2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumTime Magazine: Who won the 5th debate?
37,500 votes so far
Two Democratic presidential candidates took to the stage for a debate Thursday night. Who do you think won?
http://time.com/4208867/democratic-debate-fifth-new-hampshire-poll-survey/?xid=time_socialflow_twitter
You all ''should look into it''
TheSocialDem
(191 posts)People are feeing Bernie's message
senz
(11,945 posts)grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)at least you got it past a few thousand
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)so I guess he votes on those polls too.
You guys think its a conspiracy .......... well
just create your own swarm and change the poll
or don't Clinton supporters use the internet?
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)I don't have a favorite. Thankfully, I still have objectivity.
hedda_foil
(16,374 posts)This is just my opinion, but because they tend to be 45+, I don't think a high percentage of Hillary voters use the internet for news and information. They may email and google, but they don't spend much time on social media except Facebook to check on what their friends and relatives are up to, and the doings of their assorted kids and grandkids. They don't use it much to express their political views. So broadcast "journalism" and other msm are their go-to's for political news.
I'm a 70 year old grandma, so I'm no kid, but like many other older DUers, I get 90% of my information online, and the vast majority of us are for Bernie. I think that's how the age split can be explained. 90% of engaged web users consistently give Bernie the highest marks in online polls. Apparently, only 10-15% Hillary voters are likely to try to find these polls.
But that's what makes these debates so valuable. They're the one place where limited web users can get a better understanding of what the candidates are up to.
I'm asleep on my feet, so I hope this makes sense.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)HRC supporters are interested in the real polls - and understand that on-line polls are meaningless.
"I get 90% of my information online, and the vast majority of us are for Bernie."
Really? That's an interesting stat. Can you provide the links to the surveys/studies that have shown that "the vast majority" of those who get "90% of their information on-line are "for Bernie"?
TIA! I can't wait to see THIS survey!
hedda_foil
(16,374 posts)Whether my hypothesis can be extrapolated to the general population should be testable at some point by statisticians, but it's too early to do so now.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)"HRC supporters are interested in the real polls - and understand that on-line polls are meaningless. "
Can't wait for you to provide the links to those studies/surveys.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)If HRC was behind in the real polls, I would probably be looking for on-line polls that said what I wanted to hear, just to make myself feel better about my candidate's chances.
With HRC ahead in scientific polls, why would I bother with on-line polls - which, in the end, are meaningless? They don't screen out those not eligible to vote, nor do most of them prevent anyone from "voting" multiple times. Their only real value is allowing people whose candidate is lagging behind in real polls to convince themselves that the "real polls" are wrong.
If Bernie was ahead of HRC in legitimate polls, do you honestly think his supporters would be bothered with on-line polls? Why would they be? There would be no point.
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)But it still doesn't explain why, if Hillary is truly leading in the "real" polls, which is becoming less of a reality everyday btw, she doesn't have enough supporters online to do super simple online polls...if nothing else, just to show support for their candidate. I mean, if she were losing these things by 20 or 30 points, I would understand, but she's losing them by 70, 80, 90 points...makes no sense.
Still waiting for those studies/surveys.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)... "on-line polls are meaningless" you don't get.
"If nothing else, just to show support for their candidate."
If my candidate is ahead in the REAL polls, why would I need to "show support" in a FAKE poll?
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)I know you think they are meaningless. Fine. Who I'm referring to are the tens of thousands of other Hillary supporters that are online all the time that you would think would take a few seconds and click on these polls since they are so simple and are a quick way to show support for her.
Simple concept.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)Why would anyone take the time - a few seconds or otherwise - to participate in an on-line poll they know to be meaningless?
Why bother?
tex-wyo-dem
(3,190 posts)Hillary supporters think exactly the way you do...that these polls are a waste of time and aren't worth even the few seconds to click on Hillary's name and show support, however insignificant it is.
Hogwash.
My theory, FWIW: a pretty good majority who read articles online, such as the TIME article that this poll is embedded in, are younger people (under age 40-45). And as the "real" polls show, Bernie has much greater support in this age group than Hillary and, thus, is reflected in these "worthless" online polls.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)It's a matter of whose candidate is behind in the real polls, and who needs the quick fix that an on-line poll can give.
When your candidate is ahead in the real polls, you have no reason to go searching for on-line polls that support that. When your candidate is behind in the real polls, you turn to on-line polls as an alternative to facing reality.
PonyUp
(1,680 posts)And $1.9 million in the quarter before that. What a waste.
She's trying to spend all her money before she loses and it goes to Bernie.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)Maybe if Bernie used polls to find out what's going on in 2016 instead of talking about what went on forty years ago, he wouldn't be lagging behind her.
cali
(114,904 posts)Hillary is as close to being an incumbent as can be imagined. In addition, she's the one stuck in the last century and running an anachronistic campaign.
NanceGreggs
(27,814 posts)You've heard one, you've heard them all.
cali
(114,904 posts)But then I'm a Vermonter.
840high
(17,196 posts)gyroscope
(1,443 posts)...predictably gets spanked by the old Jedi master.
Be careful what you ask for Hillary, you just might get it.
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)there was another swarm to an online poll?
TheBlackAdder
(28,201 posts)MrWendel
(1,881 posts)not all of them live on the net.
TheBlackAdder
(28,201 posts)MrWendel
(1,881 posts)think any of that majority ain't millennials that had their minds made up before the debate? You think that there is a accurate balance of all groups in that poll? The internet click polls are useless.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)MrWendel
(1,881 posts)John McCain rally cry actually.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)visas are actually from Canada. Pro war. Anti immigration. Are you sure you are a liberal?
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)Is there a rigid definition of liberal? Is anyone really in lock step with all the rules and policies to the letter of what it is to be liberal? Define the ultimate uncompromising definition of a liberal.
And actually. I confused this thread with another one I was writing in. About Foreign policy.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)That doesn't seem to be the Democratic platform anymore and therefore I am a liberal Independent. I guess you could call me a Democratic Socialist like Bernie. Whether he wins or loses I plan on helping to further the cause of Democratic Socialism because we need to get back to taking care of the people of this country and not just the corporations and the war machine. You can call yourself a liberal if you want. You can call yourself anything you like. I really don't care.
MrWendel
(1,881 posts)why ask the question? You do you, I'm not interested in changing your mind. Come the general, we mostly will go back to being one big dysfunctional family pulling (mostly) in the same direction.
liberal_at_heart
(12,081 posts)get me kicked off the site.
Matariki
(18,775 posts)A disclaimer: Online reader polls like this one are not statistically representative of eligible primary voters. They are a measure, however imprecise, of which candidates have the most energized online supporters, or most social media savvy fan base. After all, what they are counting is the number of Internet-devices controlled by people who want to vote.
mikehiggins
(5,614 posts)I went to the site but couldn't figure out how to vote. I think all the security programs on my computer keeps getting in the way.
Probably figures this stupid human spends too much time on the net/
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)for the names to come up when it finally loads
then you click on either Hillary or Bernie, your vote is then tabulated and you see the results.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)Too bad I need to "vote" to see the number
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)Time is THE quintessential magazine of the baby boomer generation, Hillary's biggest demographic.
And yet she got spanked on their poll.
nadinbrzezinski
(154,021 posts)I did love the disclaimer. Could not be truer.
ProudToBeLiberal
(3,964 posts)Hell, Ron Paul would be President if we judged the online polls. I think he won everyone of them.
gyroscope
(1,443 posts)if Hillary had won the Time poll you would be cheering.
grossproffit
(5,591 posts)Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)when it started to become a higher brow version of PEOPLE magazine.
Binkie The Clown
(7,911 posts)amborin
(16,631 posts)Petrushka
(3,709 posts)Two Democratic presidential candidates took to the stage for a debate Thursday night. Who do you think won?
Hillary Clinton
14 %
Bernie Sanders
86 %
54,515 Votes
bigwillq
(72,790 posts)Didn't watch the debate but I love voting in meaningless internet polls!
Ichingcarpenter
(36,988 posts)Hillary ............ and she still loses.
LiberalArkie
(15,715 posts)Most of my neighbors do not vote in the primaries and just vote the party in november. My brother in law is a weird one, solid Hillary but just recently replaced his Hillary bumper sticker with a Trump one after he bought one of the assault weapon clones. Really. I have no idea of how that came about or for what reason.
napi21
(45,806 posts)I would have thought it to be much closer like 65-45 maybe. However, it's very pleasant surprise.