Sanders to headline progressive 'People's Summit'

[Donkees]

March 28, 2017

Excerpt:

Nearly a year after the final contest in the Democratic primaries kicked off his "political revolution," Sen. Bernie Sanders will headline the second annual People's Summit, a three-day gathering of progressive activists and organizations beginning on June 9 in Chicago.

"This comes from a time when the momentum in social movements are all in high gear," National Nurses United Executive Director RoseAnn DeMoro told CNN. "It comes off the incredible momentum of the Sanders campaign and the greater hunger for people in our country for change."

DeMoro and the nurses union, the first national labor group to back Sanders' insurgent bid, have worked closely with the senator and his political organization, Our Revolution, to channel the energies of a resurgent left. The same meeting last year brought together the threads of a coalition that, in the aftermath of Hillary Clinton's defeat in November, has led massive anti-Trump protests while pressuring elected Democrats to take on the White House with a more progressive agenda.

That includes a serious push for single-payer health care in California and, in a more symbolic gesture, Sanders' plan to again introduce a similar "Medicare-for-all" bill on Capitol Hill. The influence of the "Berniecrat" wing has also been felt in more substantial ways, as an activist swell stiffened Democrats' resistance to President Donald Trump's Cabinet picks and his Supreme Court nominee, Neil Gorsuch.

"The momentum is with the movements of the left and so is the most popular politician in America: Bernie Sanders," said People for Bernie co-founder Winnie Wong. "The Democrats will be forced to move left. Whether they will be effective in augmenting the strategic political work we do moving into 2018 remains to be seen. People will leave the summit with a sense of purpose. This is a promise."

http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/28/politics/bernie-sanders-peoples-summit/

[still_one]

1. It would have been nice if some of those self-identified progressives didn't vote third party

As for the statement being "the most popular politician in America", that is a distortion of what the polling actually said. It was a fox news poll.

It says 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/

Just the statement that "it will force the Democrats to move to the left", and Winnie Wong, who says:

"Winnie Wong: "The Democratic Party is not your friend." We have to organize ourselves.

tells you that these organizers are NOT Democrats. If they don't want to be Democrats and work within the Democratic party, then F**k Them. They did a good job of f**king the country by either voting third party or not voting in 2016

[George II]

5. "I wonder what the results would be if Putin was included?"...

..or Barack Obama, or Clinton (either one), or Joe Biden, or Tom Brady, or Hank Aaron, or motherhood or apple pie, or cockroaches, etc.

That ridiculous "poll" was highly selective and cherry picked only a few politicians along with a conglomeration of other "choices".

What the conclusion should have been is that Sanders is the most "popular" politician among:

Sanders
Pence
Trump
Warren
Ryan
Pelosi
Schumer
McConnell

[still_one]

55. That is exactly right George

[lapucelle]

111. If you look at the Gallup Most Admired poll,

you see data that is broader and more inclusive in scope. Here's the question posed to those polled:

"What man that you have heard or read about, living today in any part of the world, do you admire most? And who is your second choice?"

As for the "most popular" claim, the data collected by the Fox News poll measured favorability, not popularity. But if people want to insist that the popularity conclusion flows from the favorability evidence, the valid conclusion would be "most popular among the set of people that we asked about."

file:///C:/Documents%20and%20Settings/Chris/My%20Documents/Downloads/161228MostAdmired.pdf

[NurseJackie]

12. Ugh! A totally ridiculous poll. (Thank you for putting it into perspective.)

[beam me up scottie]

54. He's been the most popular senator for years and other polls reflect his high favourability rating.

Here's just a sampling from HuffPo:

Harris/Harvard
Mar 14 – Mar 16

2,092 Registered Voters ... Favorable +23

***

FOX
Mar 12 – Mar 14

1,008 Registered Voters ... Favorable +29

***

YouGov/Economist
Feb 12 – Feb 14

1,500 Adults ... Favorable +16

***

Harris/Harvard
Feb 11 – Feb 13

2,148 Registered Voters... Favorable +26

***

Suffolk/USA Today
Dec 14 – Dec 18, 2016

1,000 Likely Voters ... Favorable +17

***

YouGov/Economist
Dec 10 – Dec 13, 2016

1,444 Adults ... Favorable +24

***

Bloomberg/Selzer
Dec 2 – Dec 5, 2016

999 Adults ... Favorable +19

***

GWU/Battleground
Nov 28 – Dec 1, 2016

1,001 Adults ... Favorable +27

***

YouGov/Economist
Nov 19 – Nov 22, 2016

1,405 Adults ..., Favorable +20

***

Politico/Morning Consult
Nov 4 – Nov 5, 2016

1,482 Likely Voters ... Favorable +13

More:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating



The poll Fox commissioned is hardly an outlier which is fortunate since Senator Sanders' popularity is a GOOD thing for us. I am thrilled he's on OUR side!

This is one of many reasons he was made our Democratic Chair of Outreach, our leaders know what they're doing.

Go progressive Dems, go Bernie - keep reaching out to voters and keep resisting!

[still_one]

66. Those are favorability ratings. Not the same thing as the poll being referred to in the OP

"the most popular politician in America"

That listed a specific group of people and groups, and compared them to each other

What is this comparing against?

When Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State and First Lady in the final term of Bill Clinton's presidency, her favorability ratings were 66%.

Of course after the FBI interference in the election, along with the media pushing the LIE that the email investigation was being reopened after Comey sent the letter to the republicans in Congress, which DID NOT reopen any investigation, plus the lies from Bret Baier of fox news and other fake news that "an indictment was pending with the Clinton Foundation, along with the constant misrepresentations and lies regarding Hillary from the far left, right, far right, and the double standards of the press, that changed the dynamic.

The FBI interference though was the clincher

https://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2016-10-30/latest-polls-show-clinton-support-slipped-after-fbi-s-letter

[beam me up scottie]

73. He's been voted the most popular senator for years - that's a fact.

Bernie Sanders Voted America’s Most Popular Senator For The Second Year In A Row


And again - the Fox poll was neither biased nor an outlier.

I really don't think they should compare current polls to polls from decades ago, do you? That's just silly.

You can check out Clinton's popularity at Daily Kos too, as well as Obama, Al Franken and many other politicians.

[H2O Man]

102. I wish that

I could recommend this. Thank you.

[beam me up scottie]

104. Hello friend!

[Alice11111]

128. Yes, Comparing 20 yrs ago w now is distortion.I'm a Dem, Hill supporter, & I may go. Lead us, Bernie

We NEED a leader. He has stepped up to the plate, much more than anyone else. He has taken the initiative & crafted the policies, while others quibbled. Lead us forward, Bernie.

[beam me up scottie]

137. His opposition to Trump has been loud and consistent.

Interviews, editorials, town halls, rallies, marches, doing his part in the Senate, his constant presence on social media...Bernie's like the Energizer Bunny - he just doesn't quit. And it's a brutal schedule too, he has more stamina than many people half his age.

[Alice11111]

139. For sure! Plus, he comes out and says it. None of this extreme understatement BS.

[ronnie624]

140. He's been my favorite senator

since I first started seeing him on C-SPAN in the early ninties. He was clearly a person of tremendous integrity.

[beam me up scottie]

141. I really like hearing that.

I realize I'm biased because Vermont is my home state so I enjoy hearing from people who see in Bernie what we see in Bernie. I don't think any of us expected him to be so popular nationwide either, it was amazing to see how many people were (and still are) inspired by this loud gruff progressive from a little blue state.

[H2O Man]

146. I first met him

back when he was a mayor, I think around 1982. He spoke at a college in upstate NY, and I got to meet him before he spoke, and then hang out with him afterwards.

[beam me up scottie]

149. Even then he was reaching out to young folks outside of Vermont.

And what he was doing in Vermont would change the state forever.

What Kind of Mayor Was Bernie Sanders?

John Davis remembers a meeting in 1986 when Bernie Sanders, then the mayor of Burlington, Vermont, confronted the owners of the city’s largest affordable-housing complex. The federal program that had subsidized the Northgate Apartments for 20 years had a loophole that allowed the landlords to convert the buildings into market rentals or luxury condos.

“Bernie pounded his fist on the conference table in his office and told the owners, ‘Over my dead body are you going to displace 336 working families. You are not going to convert Northgate into luxury housing,’” recalled Davis, who was Sanders’s key housing aide.

https://www.thenation.com/article/bernies-burlington-city-sustainable-future/

Bernie's still out there in the trenches, he could be doing the paid speech circuit or relaxing on the weekends - Zeus knows he's earned some down time - but that's not why he got into politics.

[H2O Man]

151. I was recently invited

to speak in Bennington. Health issues didn't allow for that. But I might be there in the late spring or early summer. Are you anywhere near by?

[beam me up scottie]

153. Unfortunately no.

I'm still down south in Dixie. My family actually lives further north - we have property near the Canadian border. If I still lived in Vermont I would gladly make the drive to come see you though.

[LiberalLovinLug]

155. WHO CARES ABOUT A STUPID POLL ABOUT POPULARITY ANYWAYS!!!!!

What is the point of shitting on every thread that lets us know what someone, or some organization, whether officially rubber stamped by top Dem brass or not, is rallying in order to stop Trumps agenda?

Do you think Sanders cares about any personal popularity poll? Do you think his supporters care about something so banal as that?
We support him because he is a fighter and he is on the right side of the issues. End of story.

I am so sick of these childish tantrums and derailing of threads into red herrings because you and your little group still haven't gotten past blaming a tiny minority of people that said they were for Bernie, but leapt 180 and voted Trump. As if any of those would have ever voted for Hillary ever anyways. Top if off with Russian trolls polluting any Bernie site (including JPR) with fake news Hillary memes, and you and your fellow altruistic chumps are being led by your noses to disrupt the resistance by encouraging you to pull back into tiny bitter little camps where you must wear the star to even be granted the permission to battle for our side.

I have a great book you should read, feel free to lend it out to a few others on here:

[Donkees]

2. BEYOND RESISTANCE: A PEOPLES MOVEMENT FOR A JUST WORLD

Excerpt:

BEYOND RESISTANCE: A PEOPLE’S MOVEMENT FOR A JUST WORLD

Sen. Bernie Sanders will keynote a major gathering of several thousand progressive activists from across the U.S. in Chicago June 9 to 11 under a thematic of moving beyond resistance to a building a broad people’s movement for a just world.

The event will be the second People’s Summit following a coming together of 3,000 people, activists and members of leading progressive organizations, last June who also met in Chicago on a pledge to build the progressive movement through and beyond the November, 2016 election.

What: People’s Summit 2.0 “Beyond Resistance: A People’s Movement for a Just World”
When: June 9 through June 11
Where: Chicago, McCormick Place

How to Get Involved: Via http://www.thepeoplessummit.org or [email protected] Twitter: @pplsummit

Many of those in Chicago last June have played leading roles in public actions and protests this year, but the supporting organizations are unified in calling for defining a progressive vision that beyond resistance and protests.

Tentative participants:

Sen. Bernie Sanders
Jane Sanders, educator
Eve Ensler, activist
Francis Fisher, actress
Josh Fox, filmmaker
Danny Glover, actor
Van Jones, CNN commentator
Shaun King, journalist
Naomi Klein, author
Nomiki Konst, journalist
Bill McKibben, activist
Michael Moore, filmmaker
Frances Fox Piven, educator
Linda Sarsour, activist
David Sirota, journalist
Nina Turner, former Ohio State Senator
This year’s program will feature concrete steps for further progressive movement building, including candidate training, independent political action, civil disobedience, educational workshops, and unity in mass actions.

Convening organizations include National Nurses United, People’s Action, United Students Against Sweatshops, People for Bernie, Our Revolution, United Electrical Workers, Color of Change, Progressive Democrats of America, and Democratic Socialists of America, and Presente.

More information, including how to register for the event, is available at the People’s Summit website, http://www.thepeoplessummit.org/.

http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/press/entry/sen.-bernie-sanders-to-headline-peoples-summit-2.0/

[brooklynite]

19. Nina Turner putting in a pitch for Jill Stein 2020?

[NurseJackie]

26. OMG! Really? This is inappropriate (in my opinion).

[demmiblue]

21. A lot of great names there (one I could do without). Eve Ensler did Michigan proud...

vimeo.com/44537570


And, of course, Lisa Brown (and Gretchen Whitmer, who is running for governor).

[demmiblue]

22. I forgot a special shout-out for nurses unions!

They always kick arse and stand up for what is right!

[beam me up scottie]

58. Thank you! Those NURSES sure LOVED Bernie!

I know it's anecdotal but all of the nurses I know admire Bernie for his dedication to single payer universal health care and low cost prescription medicine.

[synergie]

65. Were there more than the one union?

I only saw one mentioned when I perused, are there more?

Nurses are indeed amazing, they're do have a habit of calling out the BS when they see it and are always on the forefront of supporting what's right and what's needed in healthcare and public health.

[demmiblue]

75. No, I was speaking in general (another strong one is the California Nurses Association).

I apologize if my comment was misleading.

[synergie]

85. I thought that was just an alternate name for the one mentioned there.

No worries, I was just wondering which ones I missed. It seems like there is only one, with two names.

Not the one that my friends are members of. I thought that was the main one, just wondering why other unions were not invited. During the election I met so many progressives working with various unions. Many brought their families to come and knock on doors and make phone calls. Some were there to fulfill some official requirement, but vast majority were eager to do all they could to fight against Trump. A little surprised to see none of them on the list.

[synergie]

47. So this is just a gathering of Bernie supporters?

The people's summit is being organized for the people for Bernie Sanders, the full name of the group. Not really all the people, or even most progressives?

Are there other progressive groups invited, other progressives, or is this like Trump's rallies where he just invites his own folks and acts like they're representative of some larger whole, despite all evidence to the contrary?

That list of folks doesn't seem to be supporting the Indivisible theme, where progressives join together to Resist and the good work that progressives, liberals and Democrats are doing.

Are these people who've confirmed? Is that the full list, anyone else invited, or are there prerequisites to attend, some sort of test being applied?

I don't see many leading progressive organizations.

[still_one]

3. Just so people KNOW who Winnie Wong is. She is not a friend of the Democratic party

https://www.facebook.com/141692255929599/posts/1181514125280735

[NurseJackie]

16. I can't discern what their true intentions are! Are they trying to hijack the Democratic Party?

Is this going to turn into a series of slams and smears against the Democratic Party and against Democrats? I certainly hope not.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Socialists_of_America

[still_one]

23. Just the statement ""The Democrats will be forced to move left." tells me that they fail

to recognize that the Democratic party is not a monolithic party

[NurseJackie]

24. I hadn't noticed that... but you're right. They are politically unsophisticated (in my view.)

It's definitely poor messaging, and (in my opinion) their over-confidence is actually misplaced vanity (again, just an opinion). Normally, something like that could be attributed to "growing pains" of a new movement... but it looks like they've been around since 1982. Either they've learned nothing during the last 35 years, or they... I don't know what. It's certainly a mystery.

[synergie]

50. Seems more like a reunion.

[NurseJackie]

74. That's observant and logical.

[Starry Messenger]

150. Yes. You nailed it.

[Cha]

115. Winnie Wong: "The Democratic Party is not your friend." We have to organize ourselves. #ydsRESIST

Thank you for exposing that, stillone.. Yes, the Dem Party is my Friend, Winnie.

You're not my friend.. you're Wrong, Winnie Wong..

That's what BS is headlining.. while Our Dems are out there on the Front Lines fighting for our Lives against the Fascistrumpshites?! JHC

[Talk Is Cheap]

4. Glad to know a Democratic ally and progressive like Sanders is fighting for the people...

Who else does this kind of fighting?

[NurseJackie]

38. Are you suggesting that nobody else is fighting for the people? (That's how it sounds.)

Frankly, I can think of a least a DOZEN notable Democrats who are "fighting for the people".

Who else does this kind of fighting?

Obviously this isn't a request for readers to provide you with a list of names, so I think it's safe to say that such a question is a passive aggressive snub of our hardworking Democrats. It's a way of pretending that they don't exist, or that their work is meaningless. (That's just wrong. And offensive.)

[Jamaal510]

127. +1

[Cha]

123. Our Democratic Party is On the Front Lines Fighting for our Very Lives.. in

answer to your query.

Thank Goodness for our Dems!

[Alice11111]

142. Yes. United we stand. Divided we fall. Don't be divided!!!!! We are all agaist the Trumpsters' mean

Ignorance! Remember this. They win if they divide us.

[JCanete]

143. To be fair, some take a different approach to fighting than others.

I'm not saying that it's not worth questioning whether some are fighting the way they should be(and in some cases whether they are fighting for us at all), or whether their allegiances aren't more nuanced than they should be, or that when it comes down to it, their tactics to fight for the people are the right, effective, long-term way to go about things versus something less middling which would align more to Sander's rhetoric, but it is still apparent that there are well meaning democrats in office. Sympathetic to certain industries or no(for whatever reasons), they always seem to have a greater modicum of decency and sense of responsibility, that by far, outpaces Republicans. And there is something to be said for actually getting into office, though the question of how to most effectively do that in the age of the internet is worth mulling over.

...the rest is me just thinking out loud and probably comes off as rambling....

Granted, that is a place where cynicism can certainly find purchase. Just because democrats are an alternative choice that is more compassionate doesn't mean that it is an entirely genuine choice if both choices are engineered by the money. It is of course far more organic than that, but if the money is in the picture, that is the reality to some degree and it stops mattering whether the chicken or the egg was first. If Democratic positions were so distasteful to big business interests, almost no big money would go to them unless it were intended to undermine credibility, which should be rejected. And Democrats have an entirely different base than Republicans. I am not saying the Democratic party as an institution is wholly corrupt. I think it is weakened by taking money, but for the most part the people in the party are well meaning. But if it were, its job would not be to ram through horrible legislation, because that is not acceptable to its base. Its job would be to fail. Its job would be to cave when the going got tough....to keep its powder dry for a future day....to finally turn on a dime when it's that politician's turn to earn his keep....looking at you Lieberman, you sack of shit.

Sadly there are examples of that behavior that make me cynical, but also examples of great efforts of justice towards a better future. No matter how triangulating I think Clinton became to survive a very unfair and despicable media, she did try to get Single Payer, a huge idea that would have had beautiful consequences(and she champions other notable progressive causes of course). Obama did get Obamacare, which didn't totally piss off the insurance industry, but I think still makes them nervous because one or two changes to it could ruin their racket. And Trump is busy dismantling a slew of executive orders Obama put into place that were all decent and progressive.

But yes, choices have to be questioned. Big business ties have to be questioned. I hold plenty of space to doubt the overall goals of my party's leadership at times. We cannot effectively fight if each of our rarely majority holding Senators has one or two big lobbies that they are soft on so that they can stay in office and do good work everywhere else. That may seem like a reasonable compromise, but it means that we have weak spots in every single domain. It only takes a couple weak links on any one thing and then the party leadership is forced(hopefully this is forced) to offer up watered down legislation or regulations, or when on the defensive, to crumble.

But lets see where this Gorsuch thing goes. One thing that is interesting is that there are Sanders supporters and those who aren't big fans of his that are on the same side here. Our Senators should not give in. I'm interested in what the discourse is going to be like if some of them do cave on us.

[Talk Is Cheap]

6. I agree with Wong's statement...

"The Democrats will be forced to move left."

Totally agree - we need for our Dem politicians to be more in line with FDR
and the people.

[George II]

8. Do you agree with this statement of hers?

"The Democratic Party is not your friend."

[Talk Is Cheap]

10. We need to move the Dem party more to the left....

[George II]

11. What do you think of that statement by Ms. Wong?

[NurseJackie]

13. Sounds like a smear to me. Things like that DIVIDE and then WEAKEN the party. Is that the goal?

[still_one]

27. The Democratic party has never been a monolitic party. That is what Howard Dean's 50 state

strategy was all about. It wasn't about "if you don't do it my way then count me out"

The reality is there are many issues involved. There are Democrats who hold gun rights important, and those that want more control over gun accessibility, but most Democrats would agree to sensible firearm legislation. There are Democrats who are against abortion, and those who believe it is a decision between a women and her doctor, but most would probably agree that it is a personal decision. Foreign policy is another set of issues where all Democrats will not see eye to eye, but those disagreements do not mean that one is any less of a Democrat.

However, there are issues that Democrats universally agree on such as Social Security and Medicare

Characterizing the "Democratic party as not your friend", is not only counter productive, it is a losing strategy. 2016 demonstrated that by those who professed no difference. That fact is there is a huge difference, not only on social issues, but also the judicial

[still_one]

36. I was referring to Winnie Wong's facebook page, and I should have made that clear. Thanks

[still_one]

48. Centrist Democrats are NOT republicans!!! Incidently, you are violating the TOS with that false

narrative

[NurseJackie]

51. OMG and WTF?

Centrist Democrats are basically republicans

I'm a centrist Democrat.

[JHan]

77. Yes, it's busterisms all over again.

same mentality that killed us in 2000, in 2016, how many more years they want to see their agenda pushed further behind.

[Alice11111]

130. "I'm not a member of any organized party. I'm a Democrat."

Will Rogers

[still_one]

131. You got it

[Cha]

119. The Democratic Party is out there fighing on the Front Lines for

our Very Lives and they are my Friends.

[MuseRider]

29. Who ever envisioned a party

being their friend? Is this kinda like, "I would walk through fire for so and so. Or So and So is a rock star, swoon?" Ridiculous. It is a place to work not a social club.

[NurseJackie]

41. No... it's not "kinda-like" that at all.

Her meaning is clear... it's a slam and a smear of the Democratic Party.

[George II]

44. The antonym of a "friend" is "enemy". Your blithe dismissal of that destructive statement...

...by Ms. Wong is mind boggling.

Let me put it this way, "you get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar". Democrats of all "persuasion" need to learn to use more honey and less vinegar (or venom).

[MuseRider]

81. A party need be neither of those things

We have people here where I live working together who actually loathe each other but with them working together we made a huge difference last election. A party is made up of people, it is not a friend or a foe it is a group of people working for a similar if not the same end. There is no need for an emotional label. How about this, it is a title for us and an identification for us but no, we do not get white hats and the other guys black hats.

I said nothing of Ms. Wong. Blithe dismissal? Why are you so intent on putting emotion in all of this? It actually made me laugh because I was only replying to you. There is no need for vinegar or honey here I was making a statement without emotion to YOU.

Ms. Wong can say whatever she wants. I neither have to agree or disagree, I might but that is my business. I do what I do and move along. This constant "my team" crap gets in the way. We are liberals, some Democrats others just liberals. If we want change we have to learn to work with other liberals and find consensus there so we can fight the Right. That is often hard to do and that is when emotions run high but the party as a whole is made up of so many people who you might say are friends or enemies but as a whole it is a very large working group running the gamut of Democratic thought and policy.

I am done now, you can reply but I am done. This crap gets in the way of forward movement. We have a lot of work to do and if we have to react to every little thing that someone says (yes I did just do that too) we will lose again. Let people be who they are and work around them or through them or even find a place you might agree and work with them. NOBODY will ever agree with you all the time, you better get used to taking that like a big kid without dismissing so many people who are actually friends most of the time. Ms. Wong I know nothing about so please...I am not supporting her here.

[ms liberty]

113. Thanks MuseRider. Well said. n/t

[beam me up scottie]

121. Bravo!

Well said!

[Cha]

122. Oh I very much consider anyone who's working hard for me and

The People.. My Friends! Damn Straight.

Thank you Dems who are out there on the Front Lines Fighting against Fascists.

[MuseRider]

124. People vs party

good lord it cannot be that hard to understand.

[Cha]

125. The Democratic Party is my Friend.. trump and other assholes are not.

[Demsrule86]

35. I have no idea why some think a move way left would allow us to win.

I think the country is center left. I am liberal and want more liberals but what I want more than that is more Democrats so we need to win the majority... because nothing else matters. We can obstruct but all this rah rah we will do this or that is misplaced because we can't. We can stop the GOP if we are very lucky while a Republican is in the white House even impeachment won't change that,but we will not advance a liberal agenda. We have to take back the Congress as well to accomplish anything...so why limit your self to one piece of the big tent Democratic Party, when we need all hands on deck...liberal, moderate and yes even conservative in states like WVA, Carolina, Texas or Indiana. It literally snatches defeat from the jaws of victory...Trump is a gift for mid terms...don't let it go to waste by not keeping your eye on the big picture ...winning. In order to do that we need a 50 state strategy and a big tent party.

[Talk Is Cheap]

43. What is 'way left'?

What do you consider FDR to be? Left? Way left? something else?

And yes, of course, we need more Dems in office. But remember what President Truman said:

If it's a choice between a genuine Republican, and a Republican in Democratic clothing, the people will choose the genuine article, every time; that is, they will take a Republican before they will a phony Democrat, and I don't want any phony Democratic candidates in this campaign.

And I agree with Truman here...

When Democrats campaign like progressives - they win. Wishy-washy Dems who do not
run as a progressive - loses. And, yes, I understand the red states who vote for a Dem. It is good,
but it would be nice to be able to count on Dems being Dems...

[George II]

49. FDR was elected 85 years ago. We're in an entirely different "era" now in 2017....

....than back in 1932.

His objective was to recover from the Great Depression, worse even than the 2008 Recession/Depression that we experienced. Life was way different back then.

Not only that, but the term "progressive" had an entirely different definition in the 1930s and 1940s than it has today. In fact, the term "progressive" was rarely used, if at all, until maybe 10 years ago.

You're talking about Presidents 70-80 years ago and then "red states"? Let's look at the electoral maps in 1932 and then 1948. Where were your "red states" back then?

1932:



1948:



Isn't it obvious that what we have today electorally is even close to what existed in the 1930s and 1940s?

[Alice11111]

145. Thx. Interesting.

[uponit7771]

70. Purism

[DanTex]

83. Here's the problem with that theory.

Of the people listed for this event, only one of them has managed to actually get elected: Bernie. And he was elected in maybe the most liberal state in the US.

You probably don't think that Heidi Heitkamp or Joe Manchin are "real Democrats", which means that according to your theory they wouldn't be able to win. But in fact, both of them did win, and in red states.

[Demsrule86]

89. Yeah and president Truman was wrong in this case...

WVA will choose a conservadem ...never a liberal or even a moderate Democrat. But that is better than choosing a GOP type who never votes with us. Your ideas in practice cause us to lose elections...the idea that we have a 'pure' candidate for all 50 states is wrong... A liberal will not be elected in West Virginia or even Virginia. Howard Dean showed us the way...a 50 state strategy where you pick candidates based on the state. The Democratic party can not be successful unless it embraces the big tent...when we do otherwise, we lose. So unless you desire to be in the minority for the foreseeable future, I suggest you consider supporting the candidate with the D next to his or her name regardless of their 'purity'.

It interests me that you mention FDR whom I admire...but none of you ever mention Johnson who got Medicare and civil rights through using a pragmatic approach and twisting a few arms...and consider the new deal and all the rest which I admire only applied to white men. Roosevelt also interred the Japanese. Have you ever heard of the businessman's revolt? President Roosevelt let the bankers of his day off the hook after they committed treason...He worried our fragile economy could not withstand the knowledge that these bankers were traitors. President Obama made a similar decision and was castigated for it by the left. No president is perfect. However, President Roosevelt left a lasting legacy of progressive policy and was one the most significant president's of the 20th century. That was a long time ago. We are now in the 21st century and must look to new ideas to solve our very different problems...clinging to the past will not move us forward.

[Alice11111]

144. Well said.

But I am proud of our Dems lately. They are becoming more forceful. We usually are smarter and better able to govern, but a bit mealy mouthed.

[George II]

45. If only 20% (probably less) of the "Party" (many aren't even Democrats anyway)....

...want the Party to move further left, we're on a path to destruction.

The majority of Democrats aren't interested in moving the Party further left. So advocating that the Democratic Party move left and insisting upon it is simply an attempt to bully the rank and file of the Democratic Party.

It's not going to work, and as a life long Democrat (> 50 years), I'll fight that tooth and nail.

[Demsrule86]

87. You are exactly right George...this small faction seems to think

that everyone agrees with them. This is not the case. While many of agree with Democratic principles...we have different ideas of how to proceed.

[George II]

93. Not only that but the small faction includes some who never even bothered to join the Party.

[Demsrule86]

99. I don't understand why those are not Democrats (and no I am not

talking about Bernie ...more like that evil trumpette Jill Stein and those who follow her) think they have some right to tell Democrats how to run their own party...you can agree with Democrats and not be one or not agree...you can vote with us or with whoever, but unless you are a party member, the day to day running of the party is not your concern.

[Alice11111]

132. Fuck it. We tried the Repub suck up. We lost the base.

I'm center left and I welcome Repubs like Meg Whitman and HW Bush. (I was a Hill supporter forever, and I'll always respect her.) Anyone w sense or a conscience is not going for the trumpsters. They are such RW ignorant extremists, and the whole world is aghast that the US let this happen. Read any foreign newspaper, but Russia.

What's too far "Left," healthcare w/o the insurance companies, the Mafia middle man, demanding their cut, from the patients and providers. I'll take it. We are the only western or civilized country that allows that extortion.

We need to get real and in touch w the base.

[Demsrule86]

147. You are right...those who refused to vote for the Democrat who knew what Trump would

do by his own words...are not liberals...progressive or otherwise. Green and third party riffraff....And we should not care what they think. They are unreliable and cause only losses for us.

[Alice11111]

148. Yep, we can chalk up lost elections because of them

going back to at least Bush v Gore. We need a good name for them, to let them know that we don't count on the "fringies," maybe that's it. Our first priority is our base, and even that is challenging, as we are so diverse. We have many times gotten in trouble for not keeping our base in tact, which is like hetding cats.

To repeat myself, "I don't belong to any organized party...
I'm a Democrat." Will Rogers.

Our second priority, is to get more centrist Repubs (some would argue that is an oxymoron) who are sickened by DT, and reluctant to vote for this new Republican Trumpster party anyhow. Still, we need to lock down our base first. Always.

[uponit7771]

69. Wong is wrong, dens already left

[bdamomma]

7. mobilizing the people

June 9,10 and 11th wow this ought to be good.

[Nanjeanne]

9. Thanks for sharing this. Guess it would be wishful thinking that it will get any tv coverage . . .

But I hope there is video on the web!

[NurseJackie]

25. If memory serves me correctly, the "RT" Youtube channel likes to cover things like this...

... maybe that will be a good start. Post links if you find anything of interest.

[synergie]

82. Here's where you can find TV coverage.

Nurse Jackie is correct, RT will likely provide coverage, I believe that several of their programs hosted many of the tentative guests, Thom Hartmann has a show on that station, if I recall correctly, and Lee Camp as well.

Here's where you can watch:

Dish Network (U.S.)

Nationwide: Channel 280 (SD/HD)
Washington, D.C. area: Channel 8084 (SD/HD) with RT America


Cable Providers:

Verizon FiOS (Washington, D.C. area) Channel 455 with RT America
Cox Communications (Washington, D.C. area) Channel 473 with RT America
RCN Cable (Washington, D.C. area) Channel 33 with RT America

And an official live stream can be found here: http://www.tvplayer.com/watch/russiatoday


Just in case you didn't want to wade through the youtube search, but TV coverage has never actually been lacking.

[demmiblue]

88. MSNBC and CNN are more than likely to carry stories/coverage.

Perhaps CSPAN, as well.

[Alice11111]

134. Half of CNN is panels of bimbo Repubs. They have some

Great people, and AC was exceptional tonight. However, this false Equivalency of equal time for an exceptionally experienced, reasonable analyst like David Gergan w Kayleigh Bimbo, is intolerable. I won't waste a minute of my time for that.
Flip the channel fast.

[NurseJackie]

14. It's unclear if this group is FOR or AGAINST the Democratic Party. Can anyone clarify?

[crazycatlady]

18. Progressive Democrats of America

(Aka PDA-- worst acronym ever) is a purist movement. I went to an event of theirs several years ago and they were very hardliners (single payer or else) and spent more effort going after Democrats for not being purist enough than they did going after Republicans.

I'll never attend an event of theirs again. They're the left's equivalent of far right tea party groups.

[NurseJackie]

20. I just visited their Wiki page and their Facebook page...

... and even taking things with a grain of salt (as one must do with Wiki entries) the impression I'm getting is one that squares exactly with your description. I fail to see the wisdom in their methods. Doing things to divide and weaken the Democrats only serve to benefit the GOP.

They're the left's equivalent of far right tea party groups.

And both of them have the mistaken belief that the ability to cause division and trouble is the equivalent of having power, or possessing the ability to actually get things done.

Thanks for your reply and insights.

[still_one]

28. That is what it read like to me catlady, meow

[seaglass]

15. The Women's March was not Bernie Sanders people, Indivisible is not Bernie Sanders people. Sick of

these people taking credit for organizing that is not theirs to take.

[NurseJackie]

17. Thank you for telling the truth and for bringing things back to reality.

I'm not sure where these rumors get started.

[still_one]

30. An interesting point. When Michael Moore started to slam the Democratic party, Ashley Judd put a

stop to that dissing immediately

The single payer bill going through the legislature here in California was not due to Bernie, it is due to Democrats in the California legislature

[sheshe2]

46. Thank you, seaglass!

[Hortensis]

56. Do agree with that. Telling the majority population that these

movements are made up of smaller factions, not a wide diversity of people like them--whoever they are, is not how to build the coalitions that win wars. If only they could focus on advancing their issues without undermining everyone's chance of success by constant attacks on the big central belly of the left.

[synergie]

67. But face it, it's a whole lot easier than doing the actual work.

Making phone calls, organizing marches, town halls, writing letters, post cards and showing up at offices is not as fun as just saying you did it.

[uponit7771]

71. +1

[MuseRider]

31. This sounds incredible.

Seems like the rest of the country has moved beyond the primaries. Bernie sets it up, or at least headlines and participates, and 4 or 5 people knock it to the ground. It must really suck to be so angry all the time and have to see his name all the time because he is working hard for us. I came in the other day and at least 4 and maybe 5 of the top stories had his name in them. I am beyond thrilled that he is doing what he promised, trying to fight for the left.

Go Bernie and all the other wonderful speakers (who are not all "friends of the Democratic party" according to a tiny few) who are anxious to move this country to the left.

[NurseJackie]

33. Wait. Huh? What makes you believe that ANYONE thinks this is about the primaries?

Can you explain how you've arrived at that conclusion? It's clear that you disapprove. So, in your view, what should people be doing differently to avoid accusations of being "so angry all the time"? I'm just curious.

[MuseRider]

37. LOL

bye

[NurseJackie]

40. Thank you for your reply. It answers my questions perfectly.

[LiberalLovinLug]

152. So true

A few on here still aren't over the primaries. Well not really the primaries...that went swimmingly for them. Then it was all about criticizing Sanders and his supporters for daring to remain critical of the pre-anointed winner. Then when Hillary lost the general, it was about being butt hurt and bitter so they swung out blindly to blame fellow Democrats that had dared to support Bernie in the past. And so it continues on DU.

sigh. so childish. Just when we need to be adults and focused and work together.

If the Clintons, or Obama had come up with this rally idea I'd also be supportive. But they didn't.

[MuseRider]

160. So true to you too! :-)

I am tired of venting about this. I need to find a place to post where discussion can happen. You suck, no YOU suck is not cutting it for me anymore.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

39. .

[beam me up scottie]

42. Happy to see so many are still inspired by Bernie's message!

These Democrats know it's good strategy to use our country's most popular senator to generate enthusiasm and activism for progressive causes.

I welcome ANY and ALL potential voters to join us in our BIG tent.

Go Bernie! Go progressive Democrats!

RESIST!

[George II]

59. Another skewed poll. For one thing, the poll didn't ask for "popularity", it asked for "approval"!

On top of that, the respondents were asked to rate only THEIR Senators........i.e., only two of 100 Senators, they weren't asked to compare their Senators to the other 98 Senators.

So, 80% of the respondents in the country's second least populous state like him. That really doesn't say much, nor does it have any bearing on any Senators' overall "popularity" or approval outside of their own states.

Also, look at the top ten Senators, the states they represent, and the population in each (of 51, including DC):

1) Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) (49th lowest)
2) Susan Collins (R-Maine) (41st lowest)
3) John Hoeven (R-N.D.) (48th lowest)
4) Angus King (I-Maine) (41st lowest)
5) Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) (49th lowest)
6) Thomas Carper (D-Del.) (45th lowest)
7) Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) (21st lowest)
8) John Barrasso (R-Wyo.) (51st lowest)
9) Al Franken (D-Minn.) (41st lowest)
10) Chris Coons (D-Del.) (45th lowest)

So the conclusion one can draw from this skewed poll is that the top "popular" Senators are very popular in, for the most part, the smallest states in the country population-wise.

In fact, this was the conclusion drawn by the linked article:

"There is a common trend in the top 10. Small state Senators are more popular than large state Senators. This could be because residents of smaller states have more individual contact with their Senators than those who live in more populous states."

Let's put in into another perspective, since there are 626,000 people in Vermont, we can extrapolate from this "poll" that 500,800 Vermonters consider him "popular" (or approve of him). On the other hand, Chuck Schumer's "popularity" or approval rate among New Yorkers is 62%. With a population of 19,600,000 that means that 12,100,000 New Yorkers approve of their Senator. That's 20 times the number of people who approve of Sanders.

So, you see how skewed and irrelevant this so-called poll is?

[beam me up scottie]

61. I'm not sure that's what 'skewed' means. Bernie has been the most popular senator for years

That's a fact.

Not approving of the choices doesn't make a poll skewed, the size of the state doesn't make it skewed and polling constituents by state doesn't make it skewed.

Who else are they supposed to ask if not constituents?

Should Texans get to decide where Elizabeth Warren ranks? How silly.

It would be easy to dismiss one or two polls if Bernie didn't also have high favourability in so many OTHER polls as well:


Harris/Harvard
Mar 14 – Mar 16

2,092 Registered Voters ... Favorable +23

***

FOX
Mar 12 – Mar 14

1,008 Registered Voters ... Favorable +29

***

YouGov/Economist
Feb 12 – Feb 14

1,500 Adults ... Favorable +16

***

Harris/Harvard
Feb 11 – Feb 13

2,148 Registered Voters... Favorable +26

***

Suffolk/USA Today
Dec 14 – Dec 18, 2016

1,000 Likely Voters ... Favorable +17

***

YouGov/Economist
Dec 10 – Dec 13, 2016

1,444 Adults ... Favorable +24

***

Bloomberg/Selzer
Dec 2 – Dec 5, 2016

999 Adults ... Favorable +19

***

GWU/Battleground
Nov 28 – Dec 1, 2016

1,001 Adults ... Favorable +27

***

YouGov/Economist
Nov 19 – Nov 22, 2016

1,405 Adults ..., Favorable +20

***

Politico/Morning Consult
Nov 4 – Nov 5, 2016

1,482 Likely Voters ... Favorable +13

More:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/bernie-sanders-favorable-rating


****


Aren't we FORTUNATE to have such a POPULAR progressive senator on our side? He still draws HUGE crowds and has MILLIONS of followers on social media and that's important since we're going to need those voters in 2018 and 2020.

So let's all thank our most POPULAR senator and CHAIRMAN of DEMOCRATIC Outreach: BERNIE SANDERS for continuing to inspire the people!

[George II]

64. I don't know what or where all that stuff came from, but...care to address the poll YOU posted?

In one respect you're correct, I think it's phenomenal that more than 12 million New Yorkers approve of Senator Chuck Schumer.

[beam me up scottie]

68. It came from Huffpo's pollster which tracks all major polls - I included a link.

Last edited Tue Mar 28, 2017, 10:01 PM - Edit history (1)

You can check other politicians as well, it's a really useful tool.

The poll I posted ranked senators by how their constituents feel about them - can you point out how that makes it flawed?

Not agreeing with the results isn't an indication that the methodology is faulty.

[George II]

76. The poll itself isn't innately flawed, but skewed in that it didn't give each of the respondents...

...the same set of options to consider, for example:

Vermont respondents could only consider on Leahy and Sanders
New York respondents could only comment on Schumer and Gillibrand
Delaware respondents could only comment on Coons and Carper

etc......

So as I pointed out in my first post here, Sanders is the "most popular" in his OWN state by a very small number of Americans, whereas Schumer is a bit less "popular" in his state by 20X the number of people. Bless his heart!

[beam me up scottie]

79. So you think it would be more accurate to poll Texans on Massachusetts senators?

I certainly don't want people in red states to be allowed to drive down favourablility of politicians in blue states.

And the fact that the number of constituents varies from state to state doesn't mean the polls are faulty either.

If you can provide some evidence that the polls are skewed I will be more than happy to discuss it. This is the first I've heard of such a claim and these polls have been done for decades.

[George II]

80. To be meaningful in assessing the most "popular" Senator would be to ask all respondents...

....to consider all 100 Senators, not only 2% of them.

As to your last comment, I already did that in my first response.

[beam me up scottie]

86. Then you should be happy with the results from Fox's poll.

They asked registered voters all over the country their opinions on eight politicians and Bernie scored the highest. The fact that they only included eight doesn't mean it's skewed - they can't very well ask voters to rate hundreds of politicians so they selected eight who are currently in office and have high name recognition.

If you can link to another poll that included voters from all over the country which indicates a current politician other than Bernie is the most popular I'll be happy to look at it.

And again I don't want voters in red states to be allowed to drive down favourable ratings of senators in blue states, I don't think that's fair. Especially when it comes to well known Democrats like Nancy Pelosi who's popular in her own state but whose ratings are much lower in the rest of the country. And less well known liberal senators would also suffer using that methodology.

As to your last comment, I already did that in my first response.

No, you didn't. This is what I asked:

If you can provide some evidence that the polls are skewed I will be more than happy to discuss it. This is the first I've heard of such a claim and these polls have been done for decades.

Here's the definition of skewed:

make biased or distorted in a way that is regarded as inaccurate, unfair, or misleading

What evidence have you provided that those polls were biased or distorted in a way that is regarded as inaccurate, unfair or misleading?

Not approving of the selections and/or number of selections is not proof of bias. Opinions are not evidence.

[George II]

91. Once again, a very limited choice for their respondents, rendering the poll useless...

On two scores - it asked respondents to consider a mix of unrelated choices (i.e., only six politicians, some organizations and some legislation)

How can one possibly rationally compare politicians and legislation as to the "most popular"? Along those lines, why not include pizza, Tom Brady, Mount Rushmore, sand, rocks, etc., etc.? Considering the choices it included, those would make sense as well.

Wasn't this one hashed out a few days ago?

[beam me up scottie]

94. The choices weren't unrelated and they were separate categories.

They asked voters to rate politicians individually and also asked them to rate political organizations/issues individually - they didn't ask voters to compare all of them and decide who or what was most popular. They included political organizations and hot button political issues that VOTERS also consider important, so of course the didn't include celebrities or sports teams.

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 Sanders’s strong showing in such polls.

***

Only three people or groups are viewed favorably by at least half of the country, according to the Fox News poll: Sanders, Planned Parenthood and Obamacare.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/news/politics/wp/2017/03/15/bernie-sanders-remains-one-of-americas-most-popular-politicians/

Planned Parenthood, the ACA, Bernie and Elizabeth all received good ratings. I think this is a good thing because it proves right wing propaganda isn't as successful as the GOP hoped it would be. In fact I am THRILLED that this poll is getting so much attention because the ACA and PP are constantly under attack.

And if by 'hashed out' you mean did I ask for evidence that this poll was biased then yes - and I'm still waiting for proof of that claim. All I've seen are opinions from people who don't like the results. I'm waiting for facts.

[George II]

95. That's simply not true. Here is the actual question as asked by the pollster:

Not by category at all and not politicians individually (excuse the format).

You mentioned a few days ago that you reviewed the poll results several times. Surely you would have noticed this, correct?

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2017/03/15/fox-news-poll-315/

11.-23. I'm going to read you the names of several individuals, groups, and items. Please tell me whether you have a generally favorable or unfavorable opinion of each one. If you've never heard of one please just say so. [IF FAVORABLE / UNFAVORABLE: Is that strongly (favorable / unfavorable) or only somewhat?] [RANDOMIZE]

Summary Chart Among Registered Voters

---------Favorable--------- --------Unfavorable-------- (Can’t say)
Never heard of

TOTAL Strongly Somewhat TOTAL Somewhat Strongly
Bernie Sanders 61% 33 28 32 12 20 4 3
Planned Parenthood 57% 39 18 32 9 23 5 5
The 2010 health care law, also known as Obamacare 50% 26 24 47 11 36 2 1
Mike Pence 47% 30 17 43 12 31 6 5
Donald Trump 44% 30 14 53 6 47 2 *
Elizabeth Warren 39% 24 15 31 7 24 10 19
Paul Ryan 37% 13 24 47 16 31 7 9
Nancy Pelosi 33% 13 20 50 14 36 6 9
Sanctuary cities 33% 19 14 37 8 29 7 22
WikiLeaks 31% 11 20 46 16 30 11 12
Chuck Schumer 26% 11 15 30 10 20 14 30
Mitch McConnell 20% 3 17 44 13 31 13 22
The Freedom Caucus 19% 6 13 18 7 11 18 45

That intrinsically renders it biased and skewed - it has a very small cherry picked selection of choices.

The rest has been discussed over and over again, in more than one thread since that poll was posted several times here on DU.

[beam me up scottie]

97. Except each politician/political organization was rated seperately.

They didn't ask them to compare all of the choices and vote for their favourites.

Asking registered voters to rate politicians and politically relevant organizations doesn't indicate bias. In fact they included equal numbers of conservative and liberal politicians and organizations.

So again - still waiting for facts that prove this was skewed in favour of Bernie.

[George II]

100. Please reread the document that Fox News published. My previous post included...

...the actual question as it was asked of the respondents. It's clearly presented at the Fox link:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/interactive/2017/03/15/fox-news-poll-315/

Now you're adding a different take on what I said, I NEVER said the poll was skewed in favour of Sanders. I said it was skewed, period.

It does not represent an accurate assessment of "politicians" or any of the other categories in the poll.

The only thing one can take from that poll is that Sanders is viewed more favorably (not more "popular"!) of the eight choices of politicians, and four other unrelated choices:

Bernie Sanders
Mike Pence
Donald Trump
Elizabeth Warren
Paul Ryan
Nancy Pelosi
Chuck Schumer
Mitch McConnell

and....

Planned Parenthood
Sanctuary cities
WikiLeaks
The 2010 health care law, also known as Obamacare

Now can we get back to the subject? Thanks.

[beam me up scottie]

103. I've read it several times and I still don't detect any bias.

The subject was popularity - so let's recap:

Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician based on this unbiased poll of randomly selected registered voters.

This is a good thing.

Planned Parenthood and the ACA also received high favourability ratings from the same randomly selected registered voters.

This is a very good thing.

Bernie Sanders has been the most popular senator for years based on many different unbiased polls of constituents.

This is a good thing because when someone on our side does well that's beneficial for all of us.

So this is AWESOME news for liberals everywhere.

Yay Planned Parenthood! Yay Obamacare! Yay Bernie Sanders!

[George II]

108. Okay then, where did you detect that....

...."each politician/political organization was rated seperately"?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=8865026

And now I see that you're "moving the goalposts"!

Taking this further.....

Where did Barack Obama finish in the poll?
Where did Adam Schiff finish in the poll?
Where did Al Franken finish in the poll?

and....

Where did Medicare finish in the poll?
Where did Social Security finish in the poll?
Where did the Brady Bill finish in the poll?

and....

Where did the Catholic Church finish in the poll?
Where did the Salvation Army finish in the poll?
Where did Meals on Wheels finish in the poll?

Got the "bias" now?

[beam me up scottie]

114. Each question was asked separately, they didn't ask them to compare.

And that's not what 'moving the goal posts' means, I've been making the same point all along.

The poll isn't biased because it doesn't include people like Obama, Adam Schiff, Al Franken.

Disliking their choices isn't proof of bias.

The poll isn't biased because Medicare, Social Security, and the Brady Bill weren't included.

Disliking their choices isn't proof of bias.

The poll isn't biased because the RCC, the Salvation Army and Meals on Wheels weren't included.

Disliking their choices isn't proof of bias.



In fact ALL similar polls restrict their choices - are they ALL biased too? That makes absolutely no sense.

Claiming that unless EVERY politician and EVERY politically affiliated organization is included in the poll is biased is absurd.



So no, I still don't 'get' the bias.

Disliking the choices isn't proof of bias, it just means one doesn't like the choices.



If they only polled Fox viewers it would indicate bias. They didn't do that - they polled randomly selected registered voters.

If they only included conservative or liberal choices it would indicate bias. They didn't do that - they included equal amounts of both.

So again - the facts don't indicate any bias in this poll.

The fact that the selection was limited means it's exactly like every other poll which uses similar methods.

[George II]

116. Where in the poll result document did you read that each question was asked separately?

It was one question. I didn't say removing the goal posts, I said moving them.

And good Lord, for the umpteenth time, the choices were highly limited, and if ALL politicians were not included the conclusion could not be that any of the eight could be "the most popular in America". As I've also said several times, all it means is that one of the eight politicians is the "most favorable" over the other seven.

If you don't get the bias indicated by the select few choices, then I'm afraid I'm wasting my time.

Have a blessed evening!

[beam me up scottie]

117. All of these polls HIGHLY limit their choices - that doesn't indicate bias.

That just means pollsters are practical and realize people don't have hours to waste. This poll is no different than dozens of others which use the same method.

And they asked about each choice separately, they didn't include more than one choice per question.

They didn't ask: "how do you feel about Bernie and Trump and Planned Parenthood and Pence?" or "how would you compare these people/things?".

Asking about each choice separately avoids confusion.

And bias.


***

So one more time:

Bernie Sanders is the most popular politician based on this unbiased poll of randomly selected registered voters.

This is a good thing.

Planned Parenthood and the ACA also received high favourability ratings from the same randomly selected registered voters.

This is a very good thing.

Bernie Sanders has been the most popular senator for years based on many different unbiased polls of constituents.

This is a good thing because when someone on our side does well that's beneficial for all of us.

So this is AWESOME news for liberals everywhere.

Yay Planned Parenthood! Yay Obamacare! Yay Bernie Sanders!




May the Flying Spaghetti Monster bless you with his noodley appendages and may you receive unlimited beer and strippers in the hereafter!

May the force be with you!

Live long and prosper!

Cthulhu bless America!

tlhIngan Hol: bortaS bIr jablu'DI' reH QaQqu' nay'!

I prefer to be inclusive when exchanging blessings, this isn't a Christian nation after all - no matter what Trump says.

[H2O Man]

159. Maybe I can help:

In 2016, Bernie ran in the Democratic primary. If people remember way back then, Bernie did very well. Those who supported him are every bit as much part of the Democratic Party as anyone else -- including those who are invested in pretending they (and Bernie) are not important.

[beam me up scottie]

161. Very well said.

Bernie did astonishingly well - especially considering where he started and the fact that he shunned big money and fueled his campaign on small donations. I remember people telling me not to get my hopes up, that he would never win more than his home state. Boy, were they wrong.

So it's no surprise that his favourability ratings are so consistently high in poll after poll. HuffPo's poll tracker doesn't make up those numbers, it simply keeps track of reliable national polls.

Bernie's not going away and neither are we, and again - that's a good thing.

[H2O Man]

162. Right.

This evening, I've been invited to speak to an area Democratic Party committee. The topic involves how to expand their voter base, and gain progressive support for their candidates.

[beam me up scottie]

163. Good luck tonight!

I've been reading reports that interest in local organizing has increased quite a bit thanks to an influx of progressive Dems. Lots of formerly apathetic young people have been inspired and are getting involved now - and that's just what we need.

[H2O Man]

164. Right!

As Malcolm X said, once a rooster sees the sun come out, it's nearly impossible to keep him from crowing.

[synergie]

110. I think you might wish to re-read Geroge's original post.

He explains why it was skewed.

It's fox, they have a tendency towards bias, and George broke it down pretty clearly how the bias worked here.

It is very nice that Fox news viewers, in a rather skewed poll do indeed support liberal organizations and politicians, but to detect bias one does need to look at methodology, subject selection criteria, how a question is asked and what the other options are.

I would think when relying on right wing sources, which have a habit of being less than strict, that it would bear a closer look.

[R B Garr]

129. Thanks for illustrating how this poll is fake. Bernie

himself said he was relatively unknown a couple years ago, so how could he be the most popular senator ever for years. This fake news is getting old.

[NurseJackie]

62. Oh, wow! So he's NOT America's "most popular Senator" after all. I knew something was fishy ...

I knew something was fishy with that poll (or with how it was being presented). They made it sound like it was some sort of national result that applied to 61% of all Americans... Coast-to-Coast... From Sea to Shining Sea... but that's not the case after all.

I really do appreciate that you were able to put this all into perspective, George II.

[George II]

78. The bottom line regarding that "poll"...

is that he's more "popular" in Vermont, population 620,000, than any other Senator in their respective states.

[NurseJackie]

84. But "Most-Popular-Senator-In-His-Own-State-Compared-To-Other-Senators-In-Their-Own-States" doesn't

... have the same ring to it. It's harder to say and it doesn't sound as flattering as the (inaccurate and misleading) one we've been hearing lately.

[Alice11111]

133. I'm a Hill supporter forever, but I'm joining up. Bernie, lead

Us Forward!

[beam me up scottie]

136. Good to hear! We're all on the same team, right?

Bernie's out there fighting for all of us and we appreciate his efforts. The resistance has room for everyone who wants to unite so we're natural allies.

A belated welcome to DU!

[Alice11111]

138. Thank you!Yes, it's us against the evil trumpsters. United we stand. Don't let them divide us again.

That sounds like a cliche, but they are evil, and many are just ignorant, and they are destroying our country. Next, the world.

I'm glad to join with the fight against the Repubs. Not just resist. Resist and stop, by all humane means.

[George II]

52. Will he be promoting the Democratic Party at this "People's Summit"?

[NurseJackie]

53. I'm eager to see what kind of "Outreach" there will be on behalf of the Democratic Party.

[democrank]

92. This is a "PEOPLE'S" Summit

so I hope there is outreach to people in all states, all parties.

A progressive, bottom-up vs. top-down agenda appeals to more than just Democrats. Lots of Independents would welcome this agenda and this approach to issues many care about.

I don't know if I'll agree with everyone about everything at this summit, but I'm proud to support
an attempt to unify people around progressive ideals.

One thing I saw plainly during the march in January, better to try to make a difference than to sit back and complain.

[NurseJackie]

96. That's not what I asked. I'm interested in knowing what he'll be doing (if anything) ...

... to strengthen and grow our party. Or will it be just another so-called "summit" to gripe about Democrats?

Lots of Independents would welcome this agenda and this approach to issues many care about.

Yes, we all have many things in common. I hope that Bernie is able to make the most of his "Outreach" mission and bring those people into the Democratic party... to make our party larger, stronger, and so that those people can help to guide and shape policy from within.

but I'm proud to support an attempt to unify people around progressive ideals.

Yeah, if that actually happens. Sadly, people like Wong and groups like the "Democratic Socialists of America" see the Democratic Party as an adversary (or an enemy) to be vanquished. I hope that Bernie takes the opportunity to show them that by fighting, dividing and weakening the Democratic Party, they actually end up benefiting the GOP.

Time will tell. We'll all be watching closely.

[democrank]

106. I have no interest in compiling a list of all people/groups that

don't support my party 100%. I'm more interested in developing consensus around issues that can bring all kinds of people together, no matter what initial they have after their name.

As for Bernie, I hope he concentrates on strengthening one thing.....bottom-up civic engagement.

[NurseJackie]

109. Yes, I agree with you. I hope Bernie does that too. It's something he often struggles with...

... in my opinion. I think he gets stuck in a rut sometimes and falls back into old patterns of trashing the party rather than building it. I'm hopeful that he'll do the right thing.

[beam me up scottie]

98. GOOD answer!

[LiberalLovinLug]

154. He'll be promoting Democratic party ideals

Whether those are important to top corporate blue dog DINOs or not is not his concern, nor should it be yours.

[George II]

156. Who defines "Democratic party ideals"?

[LiberalLovinLug]

157. Here's a good place to start

(although they may want to edit the "President Obama" out):

https://www.democrats.org/about/our-party

There are several core beliefs that tie our party together: Democrats believe that we're greater together than we are on our own—that this country succeeds when everyone gets a fair shot, everyone does their fair share, and everyone plays by the same rules. Our party, led by President Obama, is focused on building an economy that lifts up all Americans, not just those at the top.

That's why Democrats are working to make progress on issues like job creation, equal pay, education, health care, and clean energy.



Would you say Bernie opposes these ideals or work towards them?

[George II]

158. That seems reasonable and I haven't seen any of our office holders who don't live up to those ideals

[LiberalLovinLug]

165. any???

That is very generous of you to be reasonable, but I can't let that second statement slide.
There are a number of republican-lite DINO reps who vote with Republicans on various important issues.

Bill Nelson, Joe Manchin...

Then there's Ami Bera, Jim Costa and Scott Peters in California, Sean Patrick Maloney (New Dem-NY) and Patrick Murphy (FL) all working hard to put SS back on the table.

Here's an early DU post from babylonsister no less in 2009 by Rachel Maddow explaining "ConservaDems" and the harm they are doing. (video doesn't work anymore)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=385x284012


Anyways. IMO we have to back whomever shares the ideals and values we have, regardless if they are exactly the same in going too far or not far enough. Those who regard the Democratic party as the closest one to represent their own positions, should welcome others that share those values. And obviously regardless if some random top 10 popularity poll is legit or not.

But even beyond that...
I do not understand how some here can't even get behind the notion of the enemy of my enemy... For gawds sake (and America's sake) even if you somehow detest the cranky little old man, can't some of you at least resist crapping all over any efforts by him to fight Trump's and the GOPs agenda? Just ignore threads like this, that would be an improvement.

[FDRsGhost]

57. This is GREAT! I wish I lived closer so I could attend

[NurseJackie]

63. It'll be on RT's youtube channel, probably. They like stuff like this.

[malaise]

72. Excellent

I sure will watch

[PatsFan87]

90. I'm very excited about this! There's some great people on that list.

[H2O Man]

101. Recommended.

I hope to be there.

[panader0]

105. So much anti-Bernie sentiment on this thread.

I voted for him in the primary and for HRC in the general.
Bernie continues to bring people to progressive causes, he's a gem.
Why beat up on an ally?

[Tom Rinaldo]

107. Not really, if you subtract the people who wrote 10 or more posts that are "skeptical" of him

then the thread no longer gives that impression. Certain posters always rush over to threads that are positive toward Bernie and then go back and forth and back and forth asking similar questions and raising similar concerns about him that they have on other threads. They are more dependable than Old Faithful in their appearance on them. Of course they are well within their rights to do so.

[panader0]

112. LOL "Round up the usual suspects."

The primaries are over, Trump won (?) and Bernie is still fighting
the good fight. Thanks Sen. Sanders.

[ms liberty]

118. This. It may be their right, but it is ugly behavior

Their opinions and commentary don't hold any value for me anymore. They remind me of a junior high school clique.

[beam me up scottie]

120. "They are more dependable than Old Faithful" LMAO!

Well said!

[pangaia]

126. Whew !!! Thought I was the only one who noticed that.