The politifact article includes links to Fox News & HuffPo polls, in addition to the Harvard-Harris poll. All have Sanders with the highest approval rating among current US politicians. That’s three, how many do you want exactly?
Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk
Also, why wouldn’t Conway & Bannon be included in polls about influential politicians & party leaders? As disgusting as it is to admit, these are 2 of the most powerful people in the country right now.
Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk
http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating
Here. Compare that to other politicians, who are lucky to break 40% approval usually.
Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk
It’s interesting to see the steady climb of that trendline. If that keeps up, perhaps Sanders really is the front-runner.
Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk
He also polls higher than the Democratic party by about 20 points.
Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk
…the Fox News poll and the Huffington Post polls didn’t measure popularity, they measured favorability. There is a difference. As politico states:
“The polls don’t specifically ask respondents for their favorite politician – they provide a limited list of political figures and ask respondents whether they have a favorable or unfavorable opinion of each one.”
Despite the opinion of the Politco writer I don’t think the polls show Bernie is the most most popular politician in the US. They show that people view him more favourably than other people on the list.
Favorability. Not popularity.
Ok. So only polls that specifically ask “Who is your one true favorite politician?” count? I’m tired & don’t want to keep googling for polls. And ultimately, it’s a distinction that doesn’t hold much value. Among the various pond scum in DC, Sanders alone somehow has eked out a net positive approval rating. That’s something.
Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk
…if you want to assert that Bernie is the most popular politician in America, then yes I think actually asking that question is important.
Trump also managed to eked out a net positive approval rating. He managed to get himself elected President of the United States of America. Thats something else entirely.
That would be a strange poll. Many people would just name their own House Rep, Senator, Governor, Mayor, etc. Others would just go with whoever has has the most name recognition. I’d answer Seth Moulton, who most of the country hasn’t even heard of.
The Favorable/Unfavorable polls of US politicians are just how it’s done. Favorablty is a decent metric for measuring popularity. Is there even a pollster that simply asks “Who is your one true favorite politician?”
Sent from my R1 HD using Tapatalk
…and how exactly do you think Bernie ended up topping the favorability stakes in this current round of polling? Do you not think name recognition played a part?
Yes it is. But it doesn’t measure what you claim it does.
I disagree.
If they wanted to find out who people consider their “one true favourite politcian” was, then that would be the question to ask.
It’s ridiculous to think of a 2020 front runner in the middle of 2017. But, there is no way Sanders runs again. He truly pissed off his Senate colleagues with his insistence on dragging out the primaries and his refusal to concede until the convention. Sanders kept his secret service protection which enraged his fellow Senators. His Hamlet attitude and vague semi endorsement didn’t help at all. The behavior of his Bernie Bros at the convention are yet another reason that there will be massive negative data dumps about Bernie should he even seem remotely interested in running again.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Sure, to the extent that there’s a frontrunner in 2017, it’s him. I’m not saying he’s likely to be the nominee, just that he’s more likely than anyone else at this point. And I’m not exactly the greatest fan of him or his diehard supporters, but the idea that he’s a pariah among Democrats because of what happened in 2016 seems like motivated reasoning.
Bernie’s popular because his supporters still support him, and because Hillary supporters have discovered that she couldn’t beat Trump. And because the campaign is over, and Hillary has lost popularity because she lost the campaign.
Of course the last time we had a campaign for President, to the extent that charisma matters, Bernie lost to one of the least charismatic candidates they could find, and to the extent that policy matters, Bernie lost to a mainstream Democratic candidate with mainstream policies (mostly). Who then lost to an even less charismatic candidate, with even less mainstream policies (somewhat).
So Bernie loses to Hillary, and Hillary loses to Trump. And for some reason that makes Bernie the front-runner. Because he is less appealing, both in policy and in personality, than Hillary.
It looks to me like the Dems are laying the foundation for losing to Trump again.
Regards,
Shodan
nm
Right. It’s just like in 1976, when Reagan lost to Ford, then Ford lost to Carter, and nobody ever heard from that loser Reagan again, while Carter went on to two terms of universal acclaim.
Trump has never had a positive net approval rating in his life. He is currently at about- 16. Really, the more you post in this thread, the more you reveal that you have no business doing so.
Obviously, there’s not a direct correlation between net approval rating and winning elections. Bernie had a higher NAR than Hillary, but Hillary won because she did better among that large group of Democrats who viewed BOTH of them favorably. Then Hillary had a higher NAR than Trump, but lost because Trump won the group of voters who disliked BOTH of them.
So his 80% approval rating among Democrats doesn’t mean that he is a cinch to win the nomination, but it does conclusively rebut the assertion that there is “too much animosity” toward him among the Party base for him to be a strong candidate.
NAR is a much more sensible way to assess electability than asking “who is your very favorite politician”, because voters don’t just pick a single candidate and stick with him or her no matter what, they choose from among the pool of acceptable candidates and often switch depending on how the campaign is going.
Last point, of course Bernie does well in those polls partly because he has high name recognition. Why do you imply that that somehow invalidates the polls? The steps to winning elections are getting people to recognize your name, getting them to like you, then getting them to actually vote for you. Why would you not think that a candidate who has already successfully completed the first two steps has a huge advantage over one who hasn’t?!
Of course, Reagan really did mount a strong challenge to incumbent President Ford. Shitbag Sanders got his ass whipped in the 2016 primaries but refused to exit gracefully like an obnoxious guest who refuses to accept that the party is over.
The Democratic leadership is at a low tide, and the DNC, rotten to the core.
Sanders is their #1 guy for now, but like you said he will be 79 years old by 2020.
That’s too old for a first term president.
If the Democrats are smart, they would choose Al Senator Franken. He’s 66 now, from the Mid West, pretty smart, and I think well liked. Probably the best they have to win the new Red States of MI, WI and PA.
The fringe types who control the party however would need to embrace him.
I love the idea of Al Franken. Maybe Bernie could be his running mate to bring in some of those in his base who would otherwise refuse to vote or vote Green.
Yeah, but then you lose out on bumper stickers that read FRANKEN/STEIN.