Ronald Reagan was popular too. Was he an effective politician?

He was an effective politician ....the goal of which is to get re-elected.....was he good at governance and moving the common weal of the citizens forward ....no.

It is rare that a good politician is also good at governing.

I would say that Hillary is the best politician money can buy.

willhud9 wrote:Ronald Reagan was popular too. Was he an effective politician?

There are many reasons for popularity, one of which is beating the other guy, something clinton couldn’t do. Popularity comes from presenting motivation to effect policy that benefits people. We see that about 35-40% of Americans want what trump is doing, and 60+% want what Sanders is offering. Seems like a rational choice to try to beat trump.

Can those policies be enacted! Trumps violate the constitution, so there are limits. Sanders’ don’t, but they will be opposed by moneyed interests. That problem has to be fixed, or at least better managed before populist positions can be implemented. No one disagrees with that. The system is fucked.

felltoearth wrote:I would say that Hillary is the best politician money can buy.

Obama was better. He could at least win an election. Clinton was a money pit for the wealthy.

Yup - he both was good pol and governed well under very adverse circumstances thanks the the repuglies.

Clinton another one....

Hilary was not a very good pol....might have governed okay .,,,,,

Eisenhower was terrific even tho he hated politics....so did Washington.

Macdoc wrote:Yup - he both was good pol and governed well under very adverse circumstances thanks the the repuglies.

Clinton another one....

Hilary was not a very good pol....might have governed okay .,,,,,

Eisenhower was terrific even tho he hated politics....so did Washington.

You have tinted glasses on.

From this day forward, the millions of our school children will daily proclaim in every city and town, every village and rural school house, the dedication of our nation and our people to the Almighty.... In this way we are reaffirming the transcendence of religious faith in America's heritage and future; in this way we shall constantly strengthen those spiritual weapons which forever will be our country's most powerful resource, in peace or in war.

~Eisenhower.

Eisenhower was a fiscal conservative who disliked spending government money, despite his insistence that he was a progressive his track record says otherwise aside from not repealing New Deal policies. He was slow to act on the tension of the civil rights and black veterans who fought under his army were left high and dry with no substantial rights and he turned a blind eye to the plights of them and other black people. While he finally took action later in his presidency, his hesitance to act in the 50's set back a lot of civil rights that could have been more prominent had Eisenhower had the actual balls to do anything.

Furthermore, he allowed McCarthyism to run rampant. As President he has the voice of the country essentially and he let McCarthy make unfounded accusations and scare tactics and never once denouced him.

There was a lot wrong with Eisenhower. He wasn't this amazing president who made the country awesome. Under his presidency the "golden years" of having the working husband, stay-at-home wife, a brand new car, living in the suburbs, new material things, etc. (basically I Love Lucy and all those old sitcoms) was established and that mentality of what traditional marriage and ideal life should look like has stuck with people until today. America wasn't great back then.

Regardless this is off topic, and I'd be glad to hear your response in another thread.

Wat? Eisenhower famously hated McCarthy.

How Eisenhower Triumphed Over Joe McCarthy

Seabass wrote:Wat? Eisenhower famously hated McCarthy.

How Eisenhower Triumphed Over Joe McCarthy

Yet did not publicly speak out or condemn him until well after McCarthy's fall from grace.

McCarthy may be gone, but over the top anti-Russian hysteria is here to stay.

proudfootz wrote:McCarthy may be gone, but over the top anti-Russian hysteria is here to stay.

I wouldn't classify concern over Putin's meddling with our elections as "hysteria".

Willie71 wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:

WayOfTheDodo wrote:

Oldskeptic wrote:Not liking Bernie's ridiculous plan and thinking that he is an ineffectual buffoon

...is retarded. It's based on your irrational hatred of him, and the way you consistently misrepresent his positions.

Hillary sucks. Deal with it. Mindlessly bashing Bernie won't make her suck less. She lost to Donald Fucking Trump, FFS!

Well, if you say so.

Most people say so:

On July 11, Morning Consult released a poll naming Sen. Bernie Sanders as the most popular politician in the Senate, with a 75 percent approval rating. He held a 6 percent lead over the runner up, Sen. Brian Schatz. The rankings were based on over 140,000 interviews conducted between April 1 and June 18, 2017. The latest poll provides further evidence that Sanders is the most popular politician in the country.

A survey conducted by Fox News in March 2017 found similar results. Sanders received the highest favorability rating of nationally known politicians: 61 percent. The runner up was Vice President Mike Pence, whose favorability was 47 percent. A Harvard-Harris survey conducted in April 2017 confirmed these results, with Sanders receiving a 57 percent favorability rating. Hillary Clinton received only 42 percent favorability in the same poll. In April 2017, PolitiFact rated the claim that Sanders is the most popular politician in the country even though he lost to Clinton as mostly true.

http://observer.com/2017/07/bernie-sand ... olitician/

Again, your beliefs are out of line with reality.

The reality is that popularity doesn't automatically make for a good administrator. It would be something if Bernie had his popularity and a successful record of achievement to go along with it but that isn't the case. Not having changed his opinions in over forty years, nor accomplished legislation of any significance, and managing to get reelected in Vermont a few times isn't really much of a bragging sheet.

We don't know if Sanders would be a good administrator because he's never had direct administrator experience. That doesn't preclude him from being a good one though. Sanders isn't a bad candidate and he wasn't a bad candidate for the Democratic Party. I do not see the same issues a good portion of people see in Clinton so I liked them both on a very equal level.

This conversation is tedious in the long run. Sanders is an excellent senator who has a stable and excellent record as senator. Whether that translates into good president is enigmatic at this point and just guess work.

I never feel senators or representatives have the experience alone to be good executives and I generally look for politicians with former mayor/governor experience. Clinton had the experience of working with her husband when he was both governor and president so she had a slight edge of preference for me in that regards. Even Donald Trump I feel is more "qualified" ( ) as a CEO as that still is an executive role.

But again George W. Bush was governor of Texas and he wasn't the best president, although I don't think he was nearly as bad as many people paint him out to be.

Overall, I think trying to say Sanders would have been a terrible president is an ignorant statement. Its not really clear whether he would be or not, but the evidence leans more towards a positive presidency than a negative one.

willhud9 wrote:We don't know if Sanders would be a good administrator because he's never had direct administrator experience. That doesn't preclude him from being a good one though. Sanders isn't a bad candidate and he wasn't a bad candidate for the Democratic Party. I do not see the same issues a good portion of people see in Clinton so I liked them both on a very equal level.

This conversation is tedious in the long run. Sanders is an excellent senator who has a stable and excellent record as senator. Whether that translates into good president is enigmatic at this point and just guess work.

I never feel senators or representatives have the experience alone to be good executives and I generally look for politicians with former mayor/governor experience. Clinton had the experience of working with her husband when he was both governor and president so she had a slight edge of preference for me in that regards. Even Donald Trump I feel is more "qualified" ( ) as a CEO as that still is an executive role.

But again George W. Bush was governor of Texas and he wasn't the best president, although I don't think he was nearly as bad as many people paint him out to be.

Overall, I think trying to say Sanders would have been a terrible president is an ignorant statement. Its not really clear whether he would be or not, but the evidence leans more towards a positive presidency than a negative one.

I'm not saying Sanders would have been sure to be a bad president. I'm saying that popularity isn't enough.

willhud9 wrote:We don't know if Sanders would be a good administrator because he's never had direct administrator experience.

Quick quiz for 20 points, will: what was Bernie's last job before entering congress?

OlivierK wrote:

willhud9 wrote:We don't know if Sanders would be a good administrator because he's never had direct administrator experience.

Quick quiz for 20 points, will: what was Bernie's last job before entering congress?

LMAO

Trump has all kinds of experience as an executive.

Obviously the most qualified.

OlivierK wrote:

willhud9 wrote:We don't know if Sanders would be a good administrator because he's never had direct administrator experience.

Quick quiz for 20 points, will: what was Bernie's last job before entering congress?

Ahh he was mayor of Burlington. I kind of...forgot about that.

willhud9 wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

willhud9 wrote:We don't know if Sanders would be a good administrator because he's never had direct administrator experience.

Quick quiz for 20 points, will: what was Bernie's last job before entering congress?

Ahh he was mayor of Burlington. I kind of...forgot about that.

for 8 years iirc - do Mayors serve 4 years terms over there?

Teague wrote:

willhud9 wrote:

OlivierK wrote:

willhud9 wrote:We don't know if Sanders would be a good administrator because he's never had direct administrator experience.

Quick quiz for 20 points, will: what was Bernie's last job before entering congress?

Ahh he was mayor of Burlington. I kind of...forgot about that.

for 8 years iirc - do Mayors serve 4 years terms over there?

it varies by state and city. some cities/towns/muncipalities dont have mayors but rely on city councils.