General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsBernie Sanders remains one of Americas most popular politicians
Too bad he'll be too old to run again in 2020. Sigh....
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/politics/wp/2017/03/15/bernie-sanders-remains-one-of-americas-most-popular-politicians/?utm_term=.b67cb1bd1a60
A fascinating new survey from Fox News asked Americans their opinions of a number of political leaders and politically relevant organizations. No elected official included in the survey had a larger net favorability overall favorable views minus unfavorable ones than Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), continuing Sanderss strong showing in such polls.
Somewhat surprisingly, the second-highest net favorability was held by Planned Parenthood. Part of this is probably because the organization enjoys strong partisan support, and has in polls in the past. Had the NRA been included, it, too, probably would have been highly popular, thanks to a push from Republicans.
Besides Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Vice President Pence were the most popular politicians on net. Notice that the embattled Affordable Care Act is better viewed on net than President Trump and most of the other Republicans included in the poll.
Blue_Warrior
(135 posts)And President Obama
RKP5637
(67,112 posts)Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)and a lot of minorities don't care for him.
shit like this really doesn't help--
http://observer.com/2017/03/bernie-sanders-democratic-party-sinking-ship/
JHan
(10,173 posts)might help.
I have faith.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)His constant negativity toward the Democratic Party and Democrats in general are completely at odds with any "Outreach" that the party wants to do in order to attract more members, more interest, more volunteers, more donations, more VOTERS!
Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)What did he say?
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)You dont change the system from within the Democratic Party.
My own feeling is that the Democratic Party is ideologically bankrupt.
We have to ask ourselves, Why should we work within the Democratic Party if we dont agree with anything the Democratic Party says?
Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)JHan
(10,173 posts)Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)That way, I can see what they are reading and the actual source for their quotes...
A link would be appropriate, otherwise, well, you know, it is subject to be questioned...
JHan
(10,173 posts)Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)Like I said, I want to read what you are reading...
JHan
(10,173 posts)Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)But it certainly not a link....
It would appear then, that the quotes are not legitimate...
JHan
(10,173 posts)steups
stʃuːps/
WEST INDIAN
verb
1.
make a noise by sucking air and saliva through the teeth, typically to express annoyance or derision.
"Ned steupsed and shook his head, looking frustrated"
noun
1.
an expression of annoyance or derision made by sucking air and saliva through the teeth.
And no, there's no saliva on my screen. It's very hygenic and effective.
As for a link: My suggestion, when someone makes a claim, you are free to do the research on it rather than belabor a point that has already been established.
It's like someone saying . .."The earth is round" , and another doubter responding.. "show me a link".
He made those quotes, it's a matter of record.
As I Said, google is a great resource.
Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)I would expect more from Democrats... Truth and facts are paramount.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)Like I said, I want to read what you are reading... What exactly is the
harm in providing the links?
JHan
(10,173 posts)and proving us wrong! make haste!
drray23
(7,637 posts)This has been widely reported had you been paying attention during the campaign. In many occasions, during debates or interviews Bernie criticized the party. This has gone on for years even before he was running for president. Being an independent was a matter of pride (and still is) for him. Its true that Bernie aligns with the democratic party on many issues and vote with the democrats most of the time but he always has been a strong critic. The only time he was actually a democrat was during the campaign so that he could use the party apparatus to launch his bid for the white house. As soon as he lost, he went back to his independent status.
Here is an article from politico which discusses that, along with references :
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/bernie-sanders-2016-democrats-121181#ixzz3iQ6gwxVX
Cha
(297,705 posts)radical noodle
(8,013 posts)dated August, 2015
about the party he was using to run for president.
synergie
(1,901 posts)like claiming quotes are not true, despite being told where to find them. Would you like someone to help you figure out how to do simple searches? Democrats are skilled at this, and we have no problem instructing those who don't seem to have grasped some basic research skills.
Do you require assistance in discovering how one confirms truth and facts on their own without demanding others do that for them, as our dear friends the CONS flailing in arguments often do?
I'm sure any of the Dems on this site would be more than happy to help you out.
Just say the word
Fantastic Anarchist
(7,309 posts)No one is going to do your homework for you. Instead of providing a definition for your destruction, you could have provided a link to backup your claim. The burden of proof is on you.
George II
(67,782 posts)...they don't really want to.
Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)Politico states these quotes without any citation that these quotes are real...
I guess that is why *nobody* will respond to my request as there is
no original citation of the quote.
Dare ya - prove me wrong.
George II
(67,782 posts)About 53,100 results (0.53 seconds)
You can do the rest, okay?
Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)As I said, the Politico article repeats these quotes without any citation.
Nor does any other article...
That is the problem.
That's why I ask...
George II
(67,782 posts)Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)No body can it appears.
I would expect more from Dems and DU....
George II
(67,782 posts)...he made those statements. It's been reported regardless of whether or not you accept it.
You may want to reassess your "expectations" of Democrats and DU.
Simple question - are you a Democrat and do you include yourself in that group you mention, "Dems"?
Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)Yes, I thought DU was where people based their posts on facts and had
no problem providing sources.
And it is very disturbing that you just accept anything as fact...
Simple question, are *you* a Democrat?
George II
(67,782 posts)....you've been a Democrat all your life. So using your own premise, you obviously have no problem providing a source?
Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)You want me to somehow prove I am a Democrat? To you? On a public board?
I thought DU was where people come for intelligent conversation... with above average intelligence...
Boy, was I wrong...
George II
(67,782 posts)....doesn't mean that what was said was incorrect.
Now to your question - yes, I'm a Democrat.
Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)The replies to your queries show that there are lots of replies here, but you're apparently far too involved with being all prickly rather than asking properly or even specifically for something that you apparently lack the skills to find on your own.
I've even offered to help, but you choose to ignore these offers, preferring to "dare" others to do the things you cannot do on your own.
Now which quote do you need original citations on? There are three that seem to have sent you in to a tizzy, why don't you tell me which one upsets you so and I'll do what I can to ease this torment that seems to come from someone not teaching you how to construct a simple search phrase.
A little less combativeness and a little more politeness is called for when requesting help with things you don't know how to do on your own might be helpful.
Prove me wrong, and let me know nicely which quote upsets you so.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)Motownman78
(491 posts)Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)Searches only show where Politico states these 'quotes' without any citation as well.
There is no original link anywhere that I could find.
Some posts suggest that they came from the 1980's.
So, two questions:
1) provide a link to the original source of these 'quotes'.
2) If the quotes are real, do these quotes from the 1980's really carry so much weight that
people hate Senator Sanders for maybe saying these things? Could the quotes actually be accurate
accounts of the Dem party them?
synergie
(1,901 posts)When you're looking at quotations from interviews from publications from the 80's, being this insistent on hyperlinks is kind of a silly thing to do. It was before the publications had online internet archives after all.
So, why do you need a link, when it's pretty plain by your own admission that you're aware that these quotes came from a time period where there are ffew links?
Also, why do you assume the quotes are not real, and why do you immediately assume some sort of false flag operation, when the links you were given have Bernie not contesting he said those things? Is it possible that the quotes are actually accurate and from Bernie, and that they're not accurate at all, but do show what his actual attitude towards the party he's not a part of, but wishes to have power over truly is? That people might be a bit miffed at a guy who actively insults a party that he stated he was just using for money and attention. Perhaps it's not hate, but the natural consequence of the objects of a person's rudeness reacting in the normal fashion towards the guy who was rude?
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)http://www.dailykos.com/story/2016/2/6/1480860/--My-own-feeling-is-that-the-Democratic-Party-is-ideologically-bankrupt
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/bernie-sanders-2016-democrats-121181
You're welcome.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... is that you abandon this sub-thread. You're being egged-on and "baited" into posting something that could run afoul of the rules.
Don't let them get you riled-up or frustrated or angry. That's when you're most susceptible and at risk of rule-breaking.
Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)And my question about the Sanders' quotes is appropriate.
I did not think DU prefers to stifle conversations...
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)behavior. They tend to shoot themselves in the foot rather often.
Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)The poster stated that Sanders was not the right person for the "outreach' and I simple
ask who they think is best. Is that rude and not deserving of an answer.
There seems to be a problem here...
synergie
(1,901 posts)for them, it's pretty rude. Asking a question isn't rude, asking it in such a way as to be provocative is. Try asking politely, and not being so prickly, you'll have a much nicer time among the Democrats here at DU.
There indeed does seem to be a problem here, but it's not with those you're attacking. Try a different tone, and I'm sure you'll have much better time trying to engage in polite discourse, if that's your goal.
Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)And since when is asking for proof of a statement regarded as rude?
My post where I asked the question was one small sentence - hardly being rude...
You must need a very tall ladder to get on that horse of yours...
synergie
(1,901 posts)where to find common quotes.
Since the manner in which one does is the exact opposite of polite.
The length of a sentence does not affect it's rudeness, the actual tone and words used do.
You need a very tall ladder yourself to climb out of the hole you've dug for yourself, as you double down to prove my point that rudeness is at the very heart of your interactions here.
Kentonio
(4,377 posts)You came to DU and assumed that appearing positive about a hugely popular former Democratic presidential candidate would be well received. As you've discovered it generally just leads to you being insulted, and probably alert-stalked.
ehrnst
(32,640 posts)ehrnst
(32,640 posts)dogman
(6,073 posts)Improving the Party is very important to winning the voters.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)It's a Fox poll ... I'm suspicious of it and the motives of the WP "analyst".
dogman
(6,073 posts)"We are here to serve you the customer, not push products for our suppliers."
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)dogman
(6,073 posts)Is that a better image for the Party? Admitting she was feeding inside info to a candidate is why we have "new management".
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)The Democratic party is better than the Republican party ... our "Outreach" ambassador is making a mistake with insinuations that the Democrats are "the same as" or are "no better than" Republicans. Our party is not "bankrupt", as he'd say.
Bernie is the wrong man for this job. He'll drive away and discourage MORE potential donors and voters than the few he "delights" with his continual trashing of the party. (I'm sorry, but I'll refrain from taking your bait wanting me to discuss events from the primaries in 2016.)
But I will say that I believe that everyone agrees (or ought to agree) that we should always strive to be more-perfect. We can build and repair what we have and keep everything that's good. Why are there so many who are so eager to DESTROY our party to remake it in his image? I don't understand this "destroy-to-rebuild" or "burn-it-to-rebuild" philosophy. Obviously a lot of people feel that way, but it's wrong. That's regressive and backward-thinking.
By way of another analogy: Bernie would be a terrible real estate agent trying to sell properties. He'd be busy telling POTENTIAL BUYERS all the flaws of a house and scaring them away. He'd bemoan that the property didn't have pool (instead of talking about the spacious back yard.) He'd be griping about how trees shed their leaves in the fall (instead of how lush and cool and shady it is in the summer). He'd complain that it was too isolated and too far from town (instead of talking about the privacy and quiet). He'd stand out on the street with a megaphone shouting about the squeaky floorboards and leaky faucets. Sure, it's "honest" and "straight-talk" ... but does it bring in buyers? Is it the positive message that a property owner wants to stand out from their neighbors? A smart agent, a successful agent, would be point out all the POSITIVE benefits... and quietly putting the homeowners in touch with contractors to make the necessary or desirable repairs and upgrades.
There may be some DIY-ers who are in search of "fixer-uppers" and who like the challenge... but not as many. He's pursuing the wrong market, with the wrong message. However sincere he may be, I believe he's the wrong man for the job. We can do better.
------
Oh, hello there, Alerter! In this post, I'm talking about activities and events of 2017. The Democratic Primary was in 2016 (last year) not 2017 (this year). I'm also expressing my opinion that Democrats need a more optimistic and positive approach when it comes to attracting new voters and donors.
dogman
(6,073 posts)He is actually trying to save this Country. The best way forward is to save the Democratic Party from the same forces driving the opposition. Citizens United has put this Country for sale and he and many others seek to end this practice of them winning no matter which Party wins. Take a Democratic Senator like Bennet from Colorado, how much criticism has been posted here about him planning to introduce Gorsuch? Compare that to the criticism of Senator Sanders trying to win back T-Rump voters. Where did I ask you to rehash the 2016 Primary? That strikes me as an alternative fact. The Democrats need a realistic approach to attract new voters and donors. Bernie has a proven track record on that score. Do you think Senator Schumer hasn't noticed?
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... avoid making the mistakes that Bernie is making.
dogman
(6,073 posts)" I'm sorry, but I'll refrain from taking your bait wanting me to discuss events from the primaries in 2016.)" You wrote it and it's a lie. Enjoy the rest of your day.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)...that I'm a liar. So, if you want to talk about Donna Brazille that's fine. I won't take the bait and engage in primary 2016 rehashing and finger pointing. No need to get snippy or angry with me. Sometimes I miss the snares, sometimes I see them. I saw this one. It's no big deal, I think you're overreacting.
So, okay, you enjoy the rest of your day too, Tiger!
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)to handily winning Dearborn, Michigan (America's largest Arab community), yes, he is. Not capitalizing on his broad appeal would be idiotic. Thankfully, the DNC's big kahunas agree.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... it makes as much sense as an ad campaign that says "Come try our pizza. It's horrible. We make the worst pizza ever. Buy some."
He's the wrong man for the job of promoting the Democratic Party, and calling the Democratic Party "ideologically bankrupt" really isn't the best PR ambassador.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Listen to Sanders' ideas and capitalize on his broad appeal, and we'll be Pupatella's in no time.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)and be taken seriously. If he criticizes republicans for their actions, anywhere where democrats are not entirely removed from that behavior, it has to be acknowledged that they can and should do better. To do otherwise destroys credibility.
I'm not in favor of us ever covering up our own failings as we attempt to move the nation forward. That won't get us there. So as a democrat myself, I am not offended by his criticisms.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It wasn't just the white house - we lost ground everywhere. Pretending the status quo has been successful is akin to an ostrich sticking its head in the sand when it senses danger.
I'm not offended by criticism either - without it how can we possibly improve?
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Modern birds have millions of years of genetic difference from DINO's
Ostriches don't bury their heads in the sandthey wouldn't be able to breathe! But they do dig holes in the dirt to use as nests for their eggs. Several times a day, a bird puts her head in the hole and turns the eggs. So it really does look like the birds are burying their heads in the sand!
ANIMAL MYTHS BUSTED
kids.nationalgeographic.com/explore/nature/animal-myths-busted/
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)They are indeed quite intelligent compared to many humans.
aikoaiko
(34,184 posts)But I'm really glad you're back.
Cha
(297,705 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)I like Al Franken. I like his smile. He's warm and thoughtful.
Cha
(297,705 posts)with me for just those attributes!
aikoaiko
(34,184 posts)Someone like Bernie, who has been and is critical of the party, has a gravitas to attract and motivate the disenchanted or cynical. Not many people can fill that roll. It's not traditional, I grant you that, but traditional is not enough these days.
I'll be honest: I was ready to leave the party after the primary and declare myself an independent, but Bernie kept me in the party. And now the DNC gets some of my money.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... than there are of the middle-of-the-road and first-time voters, this might be a good plan. But there aren't. People who say such things are flattering themselves and inflating their numbers or sense of importance. Don't get me wrong... I'm not suggesting that subset of people aren't important at all (of course they are! Everyone is important, right?) Instead, I'm pointing out that they aren't more important and their lower numbers do not justify alienating a larger pool of potential members.
But it's clear for me to see that there are some here who are among that subset who remain disenchanted with the Democratic Party and derive a great deal of DELIGHT whenever Bernie slams and smears the party with his public declarations (such as how the party is "intellectually bankrupt", or some such.)
That subset ENJOYS hearing it and that's why they defend Bernie's "methods". His negative comments about the party is a continual validation of the things they still believe and it fans the flames of whatever inconsolable dissatisfaction they still have with the party. But, as happy as it makes them... and as satisfying as it may be to continually hear... it interferes and prevents him from fulfilling his mission of "Outreach". It continues to emphasize the division, in my opinion. Bernie's negativity does nothing to console or build bridges or to find common ground, it seems to me.
Base on my observations, his "target" audience loves it. For that specific groups, his negative words are a public "justification" and "validation" of all their unexpressed anger and pent-up outrage. It's a continual thorn in the side of the party. I imagine for them it's something to be viewed as great entertainment, and every sour word spoken about the party makes those guys grin and pump their fists in the air.
But, at some point, calmer heads will hopefully prevail. Eventually, I hope, they'll set aside whatever pleasure and enjoyment they're getting from this and do something ELSE that's better for the party. (Assuming that they're actually willing to give up their selfish pursuits and made rational decisions that benefit the party... and therefore put the party in a better position to defeat the GOP.)
I don't see the long-term benefit of continually needling the party and it's loyal members in that way. In my opinion, it's a flawed strategy (assuming that an actual forward-looking strategy is in the mix at all). Basically, it's just not a good return on investment. Sure, that are some malcontents to appease and coddle, but there are fewer of them, and they're fickle and unreliable. On the optimistic side, there are more MOTR and LOC voters to gain by taking a positive approach ... and this is a much more realistic way to pursue long-term growth and stability.
I guess everyone has different priorities. Personally, I believe the Party's interests are more important than my own "needs" or "vanities". I'll always put the Democratic Party first. I'm a LOYAL Democrat who has NEVER entertained the possibility of leaving the party to "send a message".
Any message that I have for our party can be best heard when calmly spoken from inside, not angrily shouted from outside.
----
Hello, Alerter! This post contains my opinions about the best way to attract large amounts of NEW members to the Democratic party compared to continuing to soothe the hurt feelings of a small number of disaffected people. It doesn't smear anyone, it expresses my belief that Bernie is making a mistake and that our party needs someone in that "Outreach" role who has a better attitude about the party. No politician or group is being smeared. This concerns the activities in 2017, and has nothing to do with the primary.
aikoaiko
(34,184 posts)There are many who want to bring in "middle of the road and new voters" who haven't been voting and think that that is simply a matter or more phone, brochures, knocks on doors, more commercials, and clever party memes as if they just haven't heard the Democratic party message.
And for some that may be true, but for others it may be that they are already the "disenchanted or cynical". They've seen and heard the party lines, and there have been many lines, all before.
Look at the primary votes. Whatever metric you use, 40-45% of voters preferred Bernie's outsider message of party change, flawed as I admit that message was. That is not an insignificant subset of people who actually vote.
Your "party above all else" loyalty is useful to the party, but perhaps this makes you not see that there is a growing number of people who are not like you.
I mean this sincerely, we need both strategies to exist within the party. We need to support both outreach attempts. As I said there are plenty of cheerleaders, but as far as I can tell there is only one with a message like Bernie - especially one with his gravitas.
We can do both and get our country back on track.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)No. I'm not going to discuss or analyze the primary with you. When it comes to Bernie, I'll limit my words to current events only, thank you very much. (That's a rather obvious snare that I choose to avoid. Sorry. Better luck next time.)
It's not about me. Stop projecting. It's one thing to be all-inclusive... it's quite another to intentionally drive people away with negativity... but there are some people who've criticized and nagged for so long, that's all they know how to do any more. Do do otherwise would seem "unnatural" to them and would be outside of their comfort zone.
We need someone who DOES feel natural as a "cheerleader" and who is comfortable in that "Outreach" role and mission.
And, FYI, yes... I'm able to detect the contempt and sarcasm in your choice of the word "cheerleader".
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)are necessary to win elections.
JHan
(10,173 posts)but everytime I hear the whole shtick that the "DNC" voted for Hillary and ignored who "the people" wanted, it's as though I .. and many who look like me -- are invisible.
We're spectres, no one saw us support HRC during the primaries, even though we did and we were there....
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)they conveniently continue to ignore. This whole outreach to racist trump voters is concrete proof of minorities being invisible. "Fuck their feelings. Let's invite racist trump voters into our party."
You know what they say about ignoring the past.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I'm giving the whole " let's not call it deplorable" talk some serious side eye. I'd say more but I'll get a zillion alerts and it's a beautiful Saturday morning where I'm at.
SunSeeker
(51,725 posts)liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)I've had several of my posts hidden for calling "them" out. I'm trying to tread lightly, but threads like this make it so damn challenging.
JHan
(10,173 posts)the unwoke left unwittingly perpetuated that BS without an ounce of awareness. It disgusted me, it continues to disgust me because any aware person can see right through it..
But I'll keep my head on because the enemy is Trump.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)alerting is so cowardly in my opinion. The fact that it's anonymous makes it so common.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)BainsBane
(53,072 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 19, 2017, 03:06 AM - Edit history (1)
There is such concern for white male Republican voters in certain quarters?
JHan
(10,173 posts)It's for the the convenience of white males.
Immediately after the election, out came the song and dance about WWC and the evils of "identity politics". After the election of Donald TRUMP.
We heard the whole "The Democrats have lost the ability to talk to the white working class" - nonsense. The working class is the working class, and so working class people of color became invisible - again. After all the image of the blue collar worker is the white male industrial worker we love to romanticize.
There was also the refusal to admit by some that yes, millions voted for and were with Her - this was an issue during the primaries.
People calling themselves progressive and liberal rejoiced at the thought of an HRC indictment, the indictment of a democratic public servant, and they were indistinguishable from GOP crazies, this despite decades of GOP chicanery and their relentless strategy of swiftboating our candidates. It was insanity, their passions were aroused AGAINST HER, and it's hard for those passions to simmer down to reason, even when Sanders implored them to be smart.
These same types would go on about transparency and corruption but couldn't summon the same anger when Obama's scotus pic was shafted. While they were obsessed with HRC and demonizing the Democratic party, it didn't occur to them to make a contrast between California and Brownbackistan (Kansas) - yet the false equivalency between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party persisted and amazingly, persists to this day. These sort of rhetorical blunders and mischaracterizations hurt the party and affected enthusiasm. But they didn't and don't care, I can only assume because they can afford to not care.
And don't look to some of these people for an opinion on voter suppression and gerrymandering - two issues that disproportionately affected people of color.
Trump put whiteness at the center of his campaign and america lost its mind . Despite the cheers from the core of Trump's supporters for his travel bans and aggressively deporting millions, and detaining innocent people, "deplorable" is still referred to time and time again as a blunder, as if daring to call the ugliness by its name is greater than the sin itself. Who benefits from not calling it what it is?
Whose guilt is assuaged by excusing this all away ?
White men.
Calculating
(2,957 posts)Didn't he even protest with them for civil rights? I don't get what they dislike about him.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)It's a DU myth.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I didn't say it, neither did liquid diamond, nor anyone else on this board.
Statistically, he didn't get support from PoC's during the primaries but that doesn't equate to hate.
JudyM
(29,280 posts)Aren't you implying that black voters are "invisible" and "don't matter" to Sanders and his supporters?
JHan
(10,173 posts)JudyM
(29,280 posts)position, just taking issue/ querying your assertion of a lack of ill will toward him.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Often on this board I hear versions of what I described in my post: that the "DNC" chose Hillary while Sanders was the "True" choice - there are versions of this narrative and it irritates me because it makes me and many who look like me who did not support him invisible. Completely lost in all of the talk is that HRC won the popular vote in the primaries and WHO supported her.
I have never taken issue with a bernie voter for supporting him during the primary, people will support who they want to support, but the shaming of who became the nominee and the depth of support for her is what I take issue with - I supported her enthusiastically, so did many people I know. It got to a point where I had to hide that I supported her - it was that vicious. One of the reasons I came to this board was because it's one of the few sites where I could openly express that support without fear of vilification.
JudyM
(29,280 posts)differently than you. And as illustrated in the thread as I mentioned.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Not sure when you signed up, but many of us were here for all sorts of, um, "enlightening" discussions in 2015 and forward. The aftermath of the misguided loudmouths rushing the Protect Social Security/Sanders stage in Seattle being but one example.
JHan
(10,173 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)not to say things like this "...nor anyone else on this board."
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie is incredibly popular everywhere else and I expect he's still well liked by a majority here. The vocal minority who try sow division and alienate his supporters is growing smaller all the time.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)"get it," whereas Wasserman Schultz would certainly have blown capitalizing on Sanders' message and broad appeal. The vocal minority has yet to explain how we win 2020 without PA, MI and WI. They may hold the "WWC" in contempt, but we need these former Democratic strongholds going forward. Sanders enters the belly of the beast and actually listens... what a novel idea!
R B Garr
(16,985 posts)Reality is that Russia targeted the divisive nature of Sanders' candidacy and exploited it. Sanders just looks naive that he fails to address that reality. Sad.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)You'll be in for rude awakenings in 2018 and 2020.
Jobs and economic insecurity are the reality. PA, MI and WI voters believed Drumpf over Hillary, whereas Bernie carried those states. Voters don't give a shit about Russia; they care about jobs, mortgages, health care, college tuition, retirement, etc. Sad, indeed.
"Russia."
R B Garr
(16,985 posts)Spoken just like the Coulter types! Better to keep up the fake news about Democrats being corrupt. Hilarious. Just cracks me up.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Oh, dear, thanks for that.
R B Garr
(16,985 posts)interfering in the election, which matches the dismisiveness of the KGOP. Yet, we are treated to the fake news that the DNC rigged everything against Bernie. That duplicity in itself is divisive.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Yes, the John McCain that unleashed Sarah Palin on the world.
Aaaaaaand now I'm duplicitous. Trust me, no matter how many times you click your heels together, you won't find any threads from me on DNC-rigged elections.
R B Garr
(16,985 posts)Herr Trump tee'd up the fake news that Bernie was being picked on by the Democrats. That's where the Russians came in. They saw the divisiveness and sought to keep it going. This isn't about the primaries, either, as that Weaver guy was on my teevee just a couple weeks ago spreading the fake news that poor Bernie was a victim of the DNC. Donald Trump sure likes that fake news.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That means they heard our voices and are committed to change.
I don't understand why some people think we can't address both social and economic issues - in the old days Democrats included the working class in the big tent. What's wrong with wooing all voters and catering our message to each group individually?
synergie
(1,901 posts)Democratic strongholds, can I just say that he wasn't doing much listening here and his message harmed the Democratic hold here. He remains silent about what actually happened in MI, he's tone deaf to the actual concerns of people here, whose votes were not counted and who keep seeing people echoing the message of his campaign that everyone is the same, and that justified their antics on election day with the writing in of invalid candidates, leaving the rest of the ballot blank and voting petulantly for people they did not research, do not support and who they care nothing about.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)is absolutely trashed on this board, so yes, "contempt."
Nearly 600,000 Michiganders believed he cared about the actual concerns of people there and he carried the state. He speaks passionately about voter suppression; you must be choosing not to listen. The economy is Americans' top concern, and Bernie's message of living wages, affordable housing/healthcare/college tuition, protecting the social safety net, etc. appeals to Americans of all stripes. Yes, "sameness." Tell us why he carried Dearborn.
"Antics on election day," eh? Sounds rather fake news-ish, but give us what you got. Back it up.
synergie
(1,901 posts)working class, Bernie and his campaign and his followers were not so kind to the working class as a whole, since only segment is of interest to them. And it's nice of you to speak for us Michiganders, while ignoring the fact that many of us told you we voted strategically against the Orange idiot, since we knew what a nightmare he was. He did nothing at all about voter suppression and didn't do a thing to address Crosscheck or even mention the sheer number of votes not counted here, since it was in counties he lost, and full of the working class he seems to resent. I chose to listen, but didn't hear much from him, did he even make it to Flint? Guess I missed when he told his followers to VOTE DEMOCRATIC on election day, since that was kind of important to actually do something about all those things you listed off.
Yeah, the sameness BS is why MI went to Trump, he echoed that nonsense, and people stayed home or wasted their ballots, delivering the state to Trump on a ridiculously slim margin. Tell us why he couldn't convince his people to actually vote for the only candidate that had a prayer of delivering those things he said were important.
Antics on election day, I'm sorry if you failed to pay any attention at all to facts, and blind yourself to things you don't like.
As someone who was there during the recount, who saw the ballots in question, I suggest you stop with the fake news nonsense, and open up your ears to what happened on the ground and in reality. You seem to prefer the fake news and RW talking points to actual evidence of what happened.
Greg Palast was on the ground in Wayne County, do your homework and learn some things about what happened in MI. I can attest to his actually being there in person, and being on the mark with regard to vote suppression, and the antics I mentioned. It's not "fake" just because you don't like it, stop aping the RW with that nonsense and stop using their catch phrases.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)people object to the following: defining the working class narrowly to exclude the majority who are not white and male and who do continue to vote Democrat.
The focus on a few thousand Republican voters to the exclusion of a million or more disenfranchised voters of color.
The notion that one politician's repetition of claims he's been making for years suffices as understanding for the Democratic defeat in 2016.
And the clear preference for white male Republican voters over the rest of the citizenry.
A number of people have contempt for Trump voters, but to claim that is contempt for the white working class is false.
Also, I find it odd that working class includes households making 2-3x the national median income yet not the larger number of households at or below the median income. Because if one looks at exit poll data, Trump won incomes over $100 k and Clinton under $75 k. The lower the income, the greater Clinton's advantage. The higher the in one, the greater Trump's advantage.
Why do you suppose Bernie's positions would have mattered so much when Clinton's advanced those same ideas? You don't seem to know that. If you, and sadly many others, never bothered to inform yourself about the candidates policies, why do you assume Trump voters would?
Political science research demonstrates that most people don't vote based on issues.
R B Garr
(16,985 posts)biggest liars on the internet post at another site now after they outed themselves as anti-Democratic party types.
mountain grammy
(26,655 posts)I'm glad he's on my side, that's why I'm on his. He is a fighter for average people, he is honest. I wish he would stay in the party, but he is what I wish more Democrats would be... consistent.
Bernie is real, what you see is what you get. That in itself is rare.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Right now we need independents more than ever, if he can keep reaching out to disaffected voters he will be invaluable.
Millennials reject labels - from religion to politics - and that's one of the reasons they loved Bernie. His status as an independent appeals to them and to others who have become disenchanted with the two party system.
mountain grammy
(26,655 posts)I met many millennials during the campaign, primary and GE, and then there's my daughter and her friends, so I believe what you're saying is true. That was one of the reasons they liked Bernie, that and his consistency. I'm kind of old fashioned and a change things from the inside kind of person, but these days, I'll take whatever liberals I can get, and these kids are liberal they just don't know it.
I do want to add, every single damn one of them voted for Hillary. Not a single one didn't vote or voted for someone else. They supported Bernie Sanders, they're not stupid!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Most millennials I know who supported Bernie voted for Hillary in the general. Many also never voted before - Bernie inspired them. If we can keep inspiring them we'll be unstoppable.
mountain grammy
(26,655 posts)we had people at our caucus who had never voted, and there they were for Bernie. They all ended up voting for Hillary and they're seeing the ugly face of the GOP like they never have before.
Yes, if we can keep them inspired, we will be unstoppable.
PotatoChip
(3,186 posts)liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)BainsBane
(53,072 posts)Particularly on social media. That was the beginning. There was much more of course, co meets on the "confederacy", that allowing states with sig black populations to vote third or fifth "distorted reality. There was a lot.
I think distrust may be more accurate that hatred. Trust has to be earned.
QC
(26,371 posts)But far be it from me to pee on a good primary rehash.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)JudyM
(29,280 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It's almost as though some people are more interested in rehashing the primaries than joining Bernie in the resistance.
QC
(26,371 posts)having a hard time letting go of the past and turning their thoughts to our present situation, doesn't it?
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)What kind of person wants a powerful liberal voice silenced when we need him the most? Are they more interested in fighting fascism or the primaries?
JHan
(10,173 posts)it's about ideas winning.. our vision winning. No one wants Bernie silenced. Stop erecting strawmen.
As a general point, I will comment when anyone says untruthful or misguided things about the democratic party - whether it's Sanders or whoever. That does not mean I want the man silenced.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Maybe you should reread the op and responses mentioning Bernie by name. Some folks seem to be more interested in denying the validity of the survey and arguing about the primary than appreciating the fact that one of our own scored so well.
I for one am thrilled that Senator Sanders is viewed favourably by so many.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I am not thrilled when he thrashes the democratic party needlessly, which will forever be in vogue.
I am in super pragmatist mode: the lesson of 2016 is to get the GOP out. The enemy is not the democratic party, and I shouldn't feel I need to send a letter to Bernie to explain to him what the Democratic party stands for when he makes smarmy comments like "I don't know what the party stands for". That benefits him, not the cause.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I must have missed where someone asked you to do anything of the sort. Can you point me to the post? I'll be more than happy to explain that you have the right to complain about Bernie in every single positive thread about him if you think that's productive.
If people want to clutch their pearls and hyperventilate every time someone criticizes the party that's their prerogative. Personally I have better things to do than complain about Bernie - I prefer to follow his lead and focus on fighting Republicans but that's me.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Chris Cilizza is annoying but you'll get the jist - it links to the actual interview.
He's said versions of this anyway, since the election
"Maintain the status quo" - I'd like Obama's status quo back, but that's now gone.
So it's not a strawman.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)This is what you claimed you were asked to do:
So I would like you to point out where you were asked to do such a thing.
And why on earth would a liberal pay attention to anything Cizilla writes? He makes his living trying to divide the party by pitting centrists against more left leaning Dems.
Cizilla was persona non grata here during the primary because his hatred for Hillary was palpable. Frankly I'm surprised some people haven't caught on to his shtick yet.
JHan
(10,173 posts)where I said if Bernie is confused about what the Democratic party stands for*, I'll write him a letter.
Cizilla didn't write the excerpt* I shared, those are Bernie's words. And I already said Chris is a waste of time. I would have linked directly to the interview - same thing either way.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 19, 2017, 04:47 PM - Edit history (2)
Bernie never pulled his punches before and he's not going to start now. I would think less of him if he suddenly became a vapid cheerleader for a party that he believes needs to be improved.
Like it or not he was given a leadership position for outreach - he's going to get asked about it frequently. If you don't appreciate his answers knock yourself out writing letters - Bernie wants to hear from everyone - including those who disagree.
While you're doing that I'll be following his lead and focusing on fighting Trump and the deplorables.
Beware the strawman below, it appears some posters do not wish to address what I actually posted and prefer to use logical fallacies to deflect from their own shortcomings.
Some things never change and long winded rants at straw men that don't exist still seem to be the favourite tactic of people who lack the ability to be intellectually honest when trying to debate.
JHan
(10,173 posts)the key is to make sense when you're criticizing it - pondering what the party stands for makes no sense, making assumptions that the choice of Perez as DNC chair says something about the party holding on to the status quo also made no sense ( yes he said this prior to the vote and it got some progressives all up in arms, ready to fight, if Ellison lost - it was up to perez to reach out)
And I can focus on the real enemies - criticizing Democrats needlessly makes no sense given the enemy we face. That's the point.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie sees money and special interests as corrupting influences in politics, he's not about to stop opining on that subject now because it hurts some folks' feelings.
He doesn't 'needlessly' criticize the party and he does make sense to millions of people. You don't have to agree with his criticisms but pretending his message doesn't resonate with millions of previously apathetic voters is insane. Leaders of the party wouldn't have given him a position if they didn't recognize that fact - thankfully they're more focused on winning over voters than whining about criticism, there's hope for us yet.
JHan
(10,173 posts)Democrats.
Twice progressives have failed to understand that: they failed once with their perfect candidate in 2016, and failed again with implementing a progressive agenda in 2017 because of those same inane arguments and critiques of "establishment" and smearing the party with the usual tired "corporatist" accusations . Yes, it worked swimmingly well to target the establishment of a democratic President (Obama) whose Supreme Court picks were responsible for progess on that front- if only it could have made a difference in the citizens United decisions and why didn't it ? Because of republican appointees to the court, Roberts was a Bush pick.
Yes, that's the long game here, where you understand who the real enemy is and you don't drop tired inane senseless criticisms because you feel some kind of way about the rate or pace things are going - the risk is you end up losing everything . As a liberal I understand this so you bet I refuse to tolerate BS arguments and feed self loathing among democrats.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Why do you keep trying to frame this as a battle between progressives and Democrats? You are aware that we can fight the Republicans and try to improve the party at the same time, right? Isn't that why they elected new leaders at the DNC?
Also I already rejected your framing of criticism as 'senseless'. It's only senseless if you believe there's no room for improvement. Pretending there is nothing wrong is insane - thankfully very few people believe the party is perfect as is.
And please stop introducing straw man arguments like ranting about 'self-loathing' Democrats, I have no patience or time for logical fallacies and deflection.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I made clear distinctions, you know damn well where I'm coming from ...
Bashing the party needlessly and stupidly affects enthusiasm. This isn't rocket science.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Most people who are aware of how badly we lost and have been losing for years agree that criticism is not only warranted it's necessary. In fact many Democratic leaders have been critical as well - you seem to have an issue with the source of the criticism and that's why I dismiss it as resentment.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I prefaced criticism with inane and needless. I didn't say criticism in and of itself is bad. It was a clear distinction. Yes it is stupid to drag the party that wants citizens United overturned , it is stupid to drag the party that wants to prop and support investments in renewable technology, it was incredibly stupid to claim that the problem was the progress made under Obama , because now that progress is undone. Our issue is crafting our message , not what we stand for.
I am typing in clear English, this is not hard to understand unless you want to willfully ignore the point I'm making. There should be no confusion at this juncture, as trump unravels the status quo everyone was complaining about last year.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Just because you take offense to his criticism doesn't mean it's needless.
Yes you're typing in English but all you're doing is repeating the same baseless claims and creating more straw men.
Perhaps if you could explain why Bernie's criticism is somehow different than criticism from others and why it should be considered needless I could understand the depth of your outrage and whatever point you're trying to make.
JHan
(10,173 posts)I explained myself over and over. You can't bear a scintilla of critism towards Sanders but fine with criticism towards the Democratic Party ( for the record this is not a Strawman)
The only way we get rid of corporate influence in politics is to stop what facilitates it - citizens United and fec vs mcclutcheon were pivotal decisions that imperiled our politics - democrats wanted a Supreme Court justice to overturn these decisions - that opportunity is gone. Citizens United changed the landscape completely. This is what needs to be the focus. The second way to stop corporate influence is to balance lobbyists in Washington - as of now, corporate lobbyists are over represented. - (these points are also not Strawmen)
The Democratic Party hasn't been perfect, political institutions are not perfect because politics is difficult, partisan and complicated, but I know that Dems are on the right side of issues. I know full well what the Democratic Party stands for, Bernie's confusion about what the party stands for is his confusion, and not any kind of criticism to be taken seriously. (these points are also not full of straw)
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Your confusion about his statement doesn't mean it's needless criticism. Elizabeth Warren and other Dems have been saying the same things about money and special interests corrupting our party for years but no one is whining about her opinion. I find that odd. It's almost like it's some sort of conditioned response.
"ZOMG WTF BBQ!!! BERNIE SAID SOMETHING MEAN ABOUT THE PARTY!"
Normal people: "But he's right."
"SQUAWK!!! IT DOESN'T MATTER, WE WANT TO BE OUTRAGED! THAT'S WHAT'S IMPORTANT HERE!!! SHUT UP AND GET OFF OUR LAWN BERNIE!"
The fact is many disaffected voters agree with Bernie and that's why millions supported him. Thankfully the party leaders recognize the importance of those voters and can get past any minor butthurt caused by his occasional criticism.
JHan
(10,173 posts)And I ain't confused one bit.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 19, 2017, 05:01 AM - Edit history (1)
In every positive thread about Bernie there will always be some who do their best to minimize whatever good thing he said or did.
"Oh so what, he cured cancer. BFD, he didn't discover a way for us to live forever. Besides he's not a Democrat so it doesn't count."
They are both hilarious and predictable.
Or perhaps they're hilarious because they are so predictable.
JHan
(10,173 posts)R B Garr
(16,985 posts)fan club can acknowledge how much Trump played them with Bernie's own attacks. He saw the divisiveness and nurtured it. Now he is humiliating them with his cabinet and policy choices. What a shame what that divisiveness has brought.
JHan
(10,173 posts)smears against the party were rhetorical blunders that hurt the party and hurt whatever progress we could have made. They're gonna have to live with it, but not just them, we all will.
My wanting unfair characterizations of the Democratic party to stop is somehow equated with me having a problem with any kind of criticism.
but as my mom says.. Not my Circus, Not my animals. We're already in the doodoo. Hopefully by 2018 we get our act together. I'm already tired of BS.
R B Garr
(16,985 posts)That's just fake confusion you're getting -- it's obvious why. Your points are exactly right and must be diminished by attacks. Sad.
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I knew I recognized that demeanor from somewhere...
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)Pay particular attention to the treatment of Jaime Harrison. http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/sanders-revolution-resists-dnc-loss-235404
Then there is the fact his comments about the loss in November are a restatement of what he's been saying for years http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2014/11/19/365024592/sen-bernie-sanders-on-how-democrats-lost-white-voters
rather than an effort to grapple with actual data from this past election. (For example, much of what he says about income is completely contradicted by exit poll results in that Trump won voters earning over $75k and Clinton under--the lower the income the greater her advantage. ) The unfortunate part of that is that his supporters, convinced he is infallible, have decided that they too shouldn't look at exit poll data or other surveys of voters but rather take Bernie's statements as absolute. If people actually care about winning in the future, they need to get beyond echoing what one politician says and take a serious look available data. Meanwhile, they, like Bernie, continue to ignore the issue of voter disenfranchisement and repeatedly insist that the votes of 50,000 white male Republicans matter more than the million plus disenfranchised voters of color.
The result of the continual focus on white male voters has been to increase the alienation voters of color feel from white progressives.
Those are voters you need if you want your candidates to win, or if you should decide you want a Democrat to win. Systematically and repeatedly alienating voters that no Democrat can win without is simply not smart. While it may serve the interests of politicians who benefit from a whiter, more male electorate, it does not benefit the party and is determinantal to the nation.
The Democrats do certainly need to pay attention to the rust belt states and listen to those voters. But so do self proclaimed progressives. I have seen no indication of any willingness to listen to them anymore than they were interested in listening to the other groups that some insisted were "weak" for asking what a candidate planned to do about women's rights and black lives, for example. The white working class has become a convenient rhetorical foil against the base of the party (predominantly voters of color), but they haven't actually paid any attention to what those rust belt voters have to say about why they voted as they did. If they had, they would realize that opposition to environmental regulation is strong in regions where people want to see industries like steel, taconite, and coal brought back because they see those regulations as taking their jobs away. (In the case of coal they are right.) Absolute opposition to fracking is obviously going to lose the votes of workers who depend on those jobs. Those certain they have all the answers somehow haven't managed to consider any of that.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)That Bernie isn't perfect or even that he isn't the only politician who has said anything negative about Trump. You happen to value Bernie over the party or issues. Everyone doesn't share your commitment to one man's career above all else. Some of us care about issues, the party, and the well being of citizens more than any particular politician. You are entirely within your rights to devote yourself exclusively to promoting Bernie, but don't expect everyone else to be as narrow in their concerns.
I myself am working on trying to try to bring an end to the fascist regime that the right and their allies, exemplified by Jackpine Radicals, imposed on this nation because of their hatred for the Democratic Party, Democratic voters, and shared commitment to white male supremacy. It appears that some may be starting to regret their collaboration with fascism, despite having worked so hard to bring it about. Better late than never, I suppose.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)That's it exactly! Given everything that's happened and in consideration of all the facts, it's pretty obvious that JPR wasn't just a harmless (yet annoying) collection of frustrated but well-meaning emoprog malcontents. I think you've hit the nail squarely on the head with that one, and you've chosen the perfect word to characterize it.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)after the French regime that collaborated with the Nazis. That is what they are.
Response to beam me up scottie (Reply #107)
KittyWampus This message was self-deleted by its author.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... and that's really a shame. I think it's unfair of people to misuse that rule to short-circuit legitimate criticism of him and the things he's said/done/shoulda-said/shoulda-done or mistakes/missteps he's made in 2017.
The fact that he was at one time competing to be the Democratic nominee should not be used as a permanent shield that prevents him from answering to critics, or to silence his critics.
Do you think I'm being unreasonable?
JHan
(10,173 posts)liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)supporters use that excuse to get posts hidden. God forbid you criticize him in a post primary era.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)I've been trying that in this thread.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)I welcome his participation. It's all hand on deck. Even some Trump voters are now joining in. Better late than never.
If anyone in congress deserves credit for joining resistance early on, it's the congressional black caucus. They've been fantastic, especially Maxine Waters.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Unless you've been personally holding town halls and rallies as well as speaking out on television you're part of the resistance just like the rest of us.
He could just be doing his time in the Senate like many others but he's actually spending his nights and weekends trying to rally support. You can try to minimize it all you like but you can't change the facts.
Pick a leader and join them, it doesn't matter which one - unless of course you're more concerned with complaining instead of being part of the resistance. Millions of us follow Bernie because he never stops fighting for us - and we're just as much a part of this movement as anyone else.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)But the protests began on Nov 9 and have continued since. Few have involved members of the political elite. That said, I am more than happy to see them join in whenever they find time away from a rigorous schedule of TV appearances.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I like protests but they're not effective unless our politicians are willing to support our efforts.
Any member of the house and senate who is out there fighting every day should be commended. It's a shame more of them can't be bothered.
It's also a shame that some of the ones who are out there are getting dismissed here. Thank dog DU isn't the real world.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)LOLZ.
And I'm curious which Democrats you think aren't out fighting on Capitol Hill.
Your comment sure implies you think there are some slackers.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Congresscritters are paid to represent their constituents and most do that just fine - that's all they get paid to do. They're not slackers they're simply adequate.
But Bernie and a few others are going way above and beyond now and I think it's important to acknowledge their efforts.
Ymmv.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)You were discussing Bernie. I pointed out that the resistance, like all popular movements in history, emanate from below, not the political power structure
That said, I am gratified to see a number of Democratic representatives fighting, particularly in regard to the immigration ban and the Russians. The ones who turned up at airports to help constituents caught in immigration control were impressive. I also appreciate the efforts of those who are relentless on the Russia issue. I haven't seen Bernie mention any of those concerns. He has, however, been a champion for the white male Republican voter.
Are you assuming "fighting" is limited to prime time tv specials? I think we have very different understandings of resistance. That's fine. You're of course entitled to your top down, great man view of politics. To each his own. And, as I said, I welcome any efforts against Trump that Bernie or anyone else finds time for. Our Revolution has been active in my area, and I think it's fantastic that they are joining OFA and Indivisible in resisting Trump. All hands on deck.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 19, 2017, 04:47 AM - Edit history (1)
Bernie on Russian hacking in December:
http://www.politicususa.com/2016/12/11/gop-russia-woes-worsen-bernie-sanders-speaks-trumps-nonsensical-denial.html
Bernie on Russia hacking in January:
http://www.cnn.com/videos/politics/2017/01/10/bernie-sanders-town-hall-russia-hacking-sot.cnn
Bernie on Russian interference in February:
https://www.google.com/amp/www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/bernie-sanders-investigation-russia-michael-flynn-links-donald-trump-election-campaign-democrats-a7581996.html%3Famp
***
As far as the ban on immigration:
Bernie in December:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/bernie-sanders-calls-donald-trumps-policy-proposal-ban/story?id=35658538
Bernie in January:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/316679-sanders-trump-refugee-order-plays-into-the-hands-of-fanatics
Bernie in February:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bustle.com/p/bernie-sanders-response-to-donald-trumps-travel-ban-suspension-is-important-reminder-to-the-president-35508/amp
And Bernie in March:
https://m.
***
I could probably find more but that's sufficient to prove that he has mentioned both Russia's interference and the Muslim ban and has done so on more than one occasion.
Of course I fully expect you to move the goal posts and claim he didn't do it soon enough, often enough, stridently enough etc.
It's really too bad you don't think it's important for our leaders to get in front of cameras. In my opinion when you combine calling out Trump at every opportunity in newspapers, on television, on social media as well as holding town halls and rallies to reach voters and disadvantaged groups that those efforts can indeed be defined as "fighting" and being part of the resistance.
But as always, your mileage will probably vary. I'm sure some people believe critiquing Senator Sanders' continued efforts to stop Trump on DU is every bit as valuable to the resistance.
Anyway I'm done digging up proof that your allegations about Bernie are wrong, this is an old game and I tired of it long ago. I have much better things to do with my time than waste it stating the obvious. Bernie is a part of the resistance and he's also a leader, you don't have to like it but he's out there every day fighting the good fight - pretending otherwise is ridiculous.
R B Garr
(16,985 posts)thread even, you are saying the Democratic Party needs plenty of criticism. How does that work. I think people are just tired of the fake news trends and divisiveness that the GOP copied from him.
synergie
(1,901 posts)Yeah, it's sad that some people simply cannot seem to let go of the bitterness and hate they whipped up in the primaries. Some people really do need to figure out that the rest of us have moved on and are fighting the guy who coopted some of that bitter hate to keep people from voting for the only progressive on that ballot.
Here is a citation you might have missed, that shows that the conservatives were actually rather fond of Bernie, there was a lot rhetoric back then that was being used by nefarious forces to attack Hillary, since she was pretty much the only qualified candidate that the RW and other forces were terrified of.
http://www.salon.com/2015/07/09/conservatives_bernie_sanders_lovefest_why_the_right_has_the_hots_for_a_prickly_socialist/
They thought Bernie was weak, and thus they spent a lot of money promoting him, and worked hard to shove their RW nonsense onto the innocent and naive supporters they felt they could poison with 20 years of toxic hate and misogyny. Didn't work on most people who supported Bernie, but on enough who didn't know any better and believed all the fake news they pumped out.
The attempts to divide and toxify actual Democrats was something that we had all been pointing out, but here is a link that should educate you on how so many people were affected during the primary, and why some simply cannot let go.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bernie-sanders-fake-news-russia_us_58c34d97e4b0ed71826cdb36
Hindsight should teach us exactly how so many were fooled and why so much toxic hate and bitterness seemed to flood the internets. It wasn't pretty, but the toxic ones sure did overplay their hand, didn't they?
JHan
(10,173 posts)...any cursory look at TheRoot after the elections when Sanders went on his WWC/identity politics spiel would tell you how a lot of us felt about it and continue to feel about it..
You also must know that there are no simple take aways from the data you're sharing :I saw first hand how propaganda and disinformation affected a lot of millennials, being millennial myself. It was a clusterfuck pushed by the usual forces which seek to fracture the democratic party. Fact is younger people don't engage in the political process and should, older folks do - does that mean somehow that older blacks in the Democratic party are worth nothing and their opinion doesn't count? What's the point of it?
And this isn't about "refighting the primaries" , it's about completely ignoring the fact that it was the dem base that supported Hillary which is why she got the nomination. When the claim is made that Sanders was the "People's choice" I will challenge that assertion because it's insulting as fk.
QC
(26,371 posts)and they suffer for it. I have been talking to my students for years about how they are an easy target for the politicians, who are always eager to sell out their future because so few young people vote that there's no penalty for it. And you're exactly right that no end of misinformation is directed at young people in order to keep them disengaged.
The point of bringing up that poll, and there are others, was to show that bald statements like "black people hate Bernie" are oversimplifications, to put it politely. I certainly wouldn't say that older voters are worth nothing, since I'm one of them myself. Neither do I think that younger voters are too clueless and bamboozled to be worth anything.
And while it would be nice to think that nobody here is trying to rehash the primaries, it's hard to find a better explanation for people spending their every waking moment attacking one of the very few people making a direct, cogent critique of this dumpster fire of a presidency.
JHan
(10,173 posts)It's problematic.
I found myself working overtime trying to fight against the misinformation among my friends and peers - from memes, to youtube vids. I know I'm probably unusual in that I grew up with an awareness of politics due to my family and how engaged they are - nothing big either, they just made me aware that it's important to have a philosophy of life, an approach to how you want the world to be a better place.
Another problem is that my generation grew up antagonistic towards politics generally. We've been conditioned in some respects to see government and politics as a sordid business ( thanks in part to Conservative think tanks ) that it isn't worth the effort. Some of us think volunteerism is the answer or other types of activism - instead of doing the thing that makes the biggest difference : actual engagement either through running for office or holding a representative's feet to the fire ( or participating in actual party processes)
I think that's gonna change, the revanchism Conservatives are currently enjoying will wreak havoc and is already waking people up. For me the difference between Dem and Republican was always so stark and clear, the Dem party is the only logical choice.
QC
(26,371 posts)torn off will wake people up. It seems to be happening already.
The usual attitude I see among my students (who are mostly 18-22) is the one you see--that politics really has nothing to do with their lives, so why worry about it? The more affluent ones concern themselves with having fun and the working class ones with making a living. I wish the latter could see that their making a living has everything in the world to do with politics. Maybe our current situation will help them to make the connection. I hope at least one good thing comes from it.
JHan
(10,173 posts)the thing about this administration is that it's become so invasive, people must talk about politics. As with most totalitarian governments, or wanna be authoritarian administrations like this one, the stench is so overwhelming you have to do something. Bannon knows this I suspect, and hopes we get used to the smell.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Oh wait...
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)never answers how we win 2020 without those states.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)We're not in a position to do much about it now but we CAN try to woo as many voters as possible so that we can win back some seats. Independents and the working class can be successfully courted, we shouldn't be writing off any of them. Especially in former Democratic strongholds.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)win the electoral college. Trump's victory proves that. Before the general election, pundits were saying they couldn't see a path for trump to win the presidency. Well, here we are.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)states we should never have lost.
Pundits? Who the hell listens to pundits? Maybe that's why we're where we are -- too much pundit listening and not enough actual voter listening.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)people here were saying the same shit. They loved to post links to 538.com. I never trusted that asshole myself.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Decades of life on this planet told me we were in trouble, and sure as shit, we were. You think we can write off PA, MI and WI. Which states -- in 2020 -- are going to make up for those electoral votes?
aikoaiko
(34,184 posts)The more Bernie talked the more Black voters voted for him in the primary.
He went from <5% to nearly 30% by the end of the primary.
When someone like Ta-Nehisi Coates says he is going to vote for him, you can't be that far off from appealing to the Black community.
KPN
(15,662 posts)jrthin
(4,837 posts)JCanete
(5,272 posts)funding model that is not actually working, if the point is to actually get to govern.
What bothers you about this?
Fast Walker 52
(7,723 posts)doesn't know what they stand for? Really?
Sanders funding model in the primaries worked well, but it's really not clear if it's sustainable for individual candidates or for smaller races or for people who have to be more moderate because of the district they are running in.
JCanete
(5,272 posts)Last edited Sat Mar 18, 2017, 09:29 PM - Edit history (1)
that taking money from corporations is not a winning strategy. We keep learning that. We're just getting crushed down-ticket, and by the money, even though we take it too. Whether our candidates are more or less conservative is less of an issue than whether or not they compromise their message by taking that corporate money, though I'm not a whole lot more keen to support a candidate who doesn't challenge those interests so that he doesn't bring wrath upon him. I want to see that our politicians are not holding back in their efforts to work for the people because it isn't politically expedient. I want us to change what is politically expedient.
Sanders' didn't make the Titanic claim about the whole party, he said there are some democrats in it who are content with this.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)We control no branches of the federal government and fully control only six states. Is that not registering with people on this site?
tkmorris
(11,138 posts)Some folks would rather keep faceplanting into that proverbial brick wall than admit they made a mistake. You recall the common definition of insanity don't you?
QC
(26,371 posts)I attended this evening says things are going beautifully.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)But some blissfully oblivious passengers are still dancing on the deck while the band plays.
What iceberg? That big orange thing with a dead tribble on its head? Pshaw! We'll be fine!
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)I donated to the Sanders' camp because he shares my values. If that pisses you off, I don't think we have a lot of common ground.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)Context matters.
What he said was that he doesn't think the Democratic leadership knew what it stood for.
The full quote, from the original article:
I asked him if he thought the Democratic Party knew what it stood for. Youre asking a good question, and I cant give you a definitive answer, he said. Certainly there are some people in the Democratic Party who want to maintain the status quo. They would rather go down with the Titanic so long as they have first-class seats.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/13/magazine/democratic-party-election-trump.html?_r=0
Trump's family newspaper twisted the quote. Who could have guessed?
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 19, 2017, 10:19 PM - Edit history (1)
Also is he going to figure out that the status quo has been destroyed by Trump? It's like he's on autopilot. It's very strange.
A hell of a lot of people would like that status quo back. If you aren't, white, male, and financially secure, that status quo looks awfully good.
At a certain point, we need to demand our elected officials move being slogans like change and status quo to talk seriously about the challenges we face.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)In which a black Muslim and a Dominican were in competition, but their primary characteristic being judged was their relationship/acceptability to white people (or at least that's the way it looked to me).
Personally, I think Sanders is great and an asset to the party and the nation, and I think a Trump presidency might make America (i.e. Trump voters) realized what they missed out on with Hillary. A couple of old white people are not where this nation or our Party ends, however: the future looks refreshingly diverse, and I think that our representation might finally resemble the people they represent. Some new perspectives on things would make life better for everyone.
Progressive dog
(6,920 posts)Tom Rinaldo
(22,913 posts)...wasn't just some trendy quirky thing. Both his authenticity as a person and the views that Sanders holds make him resonate with the American people. Most Americans aren't overly ideological, but they can recognize that Bernie fights for them. We can lay to rest that Americans can't support anyone who calls himself a Democratic Socialist, just like we laid to rest that Americans couldn't support anyone with a name like Barack Hussein Obama.
KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Sanders definition of political correctness .... It means you have a set of talking points which have been poll-tested and focus-group-tested and thats what you say rather than whats really going on. And often, what you are not allowed to say are things which offend very powerful people, he said.
Hayes pushed back, pointing out that most people take political correctness to mean the rules policing speech and sensitivity towards minorities, not speaking out against the U.S. trade policy. When we talk about political correctness, theyre basically just rules about not being a jerk, he insisted.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/bernie-sanders-trump-won-because-people-are-tired-of-politically-correct-rhetoric/
LWolf
(46,179 posts)who care less about the energy and activism he brings to the issues that Democrats are supposed to care about, and more about sour grapes and the defense of the neo-liberal establishment.
KPN
(15,662 posts)boston bean
(36,223 posts)boston bean
(36,223 posts)PatsFan87
(368 posts)Even my Republican friends like Bernie.
Ace Rothstein
(3,184 posts)Even people who disagree with his beliefs will respect him for his honesty.
Calculating
(2,957 posts)I've hardly ever met people who dislike him on a personal level.
lunamagica
(9,967 posts)synergie
(1,901 posts)follow through might argue that honesty would require that they match better.
He promised to deliver his taxes and remain a Democrat, but did neither. Actions matter, words matter. Bernie is a nice guy, but he is a politician, and not an honest one, regardless of whether you agree with the some of the things he says or his stated positions.
Remember that we call Donald Trump a liar for making similar claims that violate his actual actions.
George II
(67,782 posts)jalan48
(13,888 posts)Talk Is Cheap
(389 posts)And the most Democratic Senator we have in office today...
monmouth4
(9,710 posts)and that includes a few repubs think very highly of him. No baggage seems to be their best description.
dogman
(6,073 posts)ismnotwasm
(42,014 posts)He has been the go between for Democrats and Rebublican for years, quite successful on occasion. Not surprising a Fox News survey rated him high. Wonder why they left Hillary out?
George II
(67,782 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... by writing about it. (Hello Alerter! I'm referring to the WP editorialist, Philip Bump.)
Are people like that also trying to keep Democrats divided, and if so, why?? Ostensibly, Bump is a left-leaning editorialist/analyst ... so why would he want to write (or promote) things that would weaken or damage the party that his views (supposedly) align more closely with.
Unless he's a Stein-loving Greenie... then that would explain why he'd be pushing this Fox News Poll in his column.
-----
Hello again, Alerter! This post is expresses my suspicions and doubts and cynicism about the Fox Poll and about Philip Bump (the WP writer.)
KPN
(15,662 posts)Bernie has supported Democratic legislation with his votes at a higher percentage than any other Democrat in the House or Senate during his tenures in the two. And somehow he's not a Democrat. Never mind that he's an Independent who hails from a State that has (if I remember right) the highest percent of registered Independent voters in the nation and has been more loyal to the Party via his voting record than any other Democrat.
Question: why the Canada flag? Just curious.
George II
(67,782 posts)Born in Brooklyn NY, dual citizenship.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)https://ivn.us/2013/06/18/independents-exceed-party-registration-in-5-states/
Vermont wasn't even included. Interesting.
I wonder how reliable the source is. I didn't spend a LOT of time googling... but url came up as one of the most relevant matches to my query.
George II
(67,782 posts)...so its virtually impossible to gauge the % of republicans, Democrats, or independents.
Here is a breakdown of the affiliation in the states that actually do ask for affiliation. I think some can't be accurate though (i.e., Arkansas!)
R B Garr
(16,985 posts)so he is also attached to altering reality to keep that going at all costs. Our own unfortunate version of fake news.
With the news of Russia's exploitation of the divisiveness, his credibility is really fading.
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)Fox News poll.
Meh.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)a month ago that Sen Warren was at risk of losing reelection. People are fickle.
George II
(67,782 posts)....and criminal enterprises (wikileaks) are all combined into one bucket for "popularity".
Plus it was conducted by Fox News, not the most credible polling or news source, either.
lapucelle
(18,349 posts)about "favorability" not "popularity".
Whoever wrote the click bait headline for the Post was relying on data about X to reach a conclusion about Y.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)My mind and emotions are open to a younger male or female who shares Senator Sanders' values. It is the message that encourages all generations to action that has inspired me.
Thank you Bernie for all that you do.
KPN
(15,662 posts)YOHABLO
(7,358 posts)lapucelle
(18,349 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Newly elected chair of the Democratic National Committee Tom Perez, and former Labor Secretary, has some tough criticisms of the Donald Trump's budget proposal released Thursday.
In an interview with Fortune, Mr. Perez, who has said he wants to be President Trump's "worst nightmare," says the budget blueprint shows Trump is looking out for his friends on Wall Street at the expense of Main Street.
P
erez said he is particularly troubled by the proposed cuts to the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as the way Trump's proposals could adversely impact American workers.
Budgets are moral documents, he said. They reflect the values of any government and when youre compromising clean air, clean water, and lead, youre making a statement about communities you dont care about.
http://fortune.com/2017/03/16/trump-budget-tom-perez/
JTFrog
(14,274 posts)So many folks running around with their fingers in their ears going: "why aren't they saying anything"!
All in the name of bashing good Democrats.
Ridiculous.
Cha
(297,705 posts)know what you're talking about before coming out with such a proclamation.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)... ya gotta give points for that. 😂😀😄😆
bucolic_frolic
(43,308 posts)He told us it was about the oligarchs. And it was. But the real oligarchs
that have taken over are foreign Russian oligarchs who want to pollute
our nation and exploit us for profit. Their man is in power.
tecelote
(5,122 posts)It's because he is not a Democrat that he appeals to many across all lines from all parties.
Too bad Democrats can't do that. Neither can Republicans.
Maybe, as Democrats, we need to stop being so inclusive and open our arms to all Americans. 'Kinda like Bernie does.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)tecelote
(5,122 posts)liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)alerted on. You would be doing everyone a favor is you deleted it. Don't fall for it people. Be careful.
NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)If you are treated unfairly always appeal... This is just the sort of post designed to trap people.
Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)NurseJackie
(42,862 posts)Demsrule86
(68,696 posts)I keep hoping there will be another season.
seaglass
(8,173 posts)to express an opinion that is just going to be hidden.
Ron Green
(9,823 posts)Hillary at 10. What happened to all that?
Response to Ron Green (Reply #75)
Post removed
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I wonder why so many people think this is a bad thing or that it's not true when in fact Bernie has been the most popular politician for years. Why would a result showing he has high favourabliity be suspect?
And shouldn't we want our politicians to score high on this list? Would DUers prefer a different result and if so, why?
A popular liberal senator with millions of followers should be seen as a powerful asset for the resistance. Of course that's only for people who are more interested in fighting Twitler and the GOP instead of reliving the primary.
Also this isn't surprising even though it's causing much butthurt among a certain small group. Anyone whining about this survey because they think the results show it's biased is a hypocrite. Bernie is still viewed favourably and he's still the most popular senator. Get over it.
ismnotwasm
(42,014 posts)Fascinating.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I just read Hillary is going to join him as well, the more the merrier as far as I'm concerned. Time for everyone to come out of the woods and unite.
ismnotwasm
(42,014 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Nanjeanne
(4,981 posts)and even though he is the epitome of what I used to think of as "Democratic values" - he's NOT A DEMOCRAT. So sad that for some people, Democrats that vote against core Democratic policies are OK - but Bernie ---- *shrug*.
Me? I'm happy to know he is out there fighting . . . but that appears to still be unpopular here. I keep forgettting that.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Bernie has been fighting the Orange Menace all along, since we lost he's been out there every day on social media, on television, at rallies and town halls railing against the enemy. He didn't take a break, he didn't give up - in fact he hasn't slowed down at all.
Seems as though he's damned if he does and damned if he doesn't.
I'm just happy DU seems to be an aberration, everywhere else I go he has the support of Democrats.
George II
(67,782 posts)...that includes several different categories lumped to be compared?
Democrats
republicans
Legislation (Obamacare/ACA)
Social Agencies (Planned Parenthood)
Policies
Political organizations
Criminal enterprises (wikileaks)
Maybe it should have included hot dogs, apple pie, and the New England Patriots.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Not personally liking the categories or results isn't evidence, by the way. You seem to think your feelings should be taken into consideration.
George II
(67,782 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)That doesn't mean it's flawed, it just means George doesn't like it. Please point out how they skewed the poll and by doing so affected the results.
Here's the definition of skewed in case you're confused:
How is the survey biased or distorted in a way that is regarded as inaccurate, unfair or misleading?
Or are you using an alternative definition?
George II
(67,782 posts)They just lumped a whole bunch of unrelated "things" together and essentially asked people to rate them.
Why not look at the detail of the survey, its illuminating.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 19, 2017, 04:35 PM - Edit history (1)
Perhaps you would be kind enough to explain how those "things" are unrelated and if they are how that would skew the results?
I've participated in many surveys where I was asked to rate different things and I was more than capable of focusing and rating each one individually. Of course your mileage may vary but I'm unaware of any evidence that indicated this is a widespread problem.
Choosing politicians who are more often recognized is not a bias, it simply makes sense. Or do you seriously believe it's practical to ask registered voters their opinion about hundreds of politicians with no name recognition?
That's absurd.
Just because they didn't include George's favourite politicians doesn't mean it's biased. They didn't include Jimmy Carter either but that doesn't indicate bias.
So again - dislike of their choices is not bias. The RVs were asked their opinions on each politician and politically affiliated organization separately - not whether they like one more than another.
Bernie Sanders has been the most popular senator for years, claiming this survey is biased because the results show he still has the best favourabliity rating is ridiculous. That shows your bias.
George II
(67,782 posts)....is that of the thousands of American politicians in America and hundreds in Washington, they cherry-picked only eight.
Does anyone really think that Sanders is more "popular" than Barack Obama? Really?
lapucelle
(18,349 posts)misrepresented both the WaPo story and the survey itself.
You can't reach conclusions about popularity with data about favorability. Editors need to up their standards.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Apparently GOP propaganda that the ACA and PP are evil incarnate isn't as effective as they'd hoped.
They might have used Bernie in the headline because they know it'll get them clicks but he's not the only one who came out a winner.
Besides Sanders, Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Vice President Pence were the most popular politicians on net. Notice that the embattled Affordable Care Act is better viewed on net than President Trump and most of the other Republicans included in the poll.
lapucelle
(18,349 posts)measured nor mentioned The questions and the WaPo story concerned favorability.
The headline writer conflates the two terms. If he did so unknowingly, he needs a better editor. If he did so deliberately, he needs to develop a better sense of journalistic integrity.
favorability (n.)
1. The quality or degree of being viewed favorably ?
2. Something which is favorable
popularity (n.)
The state or condition of being liked, admired, or supported by
many people
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Perhaps you can explain it to me with some of them there fancy book words.
How is the fact that Planned Parenthood, the ACA and Bernie Sanders are viewed favourably in this survey cause for concern? Why does it seem to upset some people here so much? I am truly befuddled by the responses here.
You seem to be hung up on the difference between popularity and favorability for some strange reason.
You are aware that Bernie has been the most popular senator for quite some time, right?
It's not like this is news.
lapucelle
(18,349 posts)The findings are both surprising and encouraging.
What concerns me is the sloppiness with which the headline characterizes the data. That's sub-par journalism.
It's also dumb journalism because it buries the lede: if more people have a favorable (rather than unfavorable) perception of both the ACA and Planned Parenthood and if Sanders' favorability stats exceed those of both Trump and Pence, that's what needs to be reported. That's the story.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I agree that journalists can be sloppy and when they try to generate more clicks they often drop the ball but in this case the information is there if people look for it. I'm glad we agree the results are encouraging. I've seen this survey cited on social media and that's a good thing in this click driven world.
lapucelle
(18,349 posts)The role of a free and fair press in the functioning of a democracy and the protection of its citizens is so important that it's enshrined in our Bill of Rights. It's the very first thing that the people demanded of its newly formed government. Journalists need to reach, maintain, and uphold standards.
The clickbait headline that misrepresents the story that falls under it needs to be called out. That headline was written either to generate revenue or to mislead readers. Neither is acceptable, and we need to demand better.
George II
(67,782 posts)Cary
(11,746 posts)The issue has always been getting people to vote.
Warpy
(111,356 posts)along with Senator Warren. Both are lions of the left, fighting the good fight for the people against the powerful.
Motownman78
(491 posts)and want to move forward?
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)How are you going to handle the next XX number of years if you're fatigued now, a mere four months after the election?
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I could have sworn I read that somewhere...
Oh, right - here it is:
Schumer promised a bigger, bolder, sharper-edged economic message in his first remarks after his election and said Democrats would remain focused on the middle class and those struggling to join it.
We heard the American people loud and clear, he said. They felt that the government wasnt working for them. They felt that the economy was rigged against them in many places and that the government was too beholden to big money and special interests.
In a gesture to his partys progressive wing, Schumer added Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) to a junior role in his newly expanded leadership team.
The New York Democrat and his leadership team were elected unanimously by the caucus, aides said.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/powerpost/wp/2016/11/16/schumer-elected-senate-democratic-leader/
I guess that means he has something to do with the party.
And I'm fairly certain the administrators of this website agree that since he caucuses with the Dems he and his supporters are welcome here. Some of us don't care if he has a D behind his name.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)And keep Manchin, while I keep Sanders.
synergie
(1,901 posts)affiliation, so if you're a Dem, he's rejected your party. That's a simple fact. He apparently changed his mind from when he said otherwise, which is fine, but let's not forget how definitions work or what it means when politicians do things that are the polar opposite of what they promise based on convenience.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)Idoru
(167 posts)I'm not alone. But they will never shut up.
Adrahil
(13,340 posts)... otherwise piss off.
R B Garr
(16,985 posts)poll is just one reason why. It's common knowledge that he owes his popularity ratings to never being attacked. Just now listening to Rachel (rerun) talking about how Clinton was the only candidate attacked, and that was to influence the election. Bernie was given a pass.
Cha
(297,705 posts)From fox "news" viewers.. Oh really good to know.
Nevernose
(13,081 posts)They paid for this particular poll, but it was conducted by two polling orgs, one Dem and one GOP. Not on "Fox News viewers."
The Democratic Party is at its lowest point in a hundred years. That's not a Faux News poll, it's an objective fact. Maybe, if we want to win elections, we should start listening to the people who are well liked by the general population.
More importantly, all the other recent polls are showing the same thing: the Democratic Party is not well liked, to say the least.
It seems to me as if many of our leaders and members absolutely refuse to admit any failings or change anything at all. Lots of fingers pointing at other things (most of which are valid), but an almost frightening lack of introspection.
A direct link to one poll, plus links to opinion pieces that have many related links embedded:
http://www.suffolk.edu/documents/SUPRC/3_7_2017_tables.pdf
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-democratic-party-doesn-unpopular-article-1.2993659
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/why-wont-democrats-embrace-most-popular-politician-america
Cha
(297,705 posts)leaders like Tom Perez and Keith Ellison. Senator Elizabeth Warren is great too.. and Sen Franken
Leaders who are working to bring people together against trump.. not negative divisive crap.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Facts are hard.
I like honest politicians who tell us the truth instead of mindlessly cheerleading for a team. Bernie is enormously positive when it counts but he's also not afraid to criticize when he thinks it's necessary. I don't need my leaders to sugar coat things.
And he's been bringing people together to resist Trump since last year. I don't know of any senator who's been more actively involved in the resistance.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Phew, nothing brings out the claws more than favorable news re: one Bernard Sanders. They should be happy: Obamacare beat out Drumpf and Paul "Kegger" Ryan!
Response to SMC22307 (Reply #235)
Post removed
QC
(26,371 posts)No doubt about it.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)A liberal lion like Bernie deserves better. Fortunately the ranks of BDSS have thinned considerably and most people seem to prefer to fight the GOP instead of Bernie.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)without PA, MI or WI. Are some really believing that Texas will "go blue" by then?!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)Last edited Sun Mar 19, 2017, 05:42 PM - Edit history (1)
There are many reasons why we lost, making sure we don't make the same mistakes again is smart. We should never have lost those states and we can't afford to lose them again.
We need a fifty state strategy but it's stupid to pretend red states are going to turn blue simply because of wishful thinking. It's possible for people to be optimistic and still remain grounded in reality.
Yet if you try to bring up facts you get accused of concern trolling and ignoring certain states.
Some people don't want to discuss our mistakes at all, they want to pretend none were made because that would mean that our candidate was less than perfect and our strategy failed. Thank dog Schumer, Ellison and Perez are realists.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Some were absolutely certain! Buckle-of-the-Bible-Belt North Carolina went to Obama once, barely. Since then there's been GOP takeover, McCrory, voting against marriage equality, HB2, Moral Mondays... you have to wonder if the salon-going *experts* really understand the electorate of each state. Based on November 2016, that would be a big, fat N-O.
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)It's easy to float around in your safe little bubble and pooh pooh those nasty realists who keep trying to harsh your buzz. I was horrified by what happened in November but nowhere near as horrified as people who had been celebrating non-stop since July. They thought we had it in the bag. And they STILL refuse to admit the warning signs were there all along.
Like I said upthread at least Democratic leaders are willing to admit mistakes were made and accept criticism.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)especially the 63% who aren't prepared for a $500 household emergency.
2018 will be here before we know it... chop-chop, folks!
beam me up scottie
(57,349 posts)I've been to town halls and when a politician makes voters believe he/she really cares about them they remember it. Paying lip service during election years isn't going to cut it anymore, voters need to be reminded constantly who's fighting for them.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)And read exit polls, which reveal that Clinton overwhelming won low and median income voters. Much of that is a function of race and gender. White men earn more than other demographics. It doesn't mean that Democrats don't have a lot of work to do in order to regain electoral share, but that work has to include looking at voting data. You've managed to avoid that yet oddly insist you know "facts." What you're doing is repeating what a politician has said, without having made any effort to examine data yourself. It appears that voters and electoral results don't mean much to you at all.
BainsBane
(53,072 posts)BainsBane
(53,072 posts)You seem certain you have all the answers. Enlighten me.
SMC22307
(8,090 posts)Planned Parenthood and Elizabeth Warren came in at #2 and #3, respectively.
It *is* good to know.
George II
(67,782 posts)...is grossly flawed. Only eight politicians were included in the survey (and not surprisingly, they're all white and only two women).
They didn't include Keith Ellison, Elijah Cummings, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Al Franken, et. al.
There are tens of thousands of politicians in America and probably about a thousand (rough estimate) on the National stage. Proclaiming one of them is "one of Americas most popular politicians" while only comparing any of them to only seven others is ludicrous.
LostOne4Ever
(9,290 posts)mvd
(65,180 posts)Being so popular in a Fox poll makes his appeal seem even better. Fox dislikes centrist Democrats, much less those on the left. Although I doubt he will run again, I will always have the fond memories of his campaign. And he keeps on fighting the good fight, even going where Democrats haven't been seen favorably.
A couple other things of note in the poll: I will never understand why Pelosi is so low. Is it just an anti-California bias? And we have to be careful of Pence if Trump resigns or is impeached.
democratisphere
(17,235 posts)Dale Earnhardt is the most popular driver in NASCAR racing, sometimes winning a race here and a race there, but he doesn't win the championship title. Bernie is very popular with his base, wining a primary in this state and a caucus in that state, but can't even win the presidential primary, let alone a presidential general election. If we don't find a candidate that can appeal to the broadest number of voters, we simply will not win elections.
liquid diamond
(1,917 posts)No candidate that struggles with a large demographic of our party--whether white, black or Latino, will win the election. We need a candidate who UNITES us like Obama did. Not a candidate who continually trashes our own party. Bernie won't run for president again, but I hope we don't see someone like him run in the future.
synergie
(1,901 posts)the actual questions they asked people?
George II
(67,782 posts)...of the eight that were included in the poll:
Bernie Sanders
Mike Pence
Donald Trump
Elizabeth Warren
Paul Ryan
Nancy Pelosi
Chuck Schumer
Mitch McConnell
The last I heard Sanctuary Cities, Planned Parenthood, Wikileaks, and the Freedom Caucus were not politicians, and thousands of other politicians were not included in the poll, perhaps intentionally.
MineralMan
(146,333 posts)His popularity is relatively unimportant in this non-election year. I have no doubt that he is popular. I know for certain that he is the independent Senator from Vermont. As such, he has one vote in the Senate, and caucuses with the minority party in that house of Congress.
But, I cannot, for the life of me, see why his popularity is a point of discussion on Democratic Underground right now. I like Senator Sanders, and hope he continues to vote with the Democratic Caucus in the Senate. Beyond that, his popularity is pretty unimportant in 2017, really.
Hortensis
(58,785 posts)His lifelong inability and/or unwillingness (but I suspect mostly inability) to recognize what is good about mainstream liberals and his inability to play well with others are tedious.
But he is on the side of the left, and we have far more important things to get all excited over than his inability to always keep his guns pointed at the right. The party leadership believe he is an asset in the fight against the huge threat on the right, and we should be pulling together. Let him use his very real talents on the stage to inspire those he can to become involved. It'll be our candidates' jobs later on to convince people to vote for them.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)While I had an issue or two with him, I always thought he was and is a good and honest man.
still_one
(92,419 posts)What it says is in the sampling that they did, at a particular moment in time, based on ONLY the names they provided, Sanders had a more favorable view among those who responded than the others who were in the list.
They added the percentage who had a strongly favorable view, plus those who had a somewhat favorable view which were counted all as favorable.
I would ask, what does "somewhat favorable" actually mean? I think it would mean different things to different people. In the same regard what does "somewhat unfavorable" mean?
Is this like being a little bit pregnant? I am not sure
Here is the breakdown adding both strongly favorable and somewhat favorable to the favorable results:
Bernie 61%
PP 57%
ACA 50%
Pence 47%
Trump 44%
Elizabeth Warren 39%
Paul Ryan 37%
Nancy Pelosi 33%
Sanctuary Cities 33%
WikiLeaks 31%
Chuck Schumer 26%
Mitch McConnel 26%
The Freedom Caucus 19%
As I said they included as favorable those who were both strongly favorable and somewhat favorable
If you only take the percent that were Strongly Favorable, the numbers are as follows:
Bernie 33%
PP 39%
ACA 26%
Pence 30%
Trump 30%
Elizabeth Warren 24%
Paul Ryan 13%
Nancy Pelosi 13%
Sanctuary cities 19%
WikiLeaks 11%
Chuck Schumer 11%
Mitch McConnell 35
The Freedom Caucus 6%
This shows Sanders, Pence, and Trump all have essentially the same strongly favorable ratings within the margin of error"
Bernie: 33%
Pence: 30%
Trump: 30%
I wonder what the results would be if Putin was included?
www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2017/03/15/fox-news-poll-315/