Ok, so Bernie gets a high approval rating. I'm good with that. What does it mean? Does it mean he's going to win the primary in 2020? Is that your point? I'm just saying that a single sided poll like the one you put up isn't the same as what happens in an election when two or more people participate in an election. It also doesn't change what happened in 2016 when Bernie didn't win the African American, Hispanic and women's vote by very large margins. Are you inferring what will happen or denying what did happen. For your sake, I hope you are inferring the future rather than denying the facts of the past.
Moving on to the meaning of opinion polls, opinion polls consistently paint results that would have us think the US is filled with saints who care for each other. Then the US votes in a reactionary right wing congress and Trump. and Ryan who is on record of wanting to dismantle Medicaid and he damn near did it. What you are saying is "they voted Republican extreme right wing because Democrats weren't liberal enough". You claim that people who voted for representatives who oppose social security, medicare, medicaid, abortion, public schools, environmental protection, rational treatment of the illegal immigration and so forth thirst to vote for extremely liberal politicians.That's is really funny.
A better answer to this apparent conflict between opinion polling results and election results is majority of people in red states and quite a few in purple states are more conservative than California liberals. They see their conservative representatives as the answer to problems today. Maybe they'd prefer more moderate types and that's what I think would win back house and Senate seats. Not tops down mandated California liberal policies.
Regarding this idea of yours, that "every Democrat must sign on to my specific issues or they can't run". Where "specific issues" are pledge to forego legal campaign donations from corporations and big donors and single payer healthcare. That's your bag, not anybody else's. For example, Bernie isn't saying this, he's saying he can support a person he differs with, presumably because he can work with that person to get his own job done. What I read on Justice Democrats platform is the pledge is their way of identifying candidates that they can support. I don't read anywhere that JD is demanding the entire political leadership of the Democratic party must sign the pledge. Reading on, I see JD pushing the idea that candidates who sign the pledge will be more successful also get their backing if they do so. I think this if rational and can certainly support a candidate that signs the pledge.
It's you who is taking the extreme authoritarian liberal position of mandating adherence to liberal policies party-wide.
Moving on to Kyle Kulinkski and his propaganda technique of quoting poll numbers without discussion as a means of concealing instead of reasoning, below is a post I made to st0 regarding this subject. Kyle's emotional and fact-light propaganda technique is on display in the youtube video link attached. Note that Jerry Brown in the short clip takes a reasoned approach to the complex idea of backing people who don't always agree on important policies. Kyle first miscasts Brown as a washed up and old man in politics, then starts cursing and squealing in an emotional appeal to get his audience worked up into a lather. It's quite a show. Almost exactly the same format used by Rush Limbaugh and Hannity. Unsurprisingly, Kyle is recycling right wing positions too.
