Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, March 17, 2017

On Wednesday, Fox News released a poll revealing the most popular things in American politics. The poll, conducted among 1,008 registered voters between March 12 and 14, found that Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and Planned Parenthood boast higher favorability ratings than any other people or groups in American politics.

The poll shows that 61% of polled Americans either "strongly" or "somewhat" favor Sanders, and 57% of polled Americans either "strongly" or "somewhat" favor Planned Parenthood.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

To put things into perspective, Sanders's favorability rating is 29 points higher than unfavorable ratings of him, and Planned Parenthood's favorability rating is 25 points higher than unfavorable ratings of the organization. Meanwhile, President Donald Trump's favorability rating (44%) is a whole 9 points lower than his unfavorable ratings, House Speaker Paul Ryan's favorability rating (37%) is 10 points lower than his unfavorable ratings, and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's favorability rating (20%) is 24 points lower than his unfavorable ratings.

The Fox poll found that the Affordable Care Act's favorability ratings (50%) exceeded its unfavorable ratings by 3 points, but also, recent polling from 2016 found universal healthcare, which Sanders was the only presidential candidate to promise in his platform, boasts a favorability rating of 58%. Throughout his campaign, Sanders also fought for environmental justice, tuition-free public college, immigration reform, and many other progressive policies directly opposed by the Trump administration and the Republican Congress.

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

YES!!!

#1 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-03-17 01:24 AM | Reply

But its #HerTurn...

#2 | Posted by aescal at 2017-03-17 01:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

We must turn further to the right!

The DNC

#3 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-03-17 01:55 AM | Reply

Her campaign beat his at the polls in a 4 million vote landslide, not a turn, a win. And not because of some snarky campaign emails, either.

The more people see Emperor Trump's new clothes becoming invisible, the better other people... and more importantly their polices, look.

Clinton beat Trump by 3 million votes, just not in angry white redneck land.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2017-03-17 02:03 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

4 | Posted by Corky at 2017-03-17 02:03 AM

And now hillary is the most popular politician today in CORKY land

#5 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-03-17 02:19 AM | Reply

So there! - Paunches Possum

Good argument, I guess.

#6 | Posted by Corky at 2017-03-17 02:30 AM | Reply

6 | Posted by Corky at 2017-03-17 02:30 AM |

You have been posting over and over again how liberals or lefties can not win but here the most popular politician in the US is a lefty.

Yes when most of the nation did not know who Bernie Sanders was and the DNC was cheating for hillary, hillary won the Dems ticket.

But today a out right lefty is the most popular politician which shows liberals and lefties can win as long as they show they give a damn about the shrinking middle class and the poor

#7 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-03-17 02:45 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

The most popular politician in America is a socialist. That says it all.

#8 | Posted by squinch at 2017-03-17 05:13 AM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 3

This entire blight on the world of Trump could have been relegated to the dustbin of history if the DNC had allowed for a fair and open primary process.

#9 | Posted by 726 at 2017-03-17 07:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 4

Most popular politician in the country? Rightly so! We need someone who represents us. My only complaint about Bernie is that I wish he were 35 years old.

#10 | Posted by danni at 2017-03-17 08:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Advertisement

Advertisement

#7

He was really popular when he lost the Dem primary in a landslide, too.

But like I said, the bright side is that Trump is less popular.

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2017-03-17 12:36 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

#4 | POSTED BY CORKY

Everyone loves Bernie Sanders. Except, it seems, the Democratic party (...and Corky)- www.theguardian.com

Only a sociopath wouldn't feel guilt after polls accurately predicted she couldn't win and yet pushing her anyways, with help from DWS, MSM, and Krugman.

#12 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-17 01:21 PM | Reply

Sociopathic sheep, rofl!

-polls accurately predicted she couldn't win

Among the thousands of really stupid things you've said around here, that has to be near the top.

She won the popular vote, dummy. She could have won the electoral college but didn't.

In part because idiots like you refused to listen the guy you say you love.

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2017-03-17 01:34 PM | Reply

just not in angry white redneck land.

#4 | Posted by Corky at 2017-03-17 02:03 AM | Reply | Flag:

aka, the part of the country Your Heinous couldn't condescend to bother with

it is fitting that your attitude is unwittingly embelematic of the main reason why she lost

#14 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-17 02:21 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

- unwittingly

Your constant state of mind, lmao.

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2017-03-17 02:26 PM | Reply

Her campaign beat his at the polls in a 4 million vote landslide, not a turn, a win. And not because of some snarky campaign emails, either.
- Corky

Blah, blah, blah. As primary voters we were told the super delegates already pledged to the frog Queen would not be given to Sanders even if he won. Why even go to the ------- polls? But you know this and you also know that Donald Trump beat her because she was shoved down our throats. Lol 4million landslide???? You and "dems-da-rules" Doc knew about the EC, right?

#17 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 03:42 PM | Reply

"As primary voters we were told the super delegates already pledged to the frog Queen would not be given to Sanders even if he won." - #17 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 03:42 PM

When were we told that?

#18 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 03:44 PM | Reply | Funny: 4

In the primaries

#19 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 03:46 PM | Reply

"In the primaries" - #19 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 03:46 PM

That's hardly a citation.

When were we told "the super delegates already pledged to the frog Queen would not be given to Sanders even if he won"?

#20 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 03:48 PM | Reply

Hans asking for a citation for something that happened less than a year ago. LOL

If you don't remember that, you're not qualified to participate in the discussion.

#21 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-17 03:56 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

"Hans asking for a citation for something that happened less than a year ago." - #21 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-17 03:56 PM

No one ever said that Superdelegates pledged to Secretary Clinton "would not be given to (Senator) Sanders even if he won."

Figures you'd support a lie.

#22 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 04:01 PM | Reply

No one ever said that Superdelegates pledged to Secretary Clinton "would not be given to (Senator) Sanders even if he won."

Figures you'd support a lie.

#22 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 04:01 PM | Reply | Flag:

Any simple Google search reveals many articles referring to superdelegates that were pre-pledged to Hillary.

You're an unintelligent, amoral liar.

#23 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-17 04:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Any simple Google search reveals many articles referring to superdelegates that were pre-pledged to Hillary." - #23 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-17 04:14 PM

But none proving that someone said that Superdelegates pledged to Secretary Clinton "would not be given to (Senator) Sanders even if he won."

None whatsoever, unintelligent, amoral liar.

#24 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 04:20 PM | Reply

#23

That's how the Rodhamsters roll.

#25 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 04:20 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"That's how the Rodhamsters roll." - #25 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 04:20 PM

Make an unsubstantiated lie, resort to name calling.

Quelle surprise.

#26 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 04:23 PM | Reply

#25 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 04:20 PM

When were we told that Superdelegates pledged to Secretary Clinton "would not be given to (Senator) Sanders even if he won"?

Or do you just prefer to live with your lie?

#27 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 04:24 PM | Reply

"the media has consistently reported on Hillary Clinton's efforts to reach out to Sanders voters; the media is unable to provide any example of this happening other than Clinton gamely refusing to call for her opponent's concession a month earlier than she conceded in 2008; Clinton's camp in fact said it planned to "disqualify" Sanders from the presidency, that his campaign was "destructive", that he could go "---- himself", and that its most likely VP nominee was a moderate with no ties to the progressive movement whatsoever"

www.huffingtonpost.com

That's the Hillary Clinton you fools followed off a cliff.

#28 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 04:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#28 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 04:31 PM

Where's the citation that Superdelegates pledged to Secretary Clinton "would not be given to (Senator) Sanders even if he won"?

Or do you just prefer to live with your lie?

#29 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 04:32 PM | Reply

Clinton has received 3,932,305 votes or 60.7 percent of the total votes cast thus far. Sanders earned 2,541,444 votes or 39.3 percent of the total vote. The division of state awarded delegates roughly reflects the vote total. Clinton got 59.4 percent of them and Sanders 40.6 percent. The rules at this level slightly favor Sanders.

Both Clinton and Sanders have access to the delegate rules and both knew about super-delegates when they decided to run. Both adopted a strategy to recruit super-delegates to their side. Both are very experienced politicians and both know how the nomination process works.

Source (posted March 5, 2016)

#30 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 04:39 PM | Reply

Where's the citation that Superdelegates pledged to Secretary Clinton "would not be given to (Senator) Sanders even if he won"?
Or do you just prefer to live with your lie?
#29 | POSTED BY HANS

Here's just one example.

www.studentnewsdaily.com

Even if opponent Bernie Sanders were to win the April 19 New York presidential primary, when a whopping 247 delegates are at stake, every single New York superdelegate reached by the Daily News said they would never back the Vermont senator.

"Absolutely not," Elizabeth Stanley, the chief of staff for Westchester County Rep. Nita Lowey, told the Daily News when asked if she could see "any potential situation at all" resulting in her boss switching her support from Clinton to Sanders.

"Hillary Clinton is Congresswoman Lowey's friend, colleague and her constituent, and she is behind her 100%," Stanley added.

"I would not under any circumstances switch my allegiance from Secretary Clinton to Senator Sanders," Queens Congressman Gregory Meeks said.

You owe somebody an apology.

#31 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-17 04:40 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

In one email Chief Financial Officer Brad Marshall asks if someone can confront a person (who is unnamed in the email) and "ask his belief" in an apparent attempt to reveal if Sanders is an atheist to hurt him with with religious voters in the South.

"It might may no difference, but for KY and WVA can we get someone to >>ask his belief. Does he believe in a God. He had skated on saying he >>has a Jewish heritage. I think I read he is an atheist. This could >>make several points difference with my peeps. My Southern Baptist peeps >>would draw a big difference between a Jew and an atheist."

www.usatoday.com

Here's another look at how rotten she is.

By the way, "fool isn't name calling. You were foolish in supporting Clinton. If I called you in paticular a dumbass, that would be name calling. And when is the last time you called out one of your snowflakes on the ugly name calling?

#32 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 04:44 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Here's just one example." - #31 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-17 04:40 PM

There were 712 superdelegates.

Each one independently chose who they individually wanted to support.

Your link was titled "Some superdelegates vow to back Clinton even if Sanders wins NY primary.

That hardly supports the lie that Superdelegates pledged to Secretary Clinton "would not be given to (Senator) Sanders even if he won."

Your apology is accepted, SheepleSchism

#33 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 04:49 PM | Reply

"Here's another look at how rotten she is." - #32 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 04:44 PM

So?

Where's the citation that Superdelegates pledged to Secretary Clinton "would not be given to (Senator) Sanders even if he won"?

Or do you just prefer to live with your lie?

#34 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 04:50 PM | Reply

LOL

#35 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-17 04:50 PM | Reply

"LOL" - #35 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-17 04:50 PM

Pithy /snark

#36 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 04:52 PM | Reply

#31 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-03-17 04:40 PM | Reply | Flag:

Now he has a link.

But you have to wonder if this genius ever understood what a pledged superdelegate is in the first place.

A superdelegate is a deledates whose vote is not tied to polling results.

A pledge is a promise.

A pledged superdeegate by definition is someone who promise to vote for a given candidate regardless of polling results.

His entire argument is based on either real or feigned ignorance of events that happened less than a year ago and a real or feigned inability to understand the very basics of what a superdelegate is and how their votes are assigned.

#37 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-17 04:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Hans, Corky, you seriously need to listen to 726 in #9.

#38 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 04:54 PM | Reply

Or do you just prefer to live with your lie?

#34 | POSTED BY HANS AT 2017-03-17 04:50 PM | FLAG:

You're pitiful.

#39 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 04:55 PM | Reply

"Here's another look at how rotten she is." - #32 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 04:44 PM
So?
Where's the citation that Superdelegates pledged to Secretary Clinton "would not be given to (Senator) Sanders even if he won"?

Now Hans is ok with religious bigotry inside the party leadership. Not only that but Hans is ok with not having a fair election within the party.

#40 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 04:59 PM | Reply

"Now Hans is ok with religious bigotry inside the party leadership." - #40 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 04:59 PM

Moving the goal posts because you cannot provide the citation that Superdelegates pledged to Secretary Clinton "would not be given to (Senator) Sanders even if he won"?

Do you just prefer to live with your lie?

#41 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 05:01 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Ok. Wait right here. I almost have it...

#42 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 05:02 PM | Reply

"Now he has a link." - #37 | Posted by Sully at 2017-03-17 04:53 PM

Nope.

That link, such as it is, does nothing to provide a citation that Superdelegates pledged to Secretary Clinton "would not be given to (Senator) Sanders even if he won."

Not at all.

#43 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 05:02 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

"You're pitiful." - #39 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 04:55 PM

You're a liar.

Your turn.

#44 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 05:03 PM | Reply

"...if the DNC had allowed for a fair and open primary process." - #9 | Posted by 726 at 2017-03-17 07:18 AM

I'm not sure what that means, 726.

But, if what you're saying is that with a "fair and open primary process," Senator Sanders would have been the nominee, then I'll present you with this challenge:

This is a link to the 2016 primary and caucus results, including the proportional allocation of pledged delegates (list here).

If you believe that Senator Sanders would have won in a "fair and open primary process," then you should be able to provide a list of the primaries and caususes that Senator Sanders would have won with such a process along with the change in the pledged delegates that would have given him the nomination.

#45 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 05:08 PM | Reply

Hans, I don't think 726 was saying Sanders would have won. More like it would have removed doubt. But as it stands, what the DNC was doing was shady af. And it doesn't matter if you choose to believe it or not, she didn't appear trustworthy in every poll I saw.

#46 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 05:15 PM | Reply

"I don't think 726 was saying Sanders would have won. More like it would have removed doubt." - #46 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 05:15 PM

You're most likely right about that, lfthndthrds.

"...she didn't appear trustworthy in every poll I saw."

If You're Liberal and You Think Hillary Clinton Is Corrupt and Untrustworthy, You're Rewarding 25 Years of GOP Smears

Obviously, Clinton carries with her more than 25 years in the white-hot public spotlight that Sanders doesn't -- despite his career in the Senate -- and over that length of time people have been able to form opinions of her and they're ones not likely to change at this point. What you know about Hillary is what you know about Hillary. There aren't a lot of surprises. Maybe you figure this is bad for her, but in truth it can be argued that this is a positive rather than a negative because there's nothing the Republicans can throw at her that we haven't already been fed to death. And when you take a step back and look at Clinton objectively -- which is admittedly difficult for many, even, or maybe particularly, on the left -- that's exactly the point. Hillary Clinton's reputation is largely the result of a quarter century of visceral GOP hatred.

#47 | Posted by Hans at 2017-03-17 05:21 PM | Reply

My comment had nothing to do with 25 years of smears.

#48 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 05:28 PM | Reply

As primary voters we were told the super delegates already pledged to the frog Queen would not be given to Sanders even if he won.

This is complete BS. Anybody who knows anything about superdelegates knows that they can change their vote.

Just because some BernieBro claimed they wouldn't move to Sanders doesn't make it true.

#49 | Posted by rcade at 2017-03-17 06:40 PM | Reply

^ there's a can and a won't. You know the difference. I guess you missed the superdelegates that publicly admitted they would not vote for Bernie even if he won the popular. Your statement is disingenuous.

#50 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-17 06:57 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

After Bernie won WA state the super delegates in Wa state refused to back Bernie Sanders and voted for hillary

#51 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-03-17 11:11 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

I guess you missed the superdelegates that publicly admitted they would not vote for Bernie even if he won the popular.

I guess you missed the ones who said they wouldn't vote for Hillary and the electors who said the same.

That doesn't prove your point. It proves mine. Superdelegates can do what they want. Most of them are elected officials and party organizers, and those people typically end up moving to the leader at the end of a primary.

Superdelegates don't matter one-fifth as much as you think they do. Bernie lost the pledged delegates by a bigger margin than Hillary did in 2008. He didn't lose because of unfairness or superdelegates. He lost because he didn't build a winning coalition. His appeal to black Democrats and older women wasn't strong enough to overcome Hillary's 25 years of building support in the party.

#52 | Posted by rcade at 2017-03-18 09:22 AM | Reply

"He lost because he didn't build a winning coalition"

He lost because he didn't have DWS on payroll. There, I FIFY.

#54 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-18 10:03 AM | Reply

"Superdelegates can do what they want"

Sure they can. "Dems da rules" Doc explained that many times.

Refresh us again on "proximity of cows"

#55 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-18 10:07 AM | Reply

Refresh us again on "proximity of cows"

When the electoral cows are in the north 40 or south 40 you better gather them or lose the electoral.

#56 | Posted by Crassus at 2017-03-18 10:10 AM | Reply

He lost because he didn't have DWS on payroll.

Stop making excuses. He lost because Hillary had 25 years of party-building to her name while he wasn't even a Democrat. He's not a Democrat today, either. He broke his promise and quit the party after the election was over.

A lot of Democrats are going to be a hard sell when a non-Democrat jumps into the party just for a primary.

If Sanders had joined the Democrats four or eight years earlier and showed up across the nation helping Democrats win and supporting party causes, that might have shifted the 10% of the vote he needed to win the primary.

His support was largely young people and old white liberals and he was strongest in caucus states which exclude a lot of voters who don't want to participate in a multi-hour process just to vote. Winning in Vermont -- a state with the population of Oklahoma City -- is weak preparation for how to win across the entire U.S.

If he was 10 years younger I'd think him the front-runner in 2020 if he had stayed in the party. Unfortunately I think he is as over as Hillary as far as the presidency goes.

#57 | Posted by rcade at 2017-03-18 10:22 AM | Reply

He lost because he didn't have DWS on payroll. There, I FIFY.

#54 | Posted by lfthndthrds at 2017-03-18 10:03 AM | Reply | Flag

Democrats don't want the truth told to them. Sadly that's apparent in this thread.

#58 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-03-18 10:59 AM | Reply

People who bash Democrats constantly, like you do, are not going to be taken seriously when they tell us what we should do in our primary.

You're an angry outsider, not an actual Democrat. You clearly have nothing invested in the success of the party and a lot invested in its failure.

#59 | Posted by rcade at 2017-03-18 11:23 AM | Reply

Puhlease people like me condemn the Democratic party because they have forgotten who they are supposed to represent (The little guy) not some rich elite in a mega mansion. We are deeply ashamed about where the Democratic party is headed.

www.salon.com

The Democrats have no soul: The Clintons, neoliberalism, and how the "people's party" lost its way
Republicans never had one. That makes Democrats' betrayals, deceit and crisis of legitimacy that much more serious
Anis Shivani S

#60 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-03-18 11:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

www.politico.com

Democrats in the Wilderness

Inside a decimated party's not-so-certain revival strategy.

By Edward-Isaac Dovere

January/February 2017

What happened the next night shocked even the most pessimistic Democrats. But in another sense, it was the reckoning the party had been expecting for years. They were counting on a Clinton win to paper over a deeper rot they've been worrying about -- and to buy them some time to start coming up with answers. In other words, it wasn't just Donald Trump. Or the Russians. Or James Comey. Or all the problems with how Clinton and her aides ran the campaign. Win or lose, Democrats were facing an existential crisis in the years ahead -- the result of years of complacency, ignoring the withering of the grass roots and the state parties, sitting by as Republicans racked up local win after local win.

"The patient," says Colorado Governor John Hickenlooper, "was clearly already sick."

#61 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-03-18 11:33 AM | Reply

None of your links counter my point. You bash Democrats constantly. Everything we do is more fodder for your attacks, because your mind is closed.

Because you only engage in attacks, you are irrelevant to those of us who belong to the Democratic Party and work towards its future success.

#62 | Posted by rcade at 2017-03-18 11:41 AM | Reply

Because you only engage in attacks, you are irrelevant to those of us who belong to the Democratic Party and work towards its future success.

Posted by rcade at 2017-03-18 11:41 AM | Reply

You can't work towards its success until You acknowledge why it lost and lost it's way. Until then blame me for pointing it out and for voting third party.

#63 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-03-18 11:47 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

As a lifelong Democrat, I don't need to hear from Democrat haters on how my party should be run. The advice is offered in bad faith.

I'm happy to hear from Democrats and independents whose minds are open.

#64 | Posted by rcade at 2017-03-18 11:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Continue to lose that is your right to do.

#65 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2017-03-18 11:52 AM | Reply

The Democrats won't "continue to lose" because we ignore people who hate the party and have nothing to offer towards its success.

#66 | Posted by rcade at 2017-03-18 12:01 PM | Reply

Dem tensions flare as superdelegates flock to Clinton, even in states Sanders won

#67 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-03-18 10:58 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You clearly have nothing invested in the success of the party and a lot invested in its failure.

#59 | Posted by rcade

Perhaps you need to consider what the party has invested in our nations success, or the success of the average American. Seems lately like both major parties are mostly concerned about holding their own power and helping their major donors.

#68 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-03-18 11:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2017 World Readable

Drudge Retort