>but it's interesting when and where we apply these
>unfavorable/favorable statistics. For instance, Sanders has
>consistently held the highest approval ratings in the Senate
>and is constantly at the top in terms of favorable ratings -
>but I didn't see you citing that in his defense. In fact, I
>saw just the opposite.

This is on point. Reeq is a good dude, just seems very
pro-establishment at times- at least when it comes to
how he interprets polls.

**Reeq, you do seem to cherry pick polls man.

You never responded to me in that other thread either.

I honestly forget which thread, but you essentially posted
a bunch of pro-Biden polls as evidence that he should
run cuz he would be the best candidate.

In every poll, Bernie was second. So, based on the
faith you put into those polls for Biden, you
should be very much in favor of Bernie running.

In fact, if Biden doesn’t run, Bernie should be your
top choice.

Have you changed your mind on Bernie based on
how he’s polling?

And to Vexs point, are you more in favor of Bernie running
considering how popular he is?

Gotta be consistent at least.

****

>
>Such ratings are even more important for him because he's a
>presidential candidate - whereas AOC is a freshman in the
>House holding a futurist view of where she believes the party
>to go. She's also wildly popular in her congressional
>district and has become almost a celebrity.
>
>Further, millennials are now the largest voting bloc and as
>they become increasingly active in the political process - I
>would expect her ratings to climb.
>
>But yes - she's not a popular candidate with Independents and
>party loyalists - but that isn't a reason to not support and
>celebrate her as she's pushing the envelope and not bound by
>party dogma.
>
>This speaks to the point I was trying to communicate to you in
>a different thread. That is: at some point as a party you
>have to have a forward-thinking view to where the party is
>moving in the future, as opposed to being frozen in the
>current status-quo. Politics will change dramatically over
>the next decade - and the Democratic party has the largest
>potentiality to be on the cusp of that evolution by enlarging
>its tent. It'd be political malpractice to not understand the
>very clear signs that AOC is a future superstar of the party
>(and in many ways is already a superstar in the party, without
>the help of the Pelosi/Schumer wing).
>
>
>
>
>-->

All good points too.

Plus, she outperformed the polls in her primary/
that’s what made her a star in the first place.

She got non-voters (therefore, not polled) out to
vote.

This should be the Dem strategy literally everywhere.