Poll: Sanders Is Most Popular Senator Among Constituents; McConnell Is Least

[DonViejo]

Source: Talking Points Memo




By MATT SHUHAM Published APRIL 11, 2017, 9:35 AM EDT

Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) is the most popular senator among his constituents in the country, according to a poll released Tuesday. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) is the least popular.

Seventy-five percent of Sanders’ constituents approved of his performance in office, compared to 21 percent who disapproved, according to the latest installment of Morning Consult’s senators poll.

Forty-four percent of Kentuckians approve of McConnell’s performance, compared to 47 who disapprove. McConnell is the only senator to receive a net disapproval from his constituents, Morning Consult found.

Sanders and McConnell retained their titles as most- and least-liked since the last time Morning Consult released poll results on senators’ approval ratings among constituents, in September 2016.

Read more: http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/morning-consult-senator-approval-sanders-mcconnell

[FDRsGhost]

1. Of course he is!

Imagine that, the guy who represents those who elected him and fights for them is the most popular. What a brilliant idea! lol

[beam me up scottie]

112. Right? A tireless fighter for the 99% is popular?

Inconceivable!



And look at HuffPo's pollster, Bernie enjoys high favourability nationally too:

Harris/Harvard
Mar 14 – Mar 16

2,092 Registered Voters ... Favorable +23

***

FOX
Mar 12 – Mar 14

1,008 Registered Voters ... Favorable +29

***

YouGov/Economist
Feb 12 – Feb 14

1,500 Adults ... Favorable +16

***

Harris/Harvard
Feb 11 – Feb 13

2,148 Registered Voters... Favorable +26

***

Suffolk/USA Today
Dec 14 – Dec 18, 2016

1,000 Likely Voters ... Favorable +17

***

YouGov/Economist
Dec 10 – Dec 13, 2016

1,444 Adults ... Favorable +24

***

Bloomberg/Selzer
Dec 2 – Dec 5, 2016

999 Adults ... Favorable +19

***

GWU/Battleground
Nov 28 – Dec 1, 2016

1,001 Adults ... Favorable +27

***

YouGov/Economist
Nov 19 – Nov 22, 2016

1,405 Adults ..., Favorable +20

***

Politico/Morning Consult
Nov 4 – Nov 5, 2016

1,482 Likely Voters ... Favorable +13

More:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating

Vermonters aren't the only ones who admire and respect their progressive senator.

[disillusioned73]

3. Just proves..

This is a left leaning country.. time to rid ourselves of republican lites - it is what has caused all the losses in recent years..

[comradebillyboy]

33. Which Democrats do you want to purge? nt

[jackssonjack]

61. Tulsi Gabbard

I'm sorry . But she really comes across as an untrustworthy individual.

[yurbud]

155. because she doesn't toe the line on foreign policy?

[bekkilyn]

193. It seems that if you're not a warhawk, you don't belong in this country. (nt)

[yurbud]

204. those of us old enough to remember the Cold War and its end know the new demons

are pure bullshit--and the old ones mostly were too.

We were told that we had to support right wing thug dictators because at least they weren't commies and they would keep the commies out.

After the Cold War, we STILL support right wing thugs UNLESS they don't follow the orders of our bankers and Wall Street.

And the worst you can say about Assad, Putin, whoever is running China or Iran is that they are capitalist dictators who don't follow the orders of the self-appointed boss of bosses.

If it doesn't make OUR financial elite richer, your capitalism doesn't protect you.

[FakeNoose]

207. Yes! That's why Vietnam happened

The USA owes an apology to 57,000 men and women who died for nothing in Vietnam.

If we haven't learned from THAT mistake, then we'll never learn, ever.

Just sayin'

[ehrnst]

218. It appears that if you dissent even slightly from a specific manifesto

you are branded a "warhawk" or a "corporate shill."

[La Lioness Priyanka]

213. Because she is a conservative democrat in a progressive district

Unlike Joe Manchin who is a conservative democrat from an ultra conservative area

[jackssonjack]

60. I think you are making a huge assumption.

How do you know that is the cause of Democratic Party losses in recent years? There have been monkey wrenches thrown in by the Republicans throughout the previous 4 decades, among the many commonly discussed here like voter suppression or gerrymandering.
I personally do not trust the vote tallies all the way back to George W. Bush election in 2000. Electronic voting companies won't allow checks of their software and Urosevich brothers have ties to right-wing evangelical Christian and top Republicans. Bob Urosevich now heads Premier Election Solutions, formerly Diebold Election Systems and his brother Todd is a top executive at ES&S.

[gopiscrap]

136. I don't trust the vote tallies in the 1980 Reagan election and then all the ones in which

a repuke won after that

[brer cat]

153. +1

Welcome to DU, jackssonjack.

[That Guy 888]

211. I agree about the voter suppression, but have to ask, what has the Democratic Party done to stop it?

There was a time back in the 80's I think, where they actually fought back against Republican election fraud. Rachel Maddow mentioned it recently.

James Carville and others pushed hard for Democratic candidates to co-opt the Republicans message. It worked for Bill Clinton and a few others, but ultimately it lead to this current failure. Trying to get "suburban Republicans" is as bad as trying to work for your donors instead of your constituents. The 1990's are over, the Democratic establishment needs to change with the times. The biggest change is smart phones. You just can't tailor specific messages to different groups and not expect conflicting messages to show up on twitter and youtube.

[potone]

219. I couldn't agree with you more.

What used to be standard Democratic party policies have been labelled as left-wing positions ever since Clinton's presidency. We need dramatic change in this country to reflect the priorities of saving the planet and ceasing to base our economy on war.

[cstanleytech]

66. Nope the loses are largely due to being to focused on the Presidency and the Federal elections while

ignoring the state and county level elections which can have massive consequences down the road as the state government is what does things like setup voting districts and can make it difficult for people to vote by passing restrictive voter ID laws.

[FDRsGhost]

134. I think you're both correct

and it's a multitude of things which you both described

[George II]

4. Three things to point out...

First, this was NOT a poll of ALL Americans about ALL Senators, it was a poll asking people in each particular state how they feel about THEIR Senators.

It should not be construed as indicating the most popular (or unpopular) of all Amercans.

Second, the top seven "most popular" Senators come from some of the most homogeneous states in the country demographically and among the most rural. If you have essentially one demographic to satisfy, it's a lot easier.

The top seven are two from Vermont, two from Wyoming, and two from Maine, the other is from South Dakota.

Third, the most "popular" Senators all come from states with the lowest populations with fewer people to "satisfy".

What is more remarkable is that Senator Schumer of New York, with all the varied people in his state - large rural population upstate, large urban population downstate, Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, Middle Easterners, very rich and very poor, etc. - has a rating of 63%, only 12% from the top.

[bettyellen]

6. Interesting how phony the headline is- thank you !

[George II]

7. Variations of this type of poll have appeared here on DU four or five times in the last month.

[bettyellen]

8. I've seen the one about Fox viewers many times. It's more propaganda.

[George II]

11. Yes, and someone in this discussion has already dragged in that highly subjective poll.

[R B Garr]

44. Yup, repetitive, almost spam. Certainly not Latest Breaking.

[greatauntoftriplets]

51. I saw an OP on this just last week.

[cannabis_flower]

21. The headline isn't phony..

it's just that some people read more into it than it says. It says most popular "among constituents". How would you reword it to make it less "phony"?

[elleng]

23. Thanks, cannabis_flower.

Some around here just can't keep themselves away from trying to disparage Senator Sanders.

[Alice11111]

62. !!!

I'll probably be dinged again.

[NurseJackie]

31. Perhaps ... "among own constituents" or "among local constituents" or "among their constituents"

That's lazy "journalism" ... it reminds me of the vague "Church Bulletin" announcements that, although accurate, are easily misunderstood with humorous results. ("Applications are now being accepted for 2 year-old nursery workers.&quot

From the TPM source link:

"His approval was down 12 points (from 87 percent) compared with his numbers in September, while his disapproval was up 9 points (from 12 percent)."

Interesting.

[ehrnst]

32. Down 12 points, but still most popular!

in that small homogenous, white rural state.

Gotta give him that.

[bettyellen]

35. States constituents? Yeah it's an odd phrasing that sounds like a big deal

[karynnj]

72. Senators constituents is perfectly clear.

How many times when we want to lobby Congress is it written that many only listen to THEIR CONSTITUENTS -- and NO ONE here has the least trouble comprehending that. I suspect that had Leahy outperformed his colleague, no one would have a problem. In fact, you could say Leahy is the most popular Democratic Senator with constituents.

[beam me up scottie]

116. +1

[karynnj]

70. What do you think constituent means? "own" "local" and "their" are not needed

Something tells me that had number one and number two been switched - no one would be complaining if it were Leahy is most popular Senator with constituents.

[NurseJackie]

75. If they were switched (as you suggest) something tells me that nobody would care very much...

... and nobody would be continually posting about it either. I mean... it's nice and all... but it ain't all that.

What do you think constituent means? "own" "local" and "their" are not needed.

Well, unfortunately, not everyone is as smart as you and I are. It's vague enough to be misunderstood. In fact, I've seen other posters here who have read similarly vague original headlines and then made specific boasts about someone being the "most popular in the United States" (as if it was some 50-state pageant).

"Something tells me" that a less vague headline would eliminate those types of incorrect boasts. The fact is that among 439,782 registered voters in the small state of Vermont (only a small fraction of those happened to participate in the poll) his approval rating was greater than his disapproval rating.



PS: Manhattan alone has 839696 registered voters.

[karynnj]

76. Every poll ever done shows that Bernie's approval rating in Vermont is unusally high

That actually matches what I hear in Vermont ... and is why he got 86% of the primary vote. As to the accuracy of the estimate, I do not know enough about the sample design to state that one state's estimate is more accurate than the other.

However, an estimate near 50% would have a wider confidence interval than one at 75% or 25%. Just look at the formula for calculating the variance. I would bet the samples are drawn randomly by state to get the same number of responses. In all cases, the sample is pretty small relative to population size in all states - including my beautiful tiny state. (In fact, for that reason a HIGHER percent of Vermonters were sampled than New Yorkers - but the confidence interval is based on the SAMPLE SIZE and the VARIANCE.)

[beam me up scottie]

106. Correct. I don't understand how anyone can disagree with the poll results.

Disliking the results doesn't make them invalid. Other polls have consistently showed Bernie enjoys high favourability - both among his constituents and nationally.

Suddenly these polls are supposed to be viewed with suspicion because Bernie is the most popular?

How silly.

[NurseJackie]

107. Good for Bernie! Only...

... this just ain't as big, or as important, as some are trying to pretend that it is.

It's difficult to deny that in a small state with such a small population, those few citizens are much more likely to have had some sort of interaction with one of their senators (or one of their staff members, or other official representative) or they personally know someone who has. Therefore, it stands to reason that his approval numbers would be "artificially" high simply due to familiarity. The demographics of that state favor Bernie as well.

So, again... good for Bernie! It's nice and all, but it ain't all that.

[karynnj]

164. Familiarity goes both ways

Governor Shuman had low ratings because people learned things about him that showed he was not a good person.

Also, in Vermont, the culture demands access. I lived in a NJ town for 25 years and never met any of the mayors. Within a month in Vt, I had met Burlington's mayor at the new North end bagel shop he goes to every Wednesday morning to meet constituents from that end of town. My town in NJ had 16,000 people..

[NurseJackie]

165. Okay-y-y-y-y. Whatever.

[democrank]

201. I'm personally inviting you to visit our wonderful state of Vermont,NurseJackie.

You can take in the beautiful scenery and meet some of the kindest, most caring people on earth.
You'll just have to ignore all the Bernie bumper stickers, yard signs, and store window signs because that would undoubtedly ruin your day.

[LakeArenal]

216. Vermont is great. Everyone should visit.

[ehrnst]

217. Vermont is unusually white, rural and lefty

And he's dropped in approval ratings amongst his constituents since the last time this poll was taken.

Perhaps they would prefer that he remain in DC, where they have sent him for the last quarter century.

[George II]

125. In terms of actual people (i.e., "constituents") not percentage, he's one of the least "popular"...

....Senators, being popular with only 470,000 people. On the other hand, Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon is popular with more than five times that number, Senator Carper of Delaware is popular with more than 600,000 people, Senator Schumer is popular with more than 12 million people, Senator Klobuchar is popular with more than 3.5 million people, Senator Franken with more than 3 million people, Senator Harris is popular with more than 20 million people, and so it goes.

[karynnj]

126. That is one of the dumbest thing I ever heard. nt

[George II]

128. Just pointing out how "dumb" the whole premise of this poll is.

[karynnj]

131. The poll is not dumb - it reflects how each is viewed by the people they represent

Obviously it is easier for a Democrat to get high numbers in Vermont, BUT it is NOT a given. Former Governor Shumlin had - and deserved low numbers because he was a not a good person.

[George II]

135. Actually is obviously easier for ANY Senator to get high numbers if they're from a state...

....with a very tiny population.

Look at the list of the top 10 Senators and their states' rankings population-wise:

Vermont (49) Bernard Sanders
Vermont (49) Patrick Leahy
Wyoming (50) John Barrasso
Wyoming (50) Michael Enzi
Maine (42) Angus King
Maine (42) Susan Collins
South Dakota (46) John Thune
Hawaii (40) Brian Schatz
Delaware (45) Thomas Carper
Oregon (27) Ron Wyden

Note that both Senators from each of the two lowest populated states are the top four most "popular", and nine of the top Senators are from states ranked 40 or higher. And if we were to examine the demographics of these states, we'd find out that they're among the most homogeneous populations - no worries about a diverse constituency.

[NurseJackie]

182. Wow! So, NINE out of the "top-ten" were from the LEAST POPULOUS states? That's very ...

... interesting. The least populous states (in the 20th percentile) accounted for NINE of the "most popular" senators (or, more accurately, senators with the best "approval/no-opinion/disapproval" ratio).

I find that to be totally fascinating. Thank you for sharing that with us.

[George II]

184. Yes, and the four "most popular" Senators are from the two least populated states - VT and WY.

[NurseJackie]

187. This suggests to me that it's not merely a coincidence...

... and it probably does have something to do with being from a small state, a less diverse state with a homogeneous population.

If I were to serve my family's favorite Saturday Night chili dinner, my approval rating would be 100%. But if I served that SAME meal to everyone at our family reunion, my approval rating would drop to about 66%. In that large group, about 20% would think that my chili was too spicy, and 10% would think that it wasn't salty enough, and 3% would probably have no opinion.

So, based on what we can see and extrapolate, I guess it's very logical that smaller crowds are inherently easier to please, and easier to make small adjustments for.

[George II]

189. Great analogy.

[cannabis_flower]

78. Definition of constituent:

adjective
1.
serving to compose or make up a thing; component:
the constituent parts of a motor.
2.
having power to frame or alter a political constitution or fundamental law, as distinguished from lawmaking power:
a constituent assembly.
noun
3.
a constituent element, material, etc.; component.
4.
a person who authorizes another to act in his or her behalf, as a voter in a district represented by an elected official.
5.
Grammar. an element considered as part of a construction.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/constituents?s=t

The 4th definition is the one being used here. If you don't live in Vermont you are not a constituent. Even if you voted for Bernie in the Democratic Primary, you are not a constituent unless you also live in Vermont. If you live in Vermont you are a constituent, even if you don't like him and didn't vote for him. The meaning of the word is clear and needs no qualifier.

I am a constituent of Ted Cruz. I would never vote for him, he is however my Senator. The only ways I could be a constituent of Bernie Sanders would be if I moved to Vermont, or if he moved to Texas and won an office.

[George II]

101. So then Chuck Schumer is immensely more "popular" than Sanders since....

...more than 12 million New Yorkers "like" him whereas only ~470,000 Vermonters "like" Sanders.

[cannabis_flower]

104. Not..

percentage wise.

[George II]

108. Constituent wise he is.

[NurseJackie]

113. The smaller the group, the easier it is to get their approval. Especially one with the...

... not-so-diverse demographics of Vermont. It's tailor-made to Bernie's "strong points". Bernie's task is pretty easy when the numbers and the demographics are all in his favor.

Good for Bernie and all... but it really ain't all that big of an "accomplishment".

[lapucelle]

127. Now that he's this popular,

it might be safe for him to take a more principled stand on gun issues.

[NurseJackie]

129. We can always hope. I'm inclined to keep my expectations low...

... so as to avoid disappointment. But... fingers crossed!!

[lapucelle]

132. I met Gabbie Gifford and heard her speak

at my phone bank location during the NY primary. It was the most overwhelmingly powerful argument for sane gun laws imaginable. We should expect leaders to actually lead on this issue.

[NurseJackie]

133. I guess it all depends on what their motivation is, and who they fear the most. Voters or lobbyists.

Or instead of "fear" maybe a better word would be "respect".

[karynnj]

178. By that logic, Donald Trump is more popular than any Senator - with his constituents.

His around 40% of the entire US is higher than 100% of any state.

The only way to compare is by percent ... and then admit that small, politically homogeneous states find it easier to elect people that a large majority agree with and like.

[George II]

96. To put it in better perspective, and to demonstrate the ludicrousness of this "poll"...

Vermont has 625,000 people
New York has 19,500,000 people

So, if the the intention of this "poll" is to show how a Senator fares in his/her own state among all residents, that means:

Sanders, at 75%, is "popular" with 468,000 constituents
Schumer, at 63%, is "popular" with 12,474,000 constituents

So the creators (and fans) of this "poll" would agree that Schumer is popular with 27 times the number of people than Sanders. That's mind-boggling!

[NurseJackie]

130. Yep! That's putting it into perspective. Small-state senators have to stroll over a hill...

... and large-state senators have to scale a mountain. I'm less impressed with someone who is made it 3/4ths the way over a gentle hill, but I'd be more impressed with someone who managed to get almost 2/3rds to the top of a mountain.

[beam me up scottie]

81. Thank you, cannabis_flower!

This article isn't phony and it's certainly not "fake news".

These polls have been conducted for years the same way - it's silly to expect pollsters to change their methodology now simply because Bernie is the most popular senator.

Why would we want to allow residents of red states to drive down favourability ratings for senators in blue states anyway? Do we really want to allow Texans to vote on the popularity of NY or CA senators?

I don't understand why this kind of poll is suddenly considered unreliable. It makes no sense.

[George II]

85. It's misleading, as is that ridiculous "poll".

[NurseJackie]

179. It appears that Vermont is not a very racially diverse state. Depending on the reference source...

... Vermont is between 95% and 98% white/Caucasian. (ie: stats the US Census website and "Info Please" website) A quick ask-Google indicates that of black/African-American citizens in Vermont is just at 1%.

I wonder if Vermont's demographics have anything to do with the "popularity" or the approval/disapproval ratio of their senators. My gut instinct tells me that the answer is maybe yes. But I really don't know for sure.

[George II]

180. As a matter of fact, Vermont is tied for first (with Idaho, Montana, NH, Utah, and Wyoming) for...

...the lowest % of blacks at 1%.

It's tied for first with West Virginia for the lowest % of Hispanics at 1%, in a five-way tie for the least Asians at 1%,

It also has the highest % of white residents at 94%.

This is as of 2016.

http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/distribution-by-raceethnicity/?currentTimeframe=0&sortModel=%7B%22colId%22:%22White%22,%22sort%22:%22desc%22%7D

[NurseJackie]

181. Before now, I never realized how WHITE Vermont is. I've never visted there...

... but I just thought it was logical to assume it would be similar to the other states that share a portion of the eastern border of the state of New York. (Obviously, I was wrong.)

[George II]

183. It's pretty homogeneous in "northern" New England - Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine....

...they rank first, third, and fourth by % of white population.

The rest of the New England states are more diverse - Massachusetts is 24th at 73%, Rhode Island 26th at 72%, and Connecticut at 27th at 70%.

The demographics of Massachusetts and Connecticut are nothing like the northern states of New England.

[bekkilyn]

194. Somehow every single poll that shows something positive about Bernie is automatically bad. (nt)

[Bradical79]

41. The headline is straightforward and accurate

I think you are just not understanding "constituents".
Constituients are people in that person's district (or State when talking Senators), not all voters.

[karynnj]

67. Why do you say it is phony?

The fact is that Bernie has long polled higher than any Senator --in fact, I think Vermonters appreciate their entire delegation. Sanders, Leahy and Welch. In fact, I do not know if anyone ever averaged whole delegations, but I think VT would be on the top. (It is if you consider just Senators, as Leahy is the second highest!)

[Jonny Appleseed]

14. It's almost like people twist data to make Bernie Sanders look like a messiah...

b-b-but they wouldn't do that...w-would they?

[jrthin]

20. Can he walk on water yet? nt

[Alice11111]

63. No, but at least he walks, and perseveres.

I wasn’t even one of his supporters, but this is unbelievable.

[karynnj]

80. Yes - in Burlington, he can walk on Lake Champlain for most of December through February nt

[beam me up scottie]

118. It's true! I'VE SEEN IT!

[karynnj]

124. It's a miracle and a beautiful sight!

[karynnj]

79. ah, no ... he is considered to do his job well by an unusually large percent of his constituents

.. many of whom have met him .. often in their own home town.

[George II]

86. An "unusually large percent of his constituents" from an unusually small state population-wise.

[karynnj]

90. Yep -- that is his state and while small it is a great state with a Congressional delegation that

they carefully chose and really like.

[rpannier]

160. It says constituents

Check with your senator or congressman
If the person does not vote for them, they are not represented by that person and hence not a constituent

[Lucky Luciano]

27. C'mon George! Say something nice about Bernie!

Say one position of his that you like!

[KittyWampus]

48. I'd love to hear some Bernie quotes of him saying nice things about Democrats!

[George II]

54. I don't live in Vermont, I'm not one of his constituents, so I don't follow him much....

....I'm more interested in Chris Murphy's and Richard Blumenthal's positions.

When Blumenthal was Attorney General of Connecticut, the good natured ribbing was that he never saw a camera he didn't like. I think he met his match in the Senate, bigly.

[lunamagica]

87. Snap!

[R B Garr]

43. Thanks for the confirmation that this is fake news.

And correct, the entire population of Vermont is only 600,000. Statistically only a small portion of those vote and are his constituents. Enough with the phony rhetoric and fake news, so great points.

[Hortensis]

142. Only voters count. BUT, more important than Bernie,

"Forty-four percent of Kentuckians approve of McConnell’s performance, compared to 47 who disapprove. McConnell is the only senator to receive a net disapproval from his constituents, Morning Consult found.

Sanders and McConnell retained their titles as most- and least-liked since the last time Morning Consult released poll results on senators’ approval ratings among constituents, in September 2016."

2020, when McConnell will be 79 and up for reelection, may seem far off, but we're already in the middle of the 2018 campaigns and well into 2020's. This is significant!

Bernie is famous and inspiring for many, but McConnell is also famous and extremely powerful.

[GWC58]

53. I'm sure ole Mitch polls

well in Kentucky! He must, as they keep sending his sorry ass back to D.C.!

[LiberalLovinLug]

57. Thank you so much George

For helping us to read what is in front of us and to do your self appointed job of making sure Bernie doesn't get a schmigen more praise than he deserves.

[George II]

73. Once again, an objective view of this "poll" would come to the conclusion that Chuck Schumer....

....who is Senator of New York which has a varied population of 20 million people overall is more "popular" among his constituents at 63% than a Senator from a state with only 625,000 people, 95% of whom are one demographic.

Schumer has to have policies that help White, Black, Hispanic, Asian, American Indian, LGBT. In fact, there are more LGBT people in New York than there are people in Vermont.

An absurd (to use Senator Al Franken's word) analogy would be to say that Donald Trump is the most popular President in the history of the United States, among his family members. See how ludicrous it is to limit the sample group and compare results with those who are being judged by a much larger, more diverse group?

[LiberalLovinLug]

97. Once again thank you immensely

For your relentless stellar work in not just this thread but every thread that gives even a hint of making Bernie Sanders look any better than he deserves. For parsing any story to make sure we have understood the article properly. And equating Sanders with Trump is icing on the cake.

Because there is nothing more important than making sure to remind us all that this tireless Senator on the front lines against Trump, working with Warren and others, who near the end of the primaries running as a Democratic candidate had 47% of Democrats support, that we should always be sure to take any favorable poll in his favor with a yuuuuuuge grain of salt. Because .......um.....insulting almost half of those in the party that supported him, and still admire him, is a smart thing to do and is great for party unity.

[bekkilyn]

195. Obviously people who live in bigger states are more superior than people who live in smaller states

Maybe if we get rid of all the states other than New York and California, we might start winning some elections!

[MrPurple]

200. Yeah, but Bernie generally does well with the demographics you're mentioning

Racial minorities and LGBT tend to vote more for Democrats. Bernie would be most unpopular in a state like Idaho, which is also all white, so I don't think your issue is that relevant.

It's reasonable to point out that Vermont is a much smaller constituency, but that's not Bernie's fault. They gathered this data before Bernie was a national figure, so it's not some kind of conspiracy to make him look good.

The fact that Bernie's not sold out to any corporate interests and is authentic plays into this and you can make what you want of the data, but I don't think it's meaningless.

[lunamagica]

84. Thanks for the clarification, George

[Cha]

93. Mahalo for the Clarification, George.. I was thinking WTH?

That doesn't even sound remotely true.

[adigal]

109. All I care about is that McConnell's state hates him as much as I do...makes me smile nt

[George II]

111. Yes, that's one thing that has been lost in this discussion.

[brer cat]

154. Thanks for clarifying this, George.

The diversity in most states will almost always mean that the Senator will not reach the top in approval ratings by their constituents.

[rpannier]

159. The title says among constituents

I am pretty sure that means, the people you represent and vote for you
So, that sounds fairly straight-forward

[StubbornThings]

5. Had someone last week on DU tell me that Vermont is too small for that to count.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1017&pid=432772

[disillusioned73]

9. Funny that..

hmm..

[George II]

10. You're incorrect, what I pointed ( as that "someone") out about a DIFFERENT poll, thank you, is....

..that the DIFFERENT poll had a very select group of choices by the respondents. Then you dug up another poll (similar to the one under discussion here) from about seven months earlier that had similar results to the one under discussion here.

If a Senator from one of those very small states with a single demographic that comprises over 90% of the population in his/her state isn't among the most popular, he/she is doing something grossly wrong.

Why not address the subject poll here instead of deflecting in a (failed) attempt to pick a fight?

Have a good day.

[StubbornThings]

15. I wasn't attempting to pick a fight.

I was speaking to the OP (not you).

[George II]

18. Yes, but you linked to a post of mine (that "someone") from about a week ago.

[bettyellen]

13. That's not what that link says, but thanks- it's good information to have.

[StubbornThings]

17. The link I referenced says the same thing as this poll for Bernie.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2016/09/15/sanders-constituents-give-him-percent-approval-rating/OaZdylwKTyUWN6DUq8cp6O/story.html

That he is the most popular Senator among his constituents.

[George II]

52. The link you referenced was a Democratic Underground post by me.

[beam me up scottie]

83. That's ridiculous. HuffPo's pollster tracks national ratings and Bernie's are quite high.

Harris/Harvard
Mar 14 – Mar 16

2,092 Registered Voters ... Favorable +23

***

FOX
Mar 12 – Mar 14

1,008 Registered Voters ... Favorable +29

***

YouGov/Economist
Feb 12 – Feb 14

1,500 Adults ... Favorable +16

***

Harris/Harvard
Feb 11 – Feb 13

2,148 Registered Voters... Favorable +26

***

Suffolk/USA Today
Dec 14 – Dec 18, 2016

1,000 Likely Voters ... Favorable +17

***

YouGov/Economist
Dec 10 – Dec 13, 2016

1,444 Adults ... Favorable +24

***

Bloomberg/Selzer
Dec 2 – Dec 5, 2016

999 Adults ... Favorable +19

***

GWU/Battleground
Nov 28 – Dec 1, 2016

1,001 Adults ... Favorable +27

***

YouGov/Economist
Nov 19 – Nov 22, 2016

1,405 Adults ..., Favorable +20

***

Politico/Morning Consult
Nov 4 – Nov 5, 2016

1,482 Likely Voters ... Favorable +13

More:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating

These are reputable polls - it's not like they're skewed or biased.

Why would anyone think Vermonters wouldn't agree with the rest of the country?

[George II]

89. Deflection

[beam me up scottie]

91. Inconvenient facts are "deflection"? Latest: Favorable 55.7% Unfavorable 32.7%

[George II]

98. The subject is Morning Consult's poll rating 100 Senators in their states.

[beam me up scottie]

100. The subject is Bernie's amazing popularity.

And if those other polls are any indication it appears Vermonters aren't alone in their admiration for the most popular senator.

So here's to Bernie Sanders, still the most popular senator in the country!

Cheers, George!

[George II]

102. You should read the subject line again as well as the OP. Thank you.

[beam me up scottie]

103. Lemme read it again...ayup. That's what I thought - Bernie is STILL the MOST POPULAR SENATOR!

[George II]

110. Why are you lopping off part of the subject line?

Sanders is "popular" with less than a half a million constituents. As pointed out by me elsewhere, Schumer is "popular" with more than 12 million constituents. That is a very impressive number of people! Bravo Chuck.

[beam me up scottie]

114. Not only is Bernie the most POPULAR senator he also enjoys high favourability nationally.

It's almost impossible to deny the results of these polls:

Harris/Harvard
Mar 14 – Mar 16

2,092 Registered Voters ... Favorable +23

***

FOX
Mar 12 – Mar 14

1,008 Registered Voters ... Favorable +29

***

YouGov/Economist
Feb 12 – Feb 14

1,500 Adults ... Favorable +16

***

Harris/Harvard
Feb 11 – Feb 13

2,148 Registered Voters... Favorable +26

***

Suffolk/USA Today
Dec 14 – Dec 18, 2016

1,000 Likely Voters ... Favorable +17

***

YouGov/Economist
Dec 10 – Dec 13, 2016

1,444 Adults ... Favorable +24

***

Bloomberg/Selzer
Dec 2 – Dec 5, 2016

999 Adults ... Favorable +19

***

GWU/Battleground
Nov 28 – Dec 1, 2016

1,001 Adults ... Favorable +27

***

YouGov/Economist
Nov 19 – Nov 22, 2016

1,405 Adults ..., Favorable +20

***

Politico/Morning Consult
Nov 4 – Nov 5, 2016

1,482 Likely Voters ... Favorable +13

More:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating

When our most popular progressive senator does well it's a good thing for all of us

So again - YAY BERNIE!

Cheers!

[George II]

119. Not the subject of this discussion. Since you truncated it above, here is the subject:

"Poll: Sanders Is Most Popular Senator Among Constituents; McConnell Is Least"

[beam me up scottie]

120. Yep, our amazing Bernie is still the MOST POPULAR! This is a GOOD thing!

Hug it out!

[George II]

121. The "most popular" to whom?

[beam me up scottie]

123. Cheers!

[FDRsGhost]

137. Why aren't facts shown where others are more popular than Bernie?

Oh that's right, because they aren't

[George II]

147. The big blunder/faux pas of this poll about "popularity" is that it defines that word....

...in a very narrow sense, so narrow that I've pointed out several times in this long discussion how flawed the poll is.

Very simply and hopefully one last time, a state were only 470,000 people think one Senator is popular is apparently now defining the level of popularity, even though in other states (California and NY for example) 20 million and 12 million people who find their Senators "popular" are being given short shrift in lieu of a tiny state population-wise.

Also, as I've pointed out but apparently some haven't read or accepted the FACT (since you want to deal in facts) that the top ten most "popular" Senators are from states among the least populated and most homogeneous. The top four Senators are from Vermont and Wyoming, #49 and #50 with respect to population.

Why is everyone dismissing that FACT?

[FDRsGhost]

148. Why are you dismissing the fact

Bernie is the most popular politician today? HuffPost Pollster shows this and it's been quoted several times.

Show us a stat that says someone else is more popular than Bernie, either nationally or locally.

[George II]

150. Show us the stat that he IS the "most popular politician today", not just the "most popular"...

...among a very small number of politicians listed in the poll that you're talking about (and not citing, by the way)

But getting back, what you're asking for is way off the subject of this discussion.

[R B Garr]

145. To the fake noozers. They're going to define

reality, and you're going to like it.

[disillusioned73]

174. I like your style.. beam me up

[world wide wally]

12. WTF do 54% of Kentucky approve of?

So many masochists in one state!

[disillusioned73]

16. When reading anything pro Bernie..

one has to remind oneself that some come here to "rec" & others to "wreck" what the left has to offer..

[elleng]

28. Yes, a fair # of 'wreck' posts around here.

[LiberalLovinLug]

55. Exactly..nicely put

So childish

[synergie]

69. When reading the numerous iterations of these meaningless polls

posted erroneously in late breaking news and general discussion, that the whole point of the posting and those "rec"ing is to wreck the left, by basically implying that "the left" is some sort of special clique among the Democrats, and not the party or its members itself.

Makes you wonder why all the "pro-Bernie" is posted outside of the Bernie Sanders group at all when it isn't news, there is nothing at all to discuss, and it's basically adds nothing to the group, other than to invite comments asking why these things are posted in the first place by the same people over and over again, and to facilitate people interested in "wrecking" with posts against their fellow DU members, who ARE what the left has to offer.

One has to remind oneself that wrecking the left is the goal of some folks who enjoy sowing divisiveness and discord regardless of the motivations, be they professional, political or a manifestation of their religious beliefs or personal NPD.

[beam me up scottie]

95. Well said, nice turn of phrase!

[bekkilyn]

196. Sometimes I have to keep reminding myself this isn't a right-wing site

Because in some threads, it's hard to tell the difference.

[rocktivity]

19. Candidate for this year's "You Call This NEWS?" Award

But Mitch is the LEAST popular? How can that be?




rocktivity

[Dustlawyer]

25. Yet the Turtle Head was just re-elected!

[smirkymonkey]

47. I just can't get my mind around that.

How can they not find somebody better than that slimy bag of shit? Is that really the best that Kentucky can do? Or are the people in that state really just THAT stupid?

[Dustlawyer]

59. Makes you wonder.

[LeftInTX]

26. That was hilarious.....

I can't imagine Mitch campaigning......
He has got to be the most uninspiring, boring thing....
Yet, he keeps getting elected.

[Tom Rinaldo]

22. Interesting

What's most noteworthy to me is the phenomena by which the same people tend to find reasons to make negative posts in regards to any news story that appears to cover Senator Sanders in a positive light. Probably just a coincidence.

[elleng]

24. Thanks for picking this up, Tom.

[Lucky Luciano]

34. They have their bots set up to auto-reply their negativity.

Using clever NLP algos they detect positive Bernie threads and throw the monkey poo automatically.



Kidding of course, but it is ridiculous.

[bettyellen]

36. That would be funny if it didn't happen to the Dem candidate last year-

But it is ironic because a lot of those "bots" were fake Sanders supporters.

[Lucky Luciano]

37. Can't disagree re the fake Sanders supporting bots.

I just hate the negativity being directed at Bernie given that his positions on the issues are things we should all be able to rally around.

[bettyellen]

38. So the irony of claiming Sanders is a victim is a bit galling- you get how tone deaf that is?

A lot of Dems hate the poorly timed negativity coming from Sanders right now. Also the denial of racism and sexism coming from him and Biden. It's obvious they're both playing to the base they'd like to keep- but it's pretty fucking dishonest.

[Lucky Luciano]

39. Don't really wanna do this, but he is a racist now?

[R B Garr]

58. People get posts hidden quoting Bernie's own words

about who is pandering to, i.e. Working class in non-racially diverse states. That's common knowledge.

[Tanuki]

92. FYI, someone just alerted this post, claiming that you are

interfering with forum moderation! Now they'll probably alert on mine, too, for telling you.

[R B Garr]

144. LOL, thanks for telling me.

Figures.

[bekkilyn]

197. I got a post hidden for mentioning our previous VP

because he's considered to be a right-wing talking point now.

[synergie]

88. Then choose not to do it.

Where did anyone say that?

[bettyellen]

115. Where the fuck did I say that? No where, not ever. You owe me an apology.

[Lucky Luciano]

139. I think I misinterpreted this

"Also the denial of racism and sexism coming from him and Biden."


Was reading that as the denial of sexism and racism that both he and Biden have been expressing. On closer inspection, I think you must meant that he and Biden are denying the sexism and racism that trumpanzees have.

My bad - apologies to you 100%.

I agree that Bernie may be too optimistic about some of the trumpers. I do think that no matter what, a trumper is totally ok with throwing women and minorities under the bus in return for better economic prospects even if they don't run around dropping the N word. That is still racist all the way in a passive sense as opposed to those dropping the N word or worse.

I know what Bernie is trying to accomplish by not discarding 100% of the shitgibbon voters, but hopefully he can resonate with the good people that exist in redder areas that didn't vote. Something has to be done about the republican dominance away from cities. This is not sustainable.

[bettyellen]

156. Appreciate your response, thanks LL. Wish it had been the first time I'd heard that accusation

Of calling Sanders racist was the first and only time it happened. But it was frequent all last year.

I don't think the ends justify the mean if the means amounts to denial of racism and sexism. I'm guessing you just don't get it what that means to be the target of this shit and watch "allies" rationalize ignoring this shit. Just no! You can do all the conversations you want to do one on one to convert troglodytes- they wouldn't listen to me anyway. We can't cater to them, that's offensive in a very deep way to the bulk of the Dem party.

[LiberalLovinLug]

64. So the first rule about the Democratic party is....you don't talk about the Democratic party?

The party is perpetually changing, evolving, just look at the gay marriage issue. Do you not think they discussed altering their official position behind closed doors after they read that the tide was turning in the public opinion and they listened to those that were critical of some of their top leaders insisting on sticking with only supporting "traditional marriage"?

The idea that no time is a good time to criticize the party for anything is baffling. Or that this is a particularity bad time. Or that if you have any criticisms you are an enemy. We just had a crushing defeat of all branches, and have been losing governorships and local elections as well across the country. When would you think its a good time for a little evaluation? Frankly that attitude reminds me how Fox News likes to harp on and bash anyone who wants to start a conversation on implementing some form of gun controls right after some horrible mass shooting. Like...when IS a good time for the discussion? Isn't that the exact perfect time?

Did you ever think that perhaps he is critical because he wants them to do better next time? That he has the best intentions?

[Lucky Luciano]

68. Yay!

I certainly want the democrats to do better!

[bettyellen]

99. Never said "no time" is the right time, funny how you heard that. I've also been accused of calling

Him a racist, so at least you didn't put those words in my mouth.

We're facing an extremely dangerous period and our democracy is at risk. It's a bad time to be sliming Dems.

[LiberalLovinLug]

122. Once again...where have I heard this type of logic before...

Jon Stewart Tears Into Fox News For Arbitrarily Deciding When And Where People Can Talk About Gun Control

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/jon-stewart-tears-into-fox-news-for-arbitrarily-deciding-when-and-where-people-can-talk-about-gun-control/


and "sliming Democrats"? I wonder if you actually think he is working to "slime" the party he ran for less than a year ago for ill intended purposes? Do you completely dismiss that he and others may look at it more as constructive criticism? That he may, through that criticism, actually be wanting to increase the base and ultimately get more votes out for Dems? That this is the exact most important time to open this can now, when there is still time to formulate a plan in time for the next election, painful though it is.
Do you think that you could ever contemplate that as a reality?

[StubbornThings]

186. Great post!

It amazes me how so many Democrats don't want to hear the party criticized when it's arguably at it's lowest point since Reagan won his second election for President.

[StubbornThings]

188. When would be the right time if not now?

Everyone should agree that the Democrats need to start winning again.

I'm not sure if you're a sports fan but if my team continued to get it's ass kicked for years I sure as hell wouldn't be disappointed with anyone that was critical of the poor play. It doesn't matter how much I like them. They wouldn't be wrong.

[bettyellen]

191. You've got to be kidding. The election was rigged w foreign intervention and that should be the

Focus. All this crap about pandering to white working class men is embarrassing. Ass kicked for years? It was a razor thin loss, which came about because people were manipulated by exactly that kind of propaganda. Fuck that.

[StubbornThings]

192. I'm not talking about just the presidency. Not sure why that was so hard to understand.

I'm talking about all races.

Governors
Democratic (16) Republican (33) Independent (1)

State houses
The GOP now controls 68 out of 98 partisan state legislative chambers

Senate
Democratic (48) Republican (52)

House
Democratic (193) Republican (238)

[George II]

203. There's an age old fact about elections known as "coat tails".

[StubbornThings]

206. Most of those contests didn't take place in 2016. nt

[beam me up scottie]

105. Very well said!

[bekkilyn]

198. +1 (nt)

[LiberalLovinLug]

56. "They have their bots set up to auto-reply their negativity"

Sure seems like they have nothing better to do than sit by their computers and wait for the first pro-Bernie OP to pop up and then they all come crashing in to get in on the first top posts spreading their negativity.

[jackssonjack]

71. From the other threads i've read through the problem isn't Bernie's stated positions,

It's giving him credit for starting the conversation and fighting for Progressive ideals that Democrats have been fighting for years.

I have read several conversations on this website which start out:

"Bernie did (fill in the blank)! Its about time we had people in Washington finally fighting for Democratic positions! He's a real Democrat!"

"Bernie is not a Democrat."

"He fights harder for democratic principles than the establishment Democrats!"

As most have pointed out in numerous posts in other threads, Bernie has caucused with the democrats 90%+ of his time.
Which begs the question(s):
1) If Sanders has had all these perfect answers all along and he's been caucusing with the Democrats haven't they also had the right ideas all along?

2) If he's has been caucusing with them for all these years haven't the Democrats also been fighting just as hard as Bernie and aren't their failures also his failures?

[Tom Rinaldo]

74. Fair questions

But I think that understates the diversity of views within the Democratic caucus though. After all, Joe Lieberman also caucused with the Democrats, first as a Democrat, and later as an Independent. Joe Manchin caucuses with Democrats too and he, like Bernie, is on the Senate Democratic leadership team. A divergence of views is clearly allowable within the Democratic caucus.

I think injecting the phrase "perfect answers" only serves to obscure rather than illuminate. Very few people, Bernie included, stake a claim to having perfect answers. People claim to present their best thinking on a topic, and argue for how those type policies will benefit the American people more so than alternative policy proposals. In the end, those who caucus in the Democratic Caucus will come together over 90% of the time around whatever proposal proves most politically viable that also furthers ends that they too believe in.

Many Democrats fight as hard as they are able to, Bernie is by no means unique in that. They don't all always agree on priorities and details and they can hold differences that are sincerely held while hammering out an ultimate unity position. And different people can serve different roles. Some may be better at staking out a compelling vision and set of goals, others at negotiating compromises to nudge the ball forward. Both vision and compromises are essential for getting from here to there. Democrats jostle among themselves to advocate for their priorities and then come together to move the ball forward rather than keep the status quo.. Sometimes they pick the best route forward, other times not. But all legislation minimally needs a majority of votes to move forward. Joe Lieberman may have single handedly killed the public option, but he had a few allies within the Democratic caucus.

[jackssonjack]

82. I have literally seen the phrase

"Bernie had it right all along." in regards to health care. Plainly he didn't have it right all along. There were many problems with his solutions on many other issues too, therefore that is not interjecting on my part. I agree making such claims only serves to obscure rather than illuminate.


Then why his continued public berating of the party he professes to support? why aren't wee hearing any berating of the Republican Party from Bernie?
Why refuse to become a Democrat while basking in their limelight? Those Progressive ideas were around long before Bernie.
Why continue to try and separate himself from the Democratic pack other then to evade accountability for all that hasn't been implemented as if he alone could have gotten it done?

[Tom Rinaldo]

94. You have literally seen the phrase. Gosh I must be wrong then

Someone said Bernie was right to always support single payer so now someone says that Bernie poses as always having perfect answers. Hard to argue with facts, right?

Your post is full of attacks and opinions presented as facts. It is amazing, isn't it, that the newly elected DNC Chair is publicizing a tour around the country that he is taking to rally Democrats alongside someone who revels in "continued public berating of the party he professes to support" who "we aren't hearing any berating of the Republican Party from"?

I did try to have a real dialog with you, honest. Ir was worth a try. Bye.

[LiberalLovinLug]

117. Thankyou Tom

You have more patience than I. Some have on some kind of irrational blinder hate for him and there is nothing anyone can do. That being critical is some kind of crime. Presumption that he has bad intentions instead of wanting to help the party attract more supporters by his admonitions and suggestions for the Democratic party going forward after such a calamitous loss.

Or that he should join the party and maybe THEN they would back his efforts. He'd still be working on the same issues, he'd probably still be critical of the party, but that Sneetch star would leap frog him into instant credibility. Why does it have to be all or nothing to these people? News flash: He's a cranky old man and he's not about to change his belief that having some form of independence from the party system is important to him. So I guess some will just go to their grave with that grudge. Meanwhile Bernie will be working hard to elect Democrats and fight Trump and the GOP agenda for all of us.

[jackssonjack]

143. No really it's not amazing.

Its about time. I really don't consider that "amazing" Where was Bernie and all his rallies in the late 90s early 2000s ?

When was he promoting all of his supposed new ideas and doing tours "around the country " throughout his entire career until Obama became president?

He wrote a book and now he's promoting himself and he did it at the expense of the Democrats while taking credit for getting his name out there and building his campaign on the infrastructure of those corporate shills he hates so much . The same corporate shills who funded his first campaign when he ran for office.

"Gosh I must be wrong then"

Yes sir that is correct, you are wrong as there are plenty of easily find-able examples like this:


https://www.democraticunderground.com/10028889697

Bernie Sanders Just Introduced His Free College Tuition Plan
a total lie. But again praising Bernie like he knows it all!
the comments:

"He had such a good idea back in 2015 that Dems made it part of our platform!"

I'm grateful Bernie is still fighting for this. He could have joined the paid speech circuit but instead he chose to roll up his sleeves and fight even harder."

Are any of these statements true including the title?
Why is Bernie getting credit for the work of the "establishment" Democrats?
Bernie's free education for all plan was not going to work. These commenters can't admit his plan was a failure so these credit him with the Democratic Party's hard work.


Bernie lied about helping write the ACA but yet all we ever hear is how wonderful Bernie is and how the "corporate shill establishment Democrats lied." and these posters stretch as much as possible to give Bernie credit and blame politifact.

There are hundreds of these kinds of posts on here. Please don't act as if only one person made comments like that. I know that's not true and so do you.

Cult of personality is not something that should be a part of a serious Democratic Party. We've seen where that path takes us.
Good bye.

[NurseJackie]

167. I tip my hat to you...

[Tom Rinaldo]

171. It seems like your sole purpose on this thread is to attack Sanders

The OP was a straight news story quoting polling data. It includes no quotes by him, it discusses no positions taken by him. It would seem some would rather that Sanders was highly unpopular with his constituents based on many of the replies here. This OP could have been one noting Bernie Sander's wedding anniversary, with no added commentary, and most likely it still would have attracted dozens of negative posts from a traveling troupe of his adversaries.

The fact that this particular OP is serving as a bombing range for a flight of Sanders detractors to swarm over is telling. If anyone is at odds with the Democratic Party right now it is those who obsessively attack a member of the Democratic caucus, undermining Democratic unity when it is most needed. In doing so the judgment of the the highest elected Democrat in the nation, Senate Minority leader Chuck Schumer, is being challenged since he saw fit to elevate Bernie Sanders to the Senate Democratic leadership team. In doing so the judgement of the newly elected DMC Chair, Tom Perez, is being challenged, since he saw fit to invite Bernie Sanders to barnstorm the nation with him for his first major national outreach tour foray. In doing so the judgement of 45% of the voters who participated in the Democratic Party's 2016 Presidential primaries is being challenged, since they believed that Bernie Sanders was the best choice to head the 2016 Democratic ticket.

The primaries are long over. Hillary Clinton won them, though by no means by a landslide. She won the popular vote. She should be President. She isn't. And now we need to deal with that awful reality, first by healing wounds among us, not by reopening them to pour salt. By seizing on any conceivable opportunity to attack Bernie Sanders, even using an innocuous statistical OP like this one to do so, it makes it appear as if division is the goal sought after. I can't say with certainty that that is true. I can say with certainty though that further division is the predictable outcome of this type of activity.

[JudyM]

157. Big +1.

[FDRsGhost]

140. About that "Bernie doesn't attack Republicans" thing

Pick one, any one. Let's end this myth right here and right now.

He berates Republicans all the time. I'd venture to say even more so than most. And he does it in front of millions all the time on the stage that is twitter.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[jackssonjack]

146. Those softball words are attacks?

How is it Clinton and the DNC were rigging the vote against him even tough that's not true. He still said it he still pushed it. Here we get "Were these all just lies?" Is Bernie stupid? He said himself before Trump was nominated that he was a sociopath. So if he knew that why anger and divide the party more by staying in the race?
Bernie said he'd be glad to work with Trump on a lower minimum wage after staying in the primary race to push for $15 an hour?

I see his lackluster "attacks" against the GOP the same as when he half-heartedly backed Clinton.


He acts as if he's not part of the establishment when he's been with them most of the time somehow UN-includes himself. Sorry, his actions and words don't pass the smell test.

[FDRsGhost]

149. Softball? LOL

You probably wouldn't be happy if Bernie wad out there calling Trump an asshole while on tv.

None the less I proved your assertion to be false.

I'm nit going to re-fght the primary with you, its against the TOS. Bernie's stance on minimum wage is well known, and hes in the right. You start high.

Bernie's actions? He's out there fighting harder than most. And guess what? Most if America agrees with his policies too.

[George II]

151. Why doesn't Sanders pay his own Senate interns $15 an hour?

[FDRsGhost]

161. Why do you show up on every thread about Bernie and trash talk?

And while we're at it, why don't you Google your talking points http://www.snopes.com/sanders-interns-minimum-wage/ Why do so many politicians NOT pay their interns like *cough cough you know who cough cough* while Bernie does?

[George II]

173. Many politicians aren't going around talking about the need for a $15 minimum wage....

....even to the point of demanding that the Democratic Party revised their 2016 platform regarding the minimum wage.

So here he is with a chance to set a good example by paying his Senate interns $15 and hour but he doesn't.

[FDRsGhost]

176. And therein is the problem

Why aren't they? They should be.

George, you miss the point. Why are some NOT paying interns a cent like well you know who as example? Hm? Explain to us please.

Meanwhile....

Let's look at what he actually said, and in light of that look at what he's paying his interns, and further contrast that with what the other candidates are paying theirs. First, let's look at what he actually said in his bill (and what he has actually repeated in his speeches.)
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/press-releases/sanders-introduces-bill-for-15-an-hour-minimum-wage
He has repeated this in his speeches, saying that we need to phase it in over a number of years.
OK, so by 2020, which is in 5 years, we would have to add $7.75 to the minimum wage of $7.25 in order to reach $15/hr.
So that means $1.55 per year, over the next 5 years.
So that means that those interns would not be making $12/hr until 2018 by Sanders actual legislation, and what he has repeatedly stated as his position, to raise the wage to $15/hr over a number of years.
So again, Sanders is in fact not only 3 years ahead of schedule by his own legislation and claims, but is infinitely ahead of many who don't pay their interns anything.

Also this https://www.sanders.senate.gov/download/15-minimum-wage-fact-sheet?inline=file

So there you go. Anything else I can throw at you? Please feel free to ask me.

[George II]

152. What does all this have to do with the subject of the discussion?

[FDRsGhost]

162. I was responding to his assertion

[StubbornThings]

190. Almost all of us are adults. I think we can discuss other things.

Kind of like you asking about Bernie paying his Interns $15/hour.

[KittyWampus]

49. Why does Sanders seem to find ways to make gratuitous insults to the Democratic party?

That may have something to do with it.

[Tom Rinaldo]

65. Perfect case in point

Could you point me to any gratuitous insult that Bernie made to the Democratic party that was reported on or in any way revealed in the story that this thread links to with it's actual headline? The OP only contains excerpts from the actual story without added commentary.

Your post just injected a slam at Senator Sanders into the discussion. There is nothing in the OP that reports anything about Senator Sanders other than the fact that he is popular with his constituents. It really appears like some people use any reporting on Bernie Sanders as a convenient vehicle to say negative things about him. That is what I commented on and this is what I mean.

[FDRsGhost]

141. +1

[FDRsGhost]

168. It's rather amazing isn't it?

Never in my life would I expect Democrats to be mad and angry and accuse this poll and others about Bernie being fake. They act like it's a God awful thing that Bernie is the most popular politician in America, a guy on OUR side.

"Bernie said this", "Bernie said that", maybe it's because he's speaking the truth and shoots straight and that is a big factor in his numbers. Of course some don't want to admit that.

[jalan48]

29. Bernie could well be our next President if he and the Democratic Party can work together in 2020.

[YOHABLO]

46. Absolutely. He's got the energy to do it. So I don't want to hear he's ''too old'' Bullshit.

[Amimnoch]

175. I would hope at this point that isn't his plan.

If it is he's going about it completely in the wrong way.

I'd think if that was his plans, he'd have remained a Democrat instead of going back to Independent after the 2016 season.

With him in the party, he'd be building a coalition of support so that when he runs in 2020 he'd have much more support and endorsements from the party than he did during 2016.

2018 has potential to regain the House, but due to the seats in the Senate that are up, an extremely unlikely path to regaining the Senate. 2020 we have a very good chance to regain the Senate as well.

One thing we don't need is another nasty primary during an incumbent Republican President (especially such a horrible one) election year.

I agree that it can happen if he and the Democratic Party can work together, but he's made some bad decisions if that's his goal.

[FDRsGhost]

177. I think he's going about it just fine

Some can't stand that he talks the truth about things but that is one of the things which makes him so popular, he shoots straight in an age when people distrust politicians just like insurance salesmen and used car dealers.

This is an incredibly valuable asset .

I've not seen him make a single bad decision at all.

[Amimnoch]

185. Not a point you raised had a thing to do with the points I raised.

"Some can't stand that he talks the truth about things." Really? That's what some can't stand? Were you also in the "they hate us for our freedom" boat? I'm sorry FDRsGhost, but that is an absolutely ridiculous assumption.

I will grant you.. he does speak a LOT of great truth. Speaking for myself, that is something I do love about him.
Your point about him being a straight shooter? Yep. I concur that is both accurate, and very admirable.

Neither of those were assertions, or arguments I made above.

Trump has a VERY good chance of being a 1 termer. The two ways we can throw away that opportunity is to field a Democrat that is weak on the issues and unpopular, OR to have a hotly contested Democratic primary. Pretty certain that, unless he's impeached before then (highly unlikely given his party's majority and complete willingness to ignore everything repugnant about him), Trump's not going to be fighting a primary challenge of any significance, if at all.

If Sanders wanted to be the Democratic Party candidate for 2020, he REALLY should have remained in the Democratic Party, and built the coalition of support needed to be THE candidate for the party in 2020. After dropping the Democratic party label right after losing the Primary, do you really think the Democrats, who give their endorsements, are going to swarm to him if throws on the Democrat mantle, and he runs again in 2020?

Do you REALLY think we need to do 2016 all over again? The Democratic Party will rally around a candidate that comes from within the Democratic party.

[FDRsGhost]

199. Well what else is it then?

I see his so called "criticism" as a positive thing where others are of the opinion that our party should NEVER be criticized at all. We learn through criticism, we grow from it and we become better.

Trump may be a first termer, unless you said he's impeached and then we get "Let's electro shock the gays Pence". I think more than likely Trump will get his 4 years and it's important we field progressives to run for POTUS who are very strong on the issues and are fighters.

Sanders was elected by his constituents in VT as an indy & that is why he switched back. They put him in office under the (I) affiliation and I believe it's a sign of his integrity that he went back to being an (I). Yes I do think Democrats are going to get behind him. In fact, they already are hence is leadership position within the party and they know that if they don't, the party will bleed even more. They also aren't stupid and see the sort of money Bernie raised with small donations, something nobody else in history has ever done.

Nope, we don't need to do 2016 all over again but we do need is a populist movement that really sets people's asses on fire and makes them out to get out there and to the voting booths! Because when that happens, we kick some major ass!

[JTFrog]

202. Nope. We don't need that negativity again at all.

There are so many actual Democrats so much better suited for the job.

Bernie had his chance and blew it big time. He will only be popular until he runs again. Same fucking thing happened to Clinton. Hugely popular when she wasn't running for office and being attacked by GOP and those that carried GOP water for them by repeating their attacks and by plastering Russian propaganda all over the Internet. Way too much water under the bridge for that ship to sail again.

[ehrnst]

30. Popular among his constituents - a small, white, rural, lefty population.

I believe it. A 90% homogenous demographic, and a small one. They found their guy, and they stick with him.

Also, no surprise about McConnell - Louisville is a diverse and cosmopolitan population, which gets yelled down a lot by gerrymandering.

[3catwoman3]

40. IMO, Mitch McConnell is probably...

...one of the least popular organisms on the planet. Can't quite bring myself to dignify him with the title human being.

[Bradical79]

42. The poll highlights a huge problem

Opinions of Congress and historically low, yet only one guy in the Senate has a negative number with his constituients. It's really stupid considering how often they vote along party lines these days.

[Scalded Nun]

45. If he is so unpopular

Why do they keep reelecting his sorry ass?

[Vogon_Glory]

50. So, when does Mc Turtle Come Up For Re-Election

He should be coming up for re-election next year or in 2020.

A suggestion for the Democratic candidate facing McTurtle: This time, DON'T run away from the ACA.

[beam me up scottie]

77. This is great news but hardly surprising. Polls consistently prove Bernie enjoys high favourability:

Here's just a sampling from HuffPo:

Harris/Harvard
Mar 14 – Mar 16

2,092 Registered Voters ... Favorable +23

***

FOX
Mar 12 – Mar 14

1,008 Registered Voters ... Favorable +29

***

YouGov/Economist
Feb 12 – Feb 14

1,500 Adults ... Favorable +16

***

Harris/Harvard
Feb 11 – Feb 13

2,148 Registered Voters... Favorable +26

***

Suffolk/USA Today
Dec 14 – Dec 18, 2016

1,000 Likely Voters ... Favorable +17

***

YouGov/Economist
Dec 10 – Dec 13, 2016

1,444 Adults ... Favorable +24

***

Bloomberg/Selzer
Dec 2 – Dec 5, 2016

999 Adults ... Favorable +19

***

GWU/Battleground
Nov 28 – Dec 1, 2016

1,001 Adults ... Favorable +27

***

YouGov/Economist
Nov 19 – Nov 22, 2016

1,405 Adults ..., Favorable +20

***

Politico/Morning Consult
Nov 4 – Nov 5, 2016

1,482 Likely Voters ... Favorable +13

More:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating

And those polls reflect Bernie's favourability nationally, so it's not like he's only popular with his constituents.

Go Bernie!

[Kimchijeon]

138. well duh!!

[rpannier]

158. Mc Connell is least??? However is that possible

He works tirelessly for the people of Kentucky
Or is it, he is too tired and lazy to do any work for Kentucky?

[FakeNoose]

208. He doesn't have to work for his constituents

...his campaigns are financed by lobbyists and PACs that are all from other states. (Mostly DC)
Plus he probably takes money from Pootie in one way or another.

The KY political situation is so sad and poor that there's nobody to run against McConnell.
The tobacco industry is still providing jobs in KY but their days are numbered and they know it.
All we can do is wait for McConnell to retire or die. I hate that smug bastard.

[betsuni]

163. And Sarah Palin was one of the most popular governors in America.

[Tom Rinaldo]

169. Palin served half of one four year term, and her popularity was plunging.

She won one state wide election and her constituents were already starting to get sick of her when she left. Bernie has won ten straight sate wide elections in Vermont (Vermont has only one Congressional seat). Bernie has been in office now for over 26 years and still retains amazing constituent approval.

Sorry, the comparison is rather foolish. It's not like comparing apples to oranges, it's more like comparing apples to water buffaloes.

[betsuni]

170. So what?

[Amimnoch]

166. 75% approval among constituents is definitely an indicator of success.

The original article is confusing though Mitch is headlined as the least popular, but from their poll chart is 6th from the bottom with Tim Tillis being in the bottom spot?

https://morningconsult.com/senate-rankings-april-2017/

Running a little exercise to see how those who are polling below 50% compare to the 2018 races. Of those who are up for election, and below 50%:

Jeff Flake - (R) Arizona - 44% approval. Need to target this one Heavy as a potential pick up seat. Daedra Abboud just announced that she is running against him in 2018. I believe she's the only Democrat running against him at this time. No campaign site that I know of yet. Recommending throwing support her way as soon as this campaign is up and running.

Joe Donnelly - (D) Indiana - 48% approval. Supported Gorsuch, but I believe did so with agreement from Democratic leadership solely for this election. Will toss some donations his way to try to hold the seat. I can understand why others wouldn't, but I personally believe keeping this seat is critical to regaining the Senate in 2020.

Debbie Stabenow - (D) Michigan - 47% approval. Remained against Gorsuch throughout. Recommending anyone who can support her campaign to keep this seat.

Claire McCaskill - (D) Missouri - 47% approval. High need to support and keep the seat. Remained against Gorsuch.

Dean Heller - (R) Nevada - 43% approval. Need to get Dean out of there. No information of an opponent that I could find though.

Bob Menendez - (D) New Jersey - 40% approval - Another one to support as we can to keep the seat. No announced opponent yet.

Martin Heinrich - (D) New Mexico - 48% approval - support.

Bob Casey - (D) Pennsylvania - 49% approval. Should be safe even at this approval level, but need to keep an eye on it as we get closer.

Tammy Baldwin - (D) Wisconsin - 44% approval. needs support.


Well hell.. depressed now that I ran through it....

2x vulnerable Republicans.

7x vulnerable Democrats.

[itcfish]

172. Very Popular

So what? That and a Metrocard will get you on the NYC Subway. Mr. Popularity cannot get anything done with this congress, yet Mr. Unpopular is getting everything the GOP wants including a fascist USSC justice.

[cstanleytech]

205. I'm sure they love Mitch in Russia. nt

[Lanius]

209. Yet McTurtle gets re-elected because not enough people who disapprove of him vote.

[ehrnst]

212. And Louisville is a very diverse city. Homogeneous small populations

Will have the same opinions about many things, and are easy to represent.

[ehrnst]

210. Surprised to see Elizabeth Warren only at 56%

Down 1% from September.

But it looks like the Senators in states with the smaller populations score high on this list.

Leahy is up 4% from September.

Sanders is down 11% from September.

[Initech]

214. The biggest piece of shit to ever be SML. Fuck him.

And why does Kentucky continue to elect such assholes?

[maxsolomon]

215. Conversely: McConnell most powerful Senator; Sanders least

the Senate isn't about popularity. It is about Power.

McConnell thwarted Obama's agenda at every turn, stole a SCOTUS seat, and now he leads the effort to undo his legacy of legislation and governance. His constituents may not like it, but every Republican with money does.