Bernie Sanders Favorability Rating = 61%

[Jaskalas]

Clinton didn't advocate status quo, anyway, but rather building on it in the direction you seek. You'd know that if you'd actually been paying attention to the important stuff.

Or maybe if she paid attention to policy.

 

[bshole]

Or maybe if she paid attention to policy.

No matter, if she does run in 2020 she would probably beat Trump. I say probably because at this point I have no faith in my ability to pick winners in elections.

 

[peonyu]

He is the most popular politician in the country by a WIDE margin. The biggest disaster in recent American history was most likely his loss to Clinton.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLNlxEbcQ8Q

He was never fully vetted though. Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump both were fully vetted, i mean in Trump's case we had someone at NBC even dig through their video archives and find the infamous "grab em by the P tape". And Trump also had some of his taxes leaked to, among other things. Hillary had her email issues and John Podesta's emails hanging over her head, not to mention people just didnt trust her [this was my issue with her]. But both Hillary and Trump were vetted entirely, probably the both of them more than any candidates in US history. The media craze was all over them.

Another person besides Bernie with good approval ratings is/was John Kasich, you know the guy who says he loves hugs and that hes the "adult in the room". OK thats all well and good but he to was not vetted, but i do know in Kasich's case one of his skeleton's in the closet is that he is on video at a rally calling a police officer a idiot for pulling him over...And then days later the officer in question released his dash cam which showed Kasich speeding + running a red light [i think this was the scenario its been awhile]. If that became known widely to the public his ratings would have plunged...Which leads me to Bernie, who knows what he has to hide? If he was the nominee then people would have been digging up dirt on him like crazy if they could.

 

[Jhhnn]

Or maybe if she paid attention to policy.

Jump shift from policy to tactics? She was strong on policy in the early going but Repubs made it about personality. Policy got no traction unless you think build the wall! is really a policy statement along with Crooked Hillary! Lock her up! & the rest of it.

The battle wasn't fought with TV ads, anyway. The Trump campaign ignored that venue almost entirely. He fought it with rallies & free coverage, with innuendo, fake news & gaslighting thru social media. He redefined political campaigns.

 

[peonyu]

Jump shift from policy to tactics? She was strong on policy in the early going but Repubs made it about personality. Policy got no traction unless you think build the wall! is really a policy statement along with Crooked Hillary! Lock her up! & the rest of it.

The battle wasn't fought with TV ads, anyway. The Trump campaign ignored that venue almost entirely. He fought it with rallies & free coverage, with innuendo, fake news & gaslighting thru social media. He redefined political campaigns.

Exactly, and like Trump or not, i dont know if other candidates will have that energy in the future. Trump may be unique politics wise with his use/abuse of twitter and his rallies were unique, but his last week or two before the election he was doing 6 to 7 rallies a day...I think this is what won him the election actually - that last week he spent campaigning. He spent a lot of time in Pennsylvania and Michigan that last week and his rallies had 25,000+ people at each one. Surely he convinced people to vote for him at the rallies, i went to one myself in Miami and not everyone was a Trump supporter there. But some likely left as a Trump voter, and even those who did not like him had a good time. It was unique to say the least.

 

[JD50]

I've seen that and agree that we're becoming more divided, however I was talking people of similar demographics. People like me in that regard in my area voted for Hillary or Trump. I supported neither but went from being a lifelong indepent to register Democrat to vote for Bernie. Certainly within an ideology there would be less crossover but that is not what I was talking about.

Both ideologies are moving away from the center and that means a more dysfunctional nation as opposing ideologues cannot work together. Instead of mutual interests we have mutual scorn for the other.

So you, being a centrist concerned about both parties becoming too extreme, voted for the extreme liberal candidate, which allowed the extreme conservative candidate to beat the only other person that had a chance... a centrist. But you couldn't just vote for the centrist because reasons.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So you, being a centrist concerned about both parties becoming too extreme, voted for the extreme liberal candidate, which allowed the extreme conservative candidate to beat the only other person that had a chance... a centrist.

I'm not an ideologue. Bernie was the superior person IMO from the others in that he gave a shit. Hillary was the ice queen who unlike her husband had no connection to people anyone could see. They point at a platform, but the person lacked and it hurt the Dems. Trump acts like he spent too much time with the Dunwich Horror.

From early on Bernie showed he wasn't likely to beat Hillary and the powers in the Dem party certainly didn't want someone they couldn't bend to their masters will unlike Hillary, but he did show he could beat Trump when Hillary was not a sure thing at all. Bernie couldn't get his platform through but he would have the Bully Pulpit and that might cause Dems to act in a positive way for Americans as a whole. Even the Reps would have trouble with that.

You premise itself is fundamentally flawed. I voted for Bernie in a state which overwhelmingly went for Hillary in both the primary and general elections. She won and it could not have been any other way. My vote did not count, my candidate wasn't in the General and therefore I might as well have stayed home.

As far as Centrist goes, a relative position from an ideological perspective has nothing to do with that person at all other than not being "too far" one way or another. They might be a very good or abysmal choice.

But ideology divisions exist and the further apart people are the less likely they are to cooperate by choice and so some external pressure to get things moving needs to be applied, like someone in "the big chair" who connects with the public more than a party.

 

[agent00f]

I'm not an ideologue. Bernie was the superior person IMO from the others in that he gave a shit. Hillary was the ice queen who unlike her husband had no connection to people anyone could see. They point at a platform, but the person lacked and it hurt the Dems. Trump acts like he spent too much time with the Dunwich Horror.

From early on Bernie showed he wasn't likely to beat Hillary and the powers in the Dem party certainly didn't want someone they couldn't bend to their masters will unlike Hillary, but he did show he could beat Trump when Hillary was not a sure thing at all. Bernie couldn't get his platform through but he would have the Bully Pulpit and that might cause Dems to act in a positive way for Americans as a whole. Even the Reps would have trouble with that.

You premise itself is fundamentally flawed. I voted for Bernie in a state which overwhelmingly went for Hillary in both the primary and general elections. She won and it could not have been any other way. My vote did not count, my candidate wasn't in the General and therefore I might as well have stayed home.

As far as Centrist goes, a relative position from an ideological perspective has nothing to do with that person at all other than not being "too far" one way or another. They might be a very good or abysmal choice.

But ideology divisions exist and the further apart people are the less likely they are to cooperate by choice and so some external pressure to get things moving needs to be applied, like someone in "the big chair" who connects with the public more than a party.

Worth considering just how dumb someone has to be to "think" conservatives might take to a leftist given it's evident how they are even when their guy wins.

 

[Jhhnn]

I'm not an ideologue. Bernie was the superior person IMO from the others in that he gave a shit. Hillary was the ice queen who unlike her husband had no connection to people anyone could see. They point at a platform, but the person lacked and it hurt the Dems. Trump acts like he spent too much time with the Dunwich Horror.

From early on Bernie showed he wasn't likely to beat Hillary and the powers in the Dem party certainly didn't want someone they couldn't bend to their masters will unlike Hillary, but he did show he could beat Trump when Hillary was not a sure thing at all. Bernie couldn't get his platform through but he would have the Bully Pulpit and that might cause Dems to act in a positive way for Americans as a whole. Even the Reps would have trouble with that.

You premise itself is fundamentally flawed. I voted for Bernie in a state which overwhelmingly went for Hillary in both the primary and general elections. She won and it could not have been any other way. My vote did not count, my candidate wasn't in the General and therefore I might as well have stayed home.

As far as Centrist goes, a relative position from an ideological perspective has nothing to do with that person at all other than not being "too far" one way or another. They might be a very good or abysmal choice.

But ideology divisions exist and the further apart people are the less likely they are to cooperate by choice and so some external pressure to get things moving needs to be applied, like someone in "the big chair" who connects with the public more than a party.

It's already been pointed out repeatedly that Hillary connected well enough with the people to win the popular vote decisively yet you persist in claiming that she didn't connect. Your argument flies in the face of reality. She'd have connected even better if folks like you hadn't been chumped by a massive concern trolling effort.

 

[agent00f]

It's already been pointed out repeatedly that Hillary connected well enough with the people to win the popular vote decisively yet you persist in claiming that she didn't connect. Your argument flies in the face of reality. She'd have connected even better if folks like you hadn't been chumped by a massive concern trolling effort.

Everybody knows centrists don't work with adversaries but the ideological do. By everybody I mean dumbshits who will never figure out why they're so.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It's already been pointed out repeatedly that Hillary connected well enough with the people to win the popular vote decisively yet you persist in claiming that she didn't connect. Your argument flies in the face of reality. She'd have connected even better if folks like you hadn't been chumped by a massive concern trolling effort.

She didn't connect nearly well enough to win, did she? She lost in critical Democrat states because whe had no interest in even campaigning there when needed.

You also managed to overlook the fact that Bernie did better against Trump than Hillary, an inconvient truth.

Hillary couldn't win what should have been an easy victory. Too bad Biden didn't run.

 

[Moonbeam]

I find it interesting that tha Sanders Clinton debate focuses on what I would call trivia. What is important in my opinion is that democracy is dead, that moneyed interests have all the power. What difference does it make that Clinton was vetted or any of the other horse shit about her wonderful qualifications or how bad or whatever other inventions people come up with to dismiss Sanders. Democracy is dead. The American people are in a state of frustrated rage against all politicians. They are voting out of destructive rage. They want politicians dead. They are like animals that gnaw wounds in their bodies to relieve stress. Can't you stupid assholes see that we are fucked and that only one person addressed that issue as his theme. There were two candidates running on two versions of chewing off your leg,Clinton and Trump, and one person, Sanders, who called for a revolution.

American democracy is dead, now owned by the rich. What do we need, a revolution and no less. You fuckers that don't get that are asleep. Clinton offered stasis, Trump offered madness, and Sanders said I will revolt against the rich. America slept through its chance. If you're not up for revolution enjoy your deaths. We indeed get the politicians we deserve, or most of us.

 

[agent00f]

I find it interesting that tha Sanders Clinton debate focuses on what I would call trivia. What is important in my opinion is that democracy is dead, that moneyed interests have all the power. What difference does it make that Clinton was vetted or any of the other horse shit about her wonderful qualifications or how bad or whatever other inventions people come up with to dismiss Sanders. Democracy is dead. The American people are in a state of frustrated rage against all politicians. They are voting out of destructive rage. They want politicians dead. They are like animals that gnaw wounds in their bodies to relieve stress. Can't you stupid assholes see that we are fucked and that only one person addressed that issue as his theme. There were two candidates running on two versions of chewing off your leg,Clinton and Trump, and one person, Sanders, who called for a revolution.

American democracy is dead, now owned by the rich. What do we need, a revolution and no less. You fuckers that don't get that are asleep. Clinton offered stasis, Trump offered madness, and Sanders said I will revolt against the rich. America slept through its chance. If you're not up for revolution enjoy your deaths. We indeed get the politicians we deserve, or most of us.

No, pretty sure half of the country that peg the meter on ethnic resentment got just what they wanted, aka democracy--even if that's an inconvenient truth to wide eyed optimists.

 

[blankslate]

No matter, if she does run in 2020 she would probably beat Trump. I say probably because at this point I have no faith in my ability to pick winners in elections.

She Should have beaten him in 2016....

Now with Trump recently diving to 37% she's about tied with him in approval ratings as far as the most recent poll I found of that.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...happy-with-politicians-except-pence/98841138/

That said, Trump is faring much better than his 2016 Democratic opponent. Hillary Clinton's favorability rating is now 35%-55%, a 20-point deficit that is 7 points worse than views of her soon after the election.

Note that the above quote it taken from a story several days older than the sources cited in your video.
Additionally the last Gallup.com tracking poll I saw on Trump now has him at below 40% approval rating putting him in line with Hillary....
http://www.gallup.com/poll/207518/t...ource=Politics&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles
Now would Hillary beat Trump today?
Yeah I think so now that people know how Trump is going back on his campaign promises. Too bad weren't paying enough attention to know he was lying before.
But I think the Shens of DWS and the DNC in regards to the primaries (no matter how some shill-tastic truth-denying partisans here want to deny them or distract from those shens) have really gimped any future chance for Hillary and hurt her during the general.
But who knows?


_______________

 

[Jhhnn]

She didn't connect nearly well enough to win, did she? She lost in critical Democrat states because whe had no interest in even campaigning there when needed.

You also managed to overlook the fact that Bernie did better against Trump than Hillary, an inconvient truth.

Hillary couldn't win what should have been an easy victory. Too bad Biden didn't run.

Gawd. Bernie did better in early polling & we all know what that's worth- zero, zip, nothing, nada. Repubs never unleashed a tsunami of slime against him, either. He was their preferred Dem candidate.

 

[agent00f]

She Should have beaten him in 2016....

Now with Trump recently diving to 37% she's about tied with him in approval ratings as far as the most recent poll I found of that.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...happy-with-politicians-except-pence/98841138/

Note that the above quote it taken from a story several days older than the sources cited in your video.
Additionally the last Gallup.com tracking poll I saw on Trump now has him at below 40% approval rating putting him in line with Hillary....
http://www.gallup.com/poll/207518/t...ource=Politics&g_medium=lead&g_campaign=tiles
Now would Hillary beat Trump today?
Yeah I think so now that people know how Trump is going back on his campaign promises. Too bad weren't paying enough attention to know he was lying before.
But I think the Shens of DWS and the DNC in regards to the primaries (no matter how some shill-tastic truth-denying partisans here want to deny them or distract from those shens) have really gimped any future chance for Hillary and hurt her during the general.
But who knows?


_______________

Gawd. Bernie did better in early polling & we all know what that's worth- zero, zip, nothing, nada. Repubs never unleashed a tsunami of slime against him, either. He was their preferred Dem candidate.

The major difference between Sanders & Clinton vs Trump polls-wise is that one was the steadier vote-getter, and the other had arguable higher ceiling (& lower floor). From a purely statistical POV, less variability is the better bet when you already expect more votes. Similarly for republicans, Trump's high variability was the better bet in their situation..

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Gawd. Bernie did better in early polling & we all know what that's worth- zero, zip, nothing, nada. Repubs never unleashed a tsunami of slime against him, either. He was their preferred Dem candidate.

Bernie did consistently better in almost every poll against Trump until Hillary won the primary. Dems wouldn't vote for Trump and independents overwhelmingly favored Bernie. The Reps could say anything they wanted but Bernie had the advantage of being liked and a history which included putting his freedom and welfare on the line for rights.

Doesn't matter. Some Reps got what they wanted, Trump, and others got what they asked for but did not want in Hillary.

Maybe the DNC will learn, maybe not.

 

[agent00f]

A study in contrasts between smart vs dumb comments:

The major difference between Sanders & Clinton vs Trump polls-wise is that one was the steadier vote-getter, and the other had arguable higher ceiling (& lower floor). From a purely statistical POV, less variability is the better bet when you already expect more votes. Similarly for republicans, Trump's high variability was the better bet in their situation..

Bernie did consistently better in almost every poll against Trump until Hillary won the primary. Dems wouldn't vote for Trump and independents overwhelmingly favored Bernie. The Reps could say anything they wanted but Bernie had the advantage of being liked and a history which included putting his freedom and welfare on the line for rights.

Doesn't matter. Some Reps got what they wanted, Trump, and others got what they asked for but did not want in Hillary.

Maybe the DNC will learn, maybe not.

Perhaps moonbeam can wax poetic on how dumbness is a virtue.

 

[ivwshane]

Bernie did consistently better in almost every poll against Trump until Hillary won the primary. Dems wouldn't vote for Trump and independents overwhelmingly favored Bernie. The Reps could say anything they wanted but Bernie had the advantage of being liked and a history which included putting his freedom and welfare on the line for rights.

Doesn't matter. Some Reps got what they wanted, Trump, and others got what they asked for but did not want in Hillary.

Maybe the DNC will learn, maybe not.

That must be why Bernie lost a majority of the open primaries, right?

 

[blankslate]

The major difference between Sanders & Clinton vs Trump polls-wise is that one was the steadier vote-getter, and the other had arguable higher ceiling (& lower floor). From a purely statistical POV, less variability is the better bet when you already expect more votes. Similarly for republicans, Trump's high variability was the better bet in their situation..

So we're pretty lucky that Hillary won.... oh wait....

Soze but not sorry that you're wrong.


___________

 

[Jhhnn]

Bernie did consistently better in almost every poll against Trump until Hillary won the primary. Dems wouldn't vote for Trump and independents overwhelmingly favored Bernie. The Reps could say anything they wanted but Bernie had the advantage of being liked and a history which included putting his freedom and welfare on the line for rights.

Doesn't matter. Some Reps got what they wanted, Trump, and others got what they asked for but did not want in Hillary.

Maybe the DNC will learn, maybe not.

That's astoundingly naive. I don't think you have any idea how vulnerable Bernie Sanders was or how easy the media & the Repubs made it for him.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/...osition-research-the-media-refuses-to-release

 

[agent00f]

So we're pretty lucky that Hillary won.... oh wait....

Soze but not sorry that you're wrong.


___________

It helps to understand statistics for the point here. A better bet doesn't mean you always win. Let's assuming you can imagine Sanders losing, in which case it would make greater sense to regret not going with a more known quantity.

 

[bshole]

I find it interesting that tha Sanders Clinton debate focuses on what I would call trivia. What is important in my opinion is that democracy is dead, that moneyed interests have all the power. What difference does it make that Clinton was vetted or any of the other horse shit about her wonderful qualifications or how bad or whatever other inventions people come up with to dismiss Sanders. Democracy is dead. The American people are in a state of frustrated rage against all politicians. They are voting out of destructive rage. They want politicians dead. They are like animals that gnaw wounds in their bodies to relieve stress. Can't you stupid assholes see that we are fucked and that only one person addressed that issue as his theme. There were two candidates running on two versions of chewing off your leg,Clinton and Trump, and one person, Sanders, who called for a revolution.

American democracy is dead, now owned by the rich. What do we need, a revolution and no less. You fuckers that don't get that are asleep. Clinton offered stasis, Trump offered madness, and Sanders said I will revolt against the rich. America slept through its chance. If you're not up for revolution enjoy your deaths. We indeed get the politicians we deserve, or most of us.

Check out Justice Democrats. Throw them a few bucks. I did.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That must be why Bernie lost a majority of the open primaries, right?

No, what it means is that the DNC had to have her and the mainstream went with it and Trump won. RealClearPolitics had all the polls and potential matchups and sonofagun all the polls for all that time showed Bernie beating Trump with support from the independents which didn't like Trump or Hillary and that's a lot of people. Sorry, but the facts are there.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That's astoundingly naive. I don't think you have any idea how vulnerable Bernie Sanders was or how easy the media & the Repubs made it for him.

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/main/...osition-research-the-media-refuses-to-release

And yet Bernie placed better against Trump and Hillary lost. Might have Bernie lost? It's possible but not certain. Hillary certainly lost.