Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, April 21, 2017

Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders (I) is the country's most popular active politician, underscoring his importance to the Democratic Party as it seeks to rebuild in the wake of a disastrous 2016 election cycle. Sanders is viewed favorably by 57 percent of registered voters, according to data from a Harvard-Harris survey provided exclusively to The Hill. Sanders is the only person in a field of 16 Trump administration officials or congressional leaders included in the survey who is viewed favorably by a majority of those polled. White House chief strategist Stephen Bannon is far and away the least popular political figure in the poll, with only 16 percent viewing him favorably, compared with 45 percent having a negative view of him.

Advertisement

Advertisement

More

Alternate links: Google News | Twitter

Only 32 percent have a negative view of Sanders, including nearly two-thirds of Republicans.

Besides Republicans, though, Sanders is popular among broad swaths of the registered voting population.

Those figures could buoy a potential 2020 presidential run. Sanders, who would be 79 on Election Day in 2020, hasn't ruled out another bid.

Among registered voters, fifty-eight percent of women view Sanders favorably, as do 55 percent of men. He is most popular among people aged 18 to 34, who give him a 62 percent approval rating. Sanders also has majority support among those over the age of 50.

Comments

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

WHOOPS i FORGOT TO ADD THIS!

"Sanders is viewed favorably by 80 percent of registered Democrats,"

#1 | Posted by PunchyPossum at 2017-04-19 11:18 PM | Reply

He would have kicked little d's ass.

#2 | Posted by 726 at 2017-04-20 01:46 PM | Reply

When Bernie Sanders comes up for discussion here, it's common for Hillary Clinton voters to be told that we have to be more welcoming to his supporters or the Democratic Party will fail.

But isn't the opposite true?

Hillary is old news. Nobody is talking about her as the future of the party.

Bernie is enormously popular. His movement has inherited the party and is growing. The DNC passed his reforms. The new leader cleaned house and often appears together with Bernie.

So the issue now becomes whether his side is welcoming to the rest of us. The Bernie left is no more entitled to our votes than the Hillary center-left was entitled to theirs in 2016.

Let the welcoming begin! My first demand is a smart pantsuit.

#3 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-21 10:08 AM | Reply

What are the key ideals/policies that Hillary represented that Bernie must incorporate into his platform in order to woo Hillary supporters?

#4 | Posted by Sully at 2017-04-21 10:27 AM | Reply

One thing he could have done is support Ossoff, instead of saying after the vote that he doesn't know if he's a progressive.

For him to question Ossoff's progressivism while at the same time campaigning for an anti-abortion Democrat is pretty appalling.

Another thing he could do is un-break his promise and be a Democrat. He will always be a tough sell to some longtime Democrats while he refuses to belong to the party. When you take an organization over it's a good idea to be an actual part of it.

#5 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-21 10:36 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Welcoming of HRC voters? Sure. Absolutely. Welcoming of HRC's corporatist policies and uber Wall Street elites outlook? No way. Mega-money global interests found a very willing accomplice in HRC. They seemingly took over the DNC and colluded with her campaign to annoint her the candidate. For many of us, the DNC is currently on a form of probation. Prove to us that you will be more than a backroom advocate for the big money players.

#6 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-04-21 10:50 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's amazing how little common sense so many people have. OF COURSE someone who gets in front of people and says he will give theme everything for free and they never have to work a day of their life is going to be the most popular. Luckily there are still enough smart people to know that isn't possible. Sure, the Rep leaders who think we should be bowing down to every rich person is terrible...but that isn't anywhere near as bad as promising a free ride of life. I'd actually really love to be at an IQ that would be gullible enough to fall support Bernie; life would me so much easier to not have to think about responsibilities and actual real world matters.

#7 | Posted by humtake at 2017-04-21 11:16 AM | Reply

So the issue Hillary supporters would have with him is party loyalty.

No secret that I view party loyalty as a negative. But that seems like a relatively easy fix for him, assuming he wants to run for president again.

If he's not going to run again (at his age he probably shouldn't), then there is really little reason for him to worry too much about all this anyway. I think how much he really wants the party to succeed is largely dependent on what policies it is pushing.

#8 | Posted by Sully at 2017-04-21 11:22 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Humtake, you do not understand the liberal mentality. We are not asking for "free things" from the government. If anything, for many of us have a liberal leadership will cost us a little bit more money in taxes. It is only in the right wing mentality where it is assumed that everyone is just out for themselves and trying to get as much as they can while the getting is good. For most liberals such as myself, I am willing to pay a little more in taxes to have a more just and egalitarian society. I am willing to pay more in taxes if it means ALL my neighbors geta access to quality healthcare and higher education regardless of their income bracket. I realize that it is a foreign concept to all the "me first" Republicans. But that is generous and help-your-neighbor mind set of most liberals.

#9 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-04-21 11:58 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

OF COURSE someone who gets in front of people and says he will give theme everything for free and they never have to work a day of their life is going to be the most popular.

#7 | Posted by humtake at 2017-04-21 11:16 AM | Reply

Considering that everyone here knows that nobody has actually ever said this, I don't understand your thinking in premising an entire post around this lie.

#10 | Posted by sully at 2017-04-21 12:27 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

Welcoming of HRC's corporatist policies and uber Wall Street elites outlook? No way.

Hillary is over. No one is asking you to welcome Hillary.

At some point you need to recognize that the current DNC is not Hillary. It's Bernie. His people enacted reforms. He is working with the DNC these days, not her.

#11 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-21 12:32 PM | Reply

But that seems like a relatively easy fix for him, assuming he wants to run for president again.

It was an easy fix before he broke his promise and switched back to independent.

Now it's not an easy fix. If he rejoins the Democrats in 2019 it'll look like a ploy, not a genuine move.

Bernie's a great politician but he can be stupid sometimes. This too-cool-for-school thing where he is a Democrat only to run in a primary doesn't work.

#12 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-21 12:34 PM | Reply

Bernie's a great politician but he can be stupid sometimes. This too-cool-for-school thing where he is a Democrat only to run in a primary doesn't work.

#12 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-21 12:34 PM | Reply | Flag:

It works to some extent as his popularity proves. But you're right in the sense that he has an awful lot to say about the future of the Democratic Party and he really shouldn't if he's not a member.

I'd like to see him use his newfound influence to push individual policies rather than trying to influence the direction of a party.

#13 | Posted by Sully at 2017-04-21 12:52 PM | Reply

Bernie's own campaign managers said that his original campaign was built as a protest movement not meant to win the campaign, but to influence the outcome and build liberal support.... which is why, they said, that it featured vague policy positions and fuzzy math on some of those positions, over-promising at nearly every turn in their rhetoric as if there would be no GOP limitations on legislation they could pass.

Clinton's positions were moderate and intended to be realistic, doable goals even against massive GOP resistance.

Bernie, did, surprisingly enough to me, renege on his promise to stay in the Dem party after his election. But that's neither here nor there. These polls reflect a certain Buyers Remorse among Republicans towards Trump, and an outright disbelief among low-info voters that they wound up with him.

Which prolly a good thing.

#14 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-21 12:59 PM | Reply

after the election

#15 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-21 01:00 PM | Reply

I don't think it is entirely fair to talk about Bernie going back on his promise without acknowledging that the DNC did him dirty first. I think most people would agree that conspiring to screw him over kind of negates any promises he made to them.

#16 | Posted by Sully at 2017-04-21 01:16 PM | Reply

I don't think it is entirely fair to talk about Bernie going back on his promise without acknowledging that the DNC did him dirty first.

Bernie has never said that had anything to do with his decision to go back to I.

Instead, he has devoted his time to remaking the Democratic Party as the vehicle for saving America.

If he was angry at the Democrats because of minor DNC scandals revealed by Putin's puppet Assange at Wikileaks, he has never said this.

Face it: He needs the Democratic Party and the DNC is a part of that party. It has cleaned house and is a reflection of what he wants far more than what other factions want.

For him to hold a grudge against the DNC now wouldn't make a lick of sense. It's a tool for his agenda.

#17 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-21 01:27 PM | Reply

Every time I hear about 'the Party' the way Hillary supporters speak of it, I get this image in my head of goose steppers in brown shirts. Considering that independents and uncommitted voters outnumber the count of either major party, I think the importance of party over ideas is way over played.

Sully said it well in #8.

#18 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-04-21 01:51 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Bernie has never said that had anything to do with his decision to go back to I."

Why should he have to? It is common sense that the can't be expected to hold up his end of the bargain after they conspired against him. How he found out doesn't matter.

I agree with you with that if he has goals that are tied to the Democratic Party, he should be a member.

I just find it unfair to claim he failed to live up to a promise as if he was still obligated to do so after it was revealed that the party was not meeting its obligation to him.

#19 | Posted by Sully at 2017-04-21 01:53 PM | Reply

Most Popular: Bernie; Least Popular: Bannon

Yet the DNC chooses an establishment corporate guy to head them, proving they still don't get it, which means they'll keep losing.

The right embraced their base and won. The left rejected theirs and lost.

#20 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-04-21 01:57 PM | Reply

Rcade, I don't fully yet buy that the DNC has cleaned house. Not by a long shot. The jury is still out. Consider the attached opinion piece from soon after Perez was chosen as the new Party chief. Many of the big money elites are still fighting Sanders tooth and nail to maintain control of the DNC.

www.politico.com

#21 | Posted by moder8 at 2017-04-21 01:59 PM | Reply

- I get this image in my head of goose steppers in brown shirts.

Perhaps you should get the image of the only people who had a legit chance to stand between you and Trump as President.

Libs have slowly moved up to 25 percent of the electorate, a good thing, but rwingers are at 36. As long as that is the case, libs need a substantial amount of moderate voters to even have a chance.

Purity Pony Mounties are not enough.

#22 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-21 02:05 PM | Reply

libs need a substantial amount of moderate voters to even have a chance.

#22 | Posted by Corky

Said clinton supporters in 2016...

Not like you should learn from your mistakes or anything.

#23 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-04-21 02:14 PM | Reply

-learn from your mistakes

Bernie learned from his, too bad some of his supporters are not as bright. It's the math, stupid.

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-21 02:16 PM | Reply

Every time I hear about 'the Party' the way Hillary supporters speak of it, I get this image in my head of goose steppers in brown shirts.

Classy. ---- you too in the --- with a --- --- -----.

Considering that independents and uncommitted voters outnumber the count of either major party, I think the importance of party over ideas is way over played.

They outnumber party members but their influence is completely non-existent without the two major parties.

Most independents always back the same party when they vote, so they aren't genuinely independent. They just like the pretense of not claiming party membership.

#25 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-21 02:19 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Yet the DNC chooses an establishment corporate guy to head them, proving they still don't get it, which means they'll keep losing.

This is absurd.

Tom Perez is no more or less establishment than Bernie Sanders' choice Keith Ellison. Ellison is deputy DNC chair and both he and Sanders are outspoken, enthusiastic supporters of Perez running the party.

There's no such thing as an anti-establishment DNC or RNC leader. Heading a party requires organizational chops, the personality to build bridges across the entire party and the ability to raise lots of money to get people elected.

You make it sound like there's a person who could do these things while always sticking it The Man.

Such a beast does not exist. We could try to create one in the lab by combining parts of Michael Steele and Nullifidian, but the result would slouch towards Bethlehem.

#26 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-21 02:26 PM | Reply

Perhaps you should get the image of the only people who had a legit chance to stand between you and Trump as President.

#22 | POSTED BY CORKY

No matter what I did, Hillary won my state. How did Florida do? I think there's a great chance Sanders would have won both, my state and Florida. And very likely would have won MI, PA and OH as well.

Regardless of any of that, you need to get over it, Corky. You need to move past it and help figure out what it will take to get a progressive into the WH next time. Letting the plutocrats control the Party isn't the answer.

#24

Obviously the Hillary supporters have learned absolutely nothing.

#27 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-04-21 02:27 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#25 | POSTED BY RCADE

I shouldn't of singled out Hillary voters with that statement. It was really directed a partisans in general.

And sorry, boss. But if independents have so little influence, why are they taking all the heat from the likes of you and Corky, for Hillary's loss?

#28 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-04-21 02:45 PM | Reply

- You need to move past it

I see, so, "I get this image in my head of goose steppers in brown shirts." is you moving past it?

That's hilarious.

I'm just happy that Rogers' retort to that bit of idiocy was less measured than my own for change, lol.

-figure out what it will take to get a progressive into the WH next time.

Easy. Don't lose the Dem primary by a landslide 4 million votes.

And if you do, make sure your supporters don't take their football and go home instead of stopping Trump.

- Sanders would have won

If you lose a primary that is of much more liberal voters than are in the general, how do you expect to win the general? Especially when you start are at 25 percent of voters, and they start at 36?

You guys are still playing with your marbles.

#29 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-21 02:45 PM | Reply

I think there's a great chance Sanders would have won both, my state and Florida. And very likely would have won MI, PA and OH as well.

We don't know how Sanders would have done after Trump and the Republicans threw opposition research and attack ads at him for months. Since Hillary lost, obviously I wish Sanders got a chance to try. But it's hardly a lock he would've won.

Obviously the Hillary supporters have learned absolutely nothing.

Today, Bernie is the Democratic Party. Bernie is the DNC. Bernie is the current best bet for a progressive in the White House.

If you want that to happen, you have to convince us to join you.

#30 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-21 02:45 PM | Reply

If the Democrats want a different outcome, next time they need to put up a better candidate. It's a simple as that.

#31 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-04-21 02:46 PM | Reply

But if independents have so little influence, why are they taking all the heat from the likes of you and Corky, for Hillary's loss?

I've never said independents are the reason Hillary lost.

#32 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-21 02:48 PM | Reply

- they need to put up a better candidate.

The "better candidate" needs to figure out how not lose the primary in a landslide.

#33 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-21 02:49 PM | Reply

If the Democrats want a different outcome, next time they need to put up a better candidate. It's a simple as that.

If I said this to you ...

"If progressives want a different outcome in the primary, next time they need to put up a better candidate. It's as simple as that."

... would you agree?

I almost voted Bernie. I've been a fan of his going back to the 1980s. He didn't have the votes.

#34 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-21 02:49 PM | Reply

People who blamed independent voters for Trump's victory because "you didn't vote for the person who could have beat Trump" are now saying that next time around, "the only person who can beat Trump" will have to earn their votes and shouldn't take it for granted.

Don't get me wrong. Your self respect is appropriate. But you should have extended the same respect to others.

#35 | Posted by Sully at 2017-04-21 02:53 PM | Reply

#30 | POSTED BY RCADE

I agree with Sully. Bernie is probably too old to run again. That chance has been squandered. It shouldn't stop the Dems from continuing to look for another candidate with similar ideals.

#36 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-04-21 02:53 PM | Reply

He didn't have the votes.

He didn't have the votes, in part, because so many like you decided He didn't have the votes.

Funny thing.. In Colorado Bernie won the caucus with 59%. But when the delegates were divided, thanks to super-delegates, it was an even split.

www.rt.com

How was that fair? Could it be that way before the convention the super delegates were already pushing the idea that he didn't have the votes?

#37 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-04-21 03:03 PM | Reply

Caucuses are the least democratic way we have of picking candidates.... which may be why he only seemed to be doing well; by winning so many of them.

#38 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-21 03:08 PM | Reply

- How was that fair?

it wasn't.

#39 | Posted by SheepleSchism at 2017-04-21 03:17 PM | Reply

The least democratic things going on right now are super-delegates, and primaries/caucuses closed to all but party members. Colorado also elected in November to create open primaries. I think it may be an improvement.

Corky seems to have a habit of labeling anything unfair if it didn't have a positive outcome for his candidate. You can either get over the sour grapes, or keep us divided, Cork. It's up to you.

#40 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-04-21 03:24 PM | Reply

Bernie learned from his, too bad some of his supporters are not as bright. It's the math, stupid.

#24 | Posted by Corky

Here's the math: select a corporate puppet as the candidate for the people's party = lose the election.

There's nothing more to it than that. Even this survey shows that sanders' support extends far beyond the liberal base. But you ignored it in 2016 and lost. You'll keep losing til you can admit and correct your mistake. How much damage will republicans do to america by that time?

#41 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-04-21 03:36 PM | Reply

He didn't have the votes, in part, because so many like you decided He didn't have the votes.

That is the weakest excuse in politics. Bernie wasn't entitled to my belief he could win.

In Colorado Bernie won the caucus with 59%. But when the delegates were divided, thanks to super-delegates, it was an even split.

Bernie lost pledged delegates by 359. Those were the votes I was talking about. Superdelegates were irrelevant to the outcome. They have always been irrelevant to the outcome in a Democratic primary, and they will be even more irrelevant in 2020 thanks to Bernie's reforms.

If you're going to make a fairness issue out of caucuses, you should acknowledge that caucuses are anti-democratic. A lot of people can't afford to take the time required to do them. Bernie won a lot of his biggest victories in caucuses. Two of his stronger demographics -- retirees and college students -- had more time to caucus than other Democratic voters.

#42 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-21 03:41 PM | Reply

The least democratic things going on right now are super-delegates, and primaries/caucuses closed to all but party members.

Closed primaries are not anti-democratic. It's very easy to participate in a primary. All you have to do is declare yourself a member of that party a reasonable amount of time before the vote.

If people aren't willing to do that, why are they entitled to a primary vote?

#43 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-21 03:43 PM | Reply

Here's the math: select a corporate puppet as the candidate for the people's party = lose the election.

Just for laughs, name some Democratic presidential nominees of the past 40 years you wouldn't call a corporate puppet.

#44 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-21 03:45 PM | Reply

Superdelegates were irrelevant to the outcome.

They aren't irrelevant to the outcome when they've already declared for a candidate WELL before the primaries are over, giving the rest of the electorate the impression that Sanders didn't have the votes. I think they had a huge influence in Hillary's primary victory.

A lot of people can't afford to take the time required to do them. Bernie won a lot of his biggest victories in caucuses. Two of his stronger demographics -- retirees and college students -- had more time to caucus than other Democratic voters.

I don't buy that excuse. If the process is important, you make the time.

Frankly, I'm tired of rehashing this over and over. Hillary lost. Either we all find some way to move forward or not.

I'm burning daylight..

Later.

#45 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-04-21 03:56 PM | Reply

They aren't irrelevant to the outcome when they've already declared for a candidate WELL before the primaries are over ...

That declaration is worthless because they can change their vote at any time.

If the process is important, you make the time.

In the real world people don't always have that time. They have jobs. They have children. They have responsibilities. Caucuses are ------ and should be dumped along with superdelegates. You're not genuinely in favor of democratic reform of the primary if you support caucuses.

... giving the rest of the electorate the impression that Sanders didn't have the votes. ...

Wrong. People thought Sanders didn't have the votes because he trailed big in pledged delegates. He was down over 300 in the spring, but people and the media still acted like he had a chance.

In 2008, when Hillary trailed Obama by less than 100, she was treated like it was hopeless.

Bernie got a fair shake. He didn't have the votes.

If he had joined the Democrats a decade earlier and supported other candidates as much as Hillary did over the years, he could have won.

#46 | Posted by rcade at 2017-04-21 04:05 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

Bernie was/is in SLC today. I tried to attend but there were thousands of people there and the line was barely moving, probably due to security checks. It looked like it would take at least two hours to even get going. Once of that was enough at Pioneer Park where he drew 15,000 in Conservative Utah, totally dominated by the Rethugs.

#47 | Posted by nutcase at 2017-04-21 04:34 PM | Reply

- Corky seems to have a habit of labeling anything unfair

Caucuses are inherently undemocratic. Apparently reality is not your friend.

- Even this survey shows that sanders' support extends far beyond the liberal base.

It most obviously did not in the Dem primary. He couldn't win with Dems, much less the general population of voters.

#48 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-21 05:12 PM | Reply

Just for laughs, name some Democratic presidential nominees of the past 40 years you wouldn't call a corporate puppet.

#44 | Posted by rcade

Bernie Sanders. Dennis Kucinich. Paul Wellstone. Elizabeth Warren.

It's really not that hard to do. All you have to do is say no to evil money. Or you can say yes and then wonder why no one shows up to vote for you.

#49 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-04-21 06:08 PM | Reply

If he had joined the Democrats a decade earlier and supported other candidates as much as Hillary did over the years, he could have won.

#46 | Posted by rcade

Correction - if the DNC had joined HIM a decade earlier, they'd still have credibility and a lot more seats in government. You can't sell yourself as the people's party when you take money from plutocrats.

#50 | Posted by SpeakSoftly at 2017-04-21 06:10 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

- Bernie Sanders. Dennis Kucinich. Paul Wellstone. Elizabeth Warren.

Wow, and here I missed all these Dem Pres nominations. Silly me.

#50

Thinking your own views MUST reflect those of the majority of voters is a pretty common mistake. But when only 25 percent of them are libs, it's a pretty dumb one, too.

#51 | Posted by Corky at 2017-04-21 06:15 PM | Reply

#46 | POSTED BY RCADE

You still can't see the forest for the trees. In the end, whether Sanders got a fair shake or not is now irrelevant. Hillary was a crap candidate. And she lost. She lost because her strategy seemed to be to win the primaries with a lot of states that she either had no chance of losing, or southern states where she had no chance of winning, in the general.

She practically ignored several swing states. States that Sanders won in the primaries and probably would have won in the general. Whether claims about her are true or not, Hillary carries three decades of baggage that America is tired of hearing about. Hillary lost.

Move on or move over. But it's time for something else.

#52 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-04-21 09:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Just for laughs, name some Democratic presidential nominees of the past 40 years you wouldn't call a corporate puppet.

#44 | Posted by rcade

As a candidate, I never felt like Obama was a corporate puppet. He still seems far less so than Hillary.

#53 | Posted by Whatsleft at 2017-04-21 10:48 PM | Reply

well, I like Bernie, but I don't support his views. I like him because he doesn't hide what he stands for and who he is, but he does stand for Socialism and Dependency on Government...........that I don't agree with

5 cycles of Government

1. Liberty
2. Complacency (we are at the end of this part of the cycle)
3. Government Dependence (we are between Complacency and Dependence)
4. Tyranny
5. Revolution

the truth is these cycles WILL happen, the question is when

#54 | Posted by Maverick at 2017-04-22 06:50 PM | Reply

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