from another state and divided that number by the state's population. Vermont and NY share a very long border and Vermont has a small population. This led to the ratio -- though not the number of guns - placing Vermont high on the list. Not to mention, US Senators have NOTHING to do with state laws.

a fraud and therefore she was by her association. The implication was that there was pay for play, but he couldn't name anything factual, it was all bluster. You don't get to rewrite history. I'm not ignoring a frigging thing -- I listened to the man and his attacks.

He also was never accountable as to why Vermont doesn't have single payer. Vermont does not have $15/hour minimum wage. Vermont does not have free tuition. Yet he blamed Democrats for being "out of touch". Really?

Trump was more than happy to copy his attacks on Democrats. Neither Bernie nor Trump released their taxes, but both maligned Hillary for some abstract associations. Wasn't there a story about Donald Trump benefitting from some 9/11 money, but no one followed up on that story. Hillary was a New York Senator at the time of 9/11, but they both let her take attacks simply for knowing anyone on Wall Street. Please, enough of the bamboozling -- all it took was 75,000 people nationwide to believe the lies.

The MSM gave Bernie and Trump a pass and did nothing but attack Hillary, and she still won, basically. No more weakening our GE candidate. No more.

Even if you include Texas.

This isn't the first I have heard of it.

our nominee. I know you're trying to make a point re: whataboutism, but the fact remains that the person who won the most primaries (including the South) became the nominee....as it's always been. What are you not grasping?

win without the South. This was not speaking of 2016. Obviously, it is better to have a candidate that inspires many people and easily wins the primaries everywhere. Yet this did not happen with arguably the most charismatic inspiring candidate in decades, Barack Obama.

As to inspiration, 2016 was most like 2000, where the heir of the current Democratic administration was challenged by an outsider. Gore won every primary against Bradley, who was a far more mainstream possibility than Bernie Sanders. Even in the totally open election of 2004, Kerry won every contest except South Carolina, Oklahoma and two states - VT and NC that chose favorite son candidates after they were out of the race.

You may not like it, but we all get a say in who our nominee is. Personally, I felt nothing "inspiring" about Mr. Sanders, and that feeling was echoed all across the Southeast. So, I'm still not getting your point. I responded to the poster's made up claim that Sanders engendered the same level of inspiration as Barack Obama. That's just not true. Obama was a global phenomenon. The same can't be said of Sanders, or Hillary for that matter, who won 3+ million more votes than her '16 rival.

But neither did Clinton.

I'd guess it's because she's a Democrat, and has fulfilled many political achievements (Let's Move!, championed the School Lunch Program in 2010, launched MyPlate and MiPlato, etc.)

Running for an elective office is not a prerequisite for the label of politician, regardless of whether the word is used formally or an a colloquialism.

GO Democratic party !......

Necessary for some.

as tool to diminish the popularity of Bernie.

.

I'd vote for Michelle.

In response to an article about Bernie Sanders being the most popular politician as reflected in a poll taken at the time.

For some reason this Daily Kos diary uses a poll of Pennsylvania voters as part of their attempt to refute.

Edit to add: Also, it claims the PA PPP poll is from August of 2017 but it was actually from August of 2016.

This is an odd diary filled with inaccuracies and outright BS.

is simply wrong. An alternative fact, perhaps? Not to mention she's made it crystal clear that she has zero interest in running for office.

Voting is simple for me, you see, given the circumstances, I look at a ballot and I find someone with a D after their name, if there is more than one then hopefully I have done my homework and I pick the one most representative of my beliefs, but I then vote for someone, ANYONE with a D after their name.

That D must be there, however.

Under NO circumstances can I even imagine voting for ANYONE without that D.

from the all night laundry in the no frills part of town . .

Quel horror.

...Obama is the most popular politician America, presently.

and according to her she doesn't want to be not now and not ever..

And don’t say that you just copied it because you made sure to add Michelle Obama when the linked nonsense did not.

I say nonsense because had you actually clicked on the polls cited there, such as the one you used to justify including Michelle Obama in your bogus title, you would see that it was a poll of a few zip code in Pennsylvania.

So how does a poll of a few zip codes in only one state prove that someone is the most popular politician in the entire country. Oh, it doesn’t. And claiming is does is dishonest bullshit.

The polls cited were taken in Pennsylvania in 2016. Not nationally. Not recently. If the title said, "Joe Biden the most popular Democratic politician in PA last year" then it would be fine. As it stands, fake news.

via twitter.

Now that's an encouraging development!

They are still both very popular Democrats. Hope to see much more from both of them.

I’m not sure Michelle Obama qualifies as a politician, even. Public figure, certainly.

the way most politicians are, and that is what we still see about him.

Everything contained within is either deceptive or just blatantly inaccurate.

Ridiculous poll to include her

"I see Rep. Maxine Waters, for example, as giving voice to the full range of social and economic justice issues that define progressivism, and as the most outspoken critic of the Trump/GOP cabal."

So agreed -- "full range of social and economic justice issues that define progressivism," -- there it is. Truth.

are comedy gold.

leaving Biden out. Some great observations in there, for sure.

Did I miss something?

I think she’s great, but that would be like calling Rosemary Carter a politician.

Probably because he has never faced the GOP onslaught and "scandal" machine.

Maybe I missed that. If it didn't, why did you?

You missed the all caps thing though