Big post warning.
The difference is that Hillary has more statements rated, therefore her ratings are more likely to be accurate than Sanders'. Plus... kind of hilarious, but Sanders hasn't really said a lot that he hasn't repeated.
These in particular:
This was taken out of context. The talk was about how the majority of poorer areas are populated by minorities (and we've discussed and proven this in this thread before), but he obviously didn't mean that exactly, and he's addressed this in an interview. It was aimed at the majority of middle class non-minorities, as a statement made to make an impact. He definitely could have said it better, though, but his statement's not completely false.
"Know" and "recognize" are two different things. The only reason we aren't hopping on cleaner energy sources is because the fossil fuel industry is lobbying practically every republican to say it's bullstuff, and lobbing democrats to just not say anything. Rather, not say as much.
Cherrypicking.
????
I'm positive I don't even need to look at polling data to know this one's bullstuff. There are so many Bernie supporters hopping over to support Annoying Orange over Hillary it's not even funny. Rather, it's frustrating.
The article argues that the notion "twice as much" is false, when it's more like 50-70% more. This is fair, but we're still spending
more than other countries. That's the important part here. This claim should have been rated "mostly false".
Same as above.
...Privatizing it would be worse. And there
are republicans who want to abolish it.
And I'm sure Hillary's ratings aren't that much more accurate. Politifacts is trash.
Poll