Official 2015 Democratic Party Survey COULDN'T BE MORE BIASED...

[MrMickeysMom]

Just received something that pretends to call itself a party survey it in the mail today (At the top of the survey is my DNC Membership #, Registration, Survey Tracking Scalene, please return by Dec 15, and the rest of the blah-blah-blah.)

Here's why it's biased -

After section I (personal information), there is a section II, III, IV, V (comments) and VI (soliciting contributions)

With the exception of where one fills out personal information and gives comment, every section has a multiple choice question. It even recognizes every Republican candidate running in the 3rd part of section III with the question, "Which Republican presidential hopeful do you believe would be the hardest to defeat in 2016?"

However, Section II, (The 2016 Elections) has no multiple choice and there is no objective reason as to why. That section's question is, "Which Democratic candidate do you support to be our Party's 2016 presidential nominee?"

IT'S LEFT BLANK. One has nothing to check off. Therefore, unless you get a VAST alternative amount of daily news that includes Bernie Sanders, many Democrats would have to come up with it. That's right... WRITE IT IN!

Now WHY DO YOU SUPPOSE a survey who's content potentially could be weighed has no way of quantitatively evaluating the Democratic candidate?

Why, when you pick up media talking about the 2016 Presidential race, can you unconditionally see Hillary Clinton's name referred to over and over. MANY of these (also biased) articles don't even bother to MENTION Bernie Sanders name.

This THIS official party survey pretends to quantitatively evaluate who Democrats support in 2016.

I've never been as insulted by the attempt by these party hacks to misrepresent my party as much as I was when I pulled the envelope open and feasted my eyes on this HORRID example of a survey. This is PURE horse shit. And, it's now being circulated into mailboxes guaranteed to offer yet another data set that PRETENDS to address what we want in this country.

Well I couldn't let it go without a call, which I just finished. I recommend that you give them your opinion. I was told DWS would be given my complaint. I added how disappointed I was in her as Chair. I told the person answering the DNC in Washington that it was INSULTING, and that I wasn't happy with the Chair's performance, and this was ONE MORE REASON for feeling that way.

BTW, the phone number of the DNC is 1-877-336-7200. Let them know how you feel, assuming you got this piece of shit in the mail, too.

[Cali_Democrat]

1. It's because there are so many Democratic candidates.

http://www.fec.gov/press/resources/2016presidential_form2nm.shtml

[MrMickeysMom]

2. I don't buy that for ONE SECOND, Cali...

I can tell you haven't received the survey, because out of the 13 Republicans listed from which to choose ONE, these are the same candidates that made it TO the fucking debates.

But, thank you for for playing...

[Cali_Democrat]

3. I changed my address recently

The DNC probably sent to my old mailbox.

I'll have to check it out.

[MrMickeysMom]

4. Please, please do...

[brooklynite]

5. So a survey sent to Party activists and supporters needs to provide a checkoff list of candidates

I'll let Debbie know the next time we talk.

[senz]

10. Ah yes ...

[brooklynite]

11. It IS catchy, isn't it?

[MrMickeysMom]

12. Yes, you go ahead and do that...

But first, I have to assume you are not a voting registered Democrat, or you would know exactly what these surveys are... They are NOT what you are talking about.

Yeah, you tell Debbie that for all of us who actually get these by being voting members of the Democratic party.

[brooklynite]

14. Oh, I know exactly what they are...butterfly nets

They exist solely to generate fundraising. That said, they're only sent to people on the DNCs mailing list, which means they have a significantly higher levels of political awareness, so there would be no need to provide a list of candidate names.

[MrMickeysMom]

54. Well, if they send to people with a "significantly higher level of political awareness."..

... then, why do they provide just the names of the Republican's running. We don't need to know that list, according to that line of reasoning.

butterfly nets?

[NurseJackie]

6. I must admit I'm puzzled why this is such a big deal.

How difficult could it be to write-in the name of one's preferred candidate?

Was this possibly printed when we had more candidates? Was someone anticipating (correctly) that one or more of those candidates may withdraw?

I can easily imagine how infuriated someone may have been if the "check-a-box" names had been listed in alphabetical order.

() Clinton
() O'Malley
() Sanders

No doubt there would be someone here who'd post a raging fit about it. OH DEAR GOD LOOK AT THAT HIS NAME IS LAST, LAST I TELL YOU, LAST! HOW DARE THEY! IT'S RIGGED! YOU KNOW SANDERS IS THE ONLY CANDIDATE STILL IN OFFICE SO HIS NAME SHOULD BE FIRST. THEY SHOULD HAVE ALPHABETIZED IT BY FIRST NAME: BERNIE, HILLARY, MARTIN.

And if we assume that the survey goes to a moderately-low information voter, who (as you suggest) has never heard of Bernie Sanders because of the "media bias" against him ... why would they check the name of someone they've never heard of?

I'm sorry, but not everything is a conspiracy against Bernie Sanders.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. LOL!

EOM

[NCTraveler]

8. So true and well put. Nt

[MrMickeysMom]

16. The post requires that you know how to read for comprehension, Jackie...

The survey asked you to choose by multiple choice the Republican that would present the biggest challenge to the Democratic nominee. IOW, it presents all names by which a choice could be made.

It DOES NOT present any names when asking which Democratic candidate you would support. Therefore, you would have to have the same name recognition. Unless you've been living under a rock, you cannot find proportional information in the news about any Democratic candidate unless your name is Hillary Clinton.

I'm quite tired of the people waiting in the wing WHO DON'T READ and then assume that conspiracy is in operation.

What is in operation is control of name recognition, followed by a SURVEY asking you to make a choice. It assume too much. It assumes that the press is presenting equal time in addressing candidates.

When you survey, the question should be presented in the same way. By the way, when did you get your survey? Or didn't you get one? Do you vote?

[NurseJackie]

21. Thanks for clarifying a confusing and disorganized post. I appreciate that.

But I still don't see what the big deal is.

[MrMickeysMom]

24. Must be the confused and disorganized state one gets...

... when one thinks this isn't a big deal.

How disengaged can you get?

[NurseJackie]

38. For an issue that's so important

one might think someone as engaged as you are could make a better case.

[MrMickeysMom]

41. I see, I just get to do that.. So, what's the point of breaking it down further?

You make an excuse for never having gotten one. That's because you would have to be a voting Democrat. Anyone can see by your answer to that, this is not the case.

For more cases to be brought to your, I recommend switching the tv to an episode of Perry Mason.

[NurseJackie]

44. So you're giving up.

Apparently it's not as much of a crisis as you want people to believe. That's fine.

[MrMickeysMom]

48. Your posts continue to be silly and don't address the issue...

This seems to be a repeating theme at times on DU...

Can't even see the issue, so I'm supposed to enable you to understand why it's dishonest to send out a survey like that.

Apparently, the ones that give up are those who stop talking to their leadership with the intension to be heard.

Talk about giving up...

[NurseJackie]

53. There's nothing dishonest about it.

The most reasonable explanation is that it's just a typical fund raising survey. It's a gimmick that is much less sinister and has much less importance than you may imagine.

[MrMickeysMom]

55. It's disgusting to hear that a survey asking questions of the voter isn't important...

Have a good night, now.

[NurseJackie]

56. Nighty nite.

[blue neen]

47. Please. I believe you can make your case without insulting another poster's reading comprehension..

..or accusing other posters of not being a voting Democrat. (BTW, what is the definition of a voting Democrat?).

I think we got this survey the other day, but I didn't even open it; didn't feel like looking at it that day. Perhaps this happened to others also, and they forgot they ever got it. Maybe their address has changed.

What's the difference if they received it or not? You stated your opinion in the OP, others in this thread are entitled to do the same.

FWIW, I really don't see what the big deal is here, either. We hear about both Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton in the media. We don't hear much about Martin O'Malley. Maybe they just wanted to see the different kinds of answers they'd get from different demographic groups.

[MrMickeysMom]

50. That isn't true, blue

I was ready to agree with you that to not open an envelope in the mail would be a reason one would not get this survey, but then you had to pile on that same talking point beginning with, "for what it's worth"...

That's when you stopped being objective. "We" hear about BS and HRC, but not equally by a long shot. The moment you fail to see that gross and disrespectful balance, you see what you want. "Maybe" this and "maybe" that is the reason, but the survey should NEVER have been sent out like that. It wasn't a statistical mistake. We are not that stupid. It was a ploy to use bad data to support HRC (thus continuing the unequal attention as to who is running).

Democrats who vote appear to continually monitored by the DNC, as they are likely to get the survey, especially if they've supported the Democratic party in the past. That's a voting Democrat.

[blue neen]

58. Sorry, but I am most certainly being objective.

In the newspapers that are read in this house and the news shows that are watched, we hear and read about two candidates. Is it equal between the two? I honestly don't know, because this home is not ready to be completely engaged in next year's election. How do you think the Martin O'Malley camp feels, because we truly do not hear about him. The citizens of Ireland are more curious about O'Malley than we are, and that's a shame. He has a lot of good things to say. If you're going to be angry about it, then you should be angry about him, too. That is being objective.

I am not a "talking points" kind of person. The PA Primary is a long way from now, and I have not even begun to decide who I support.

There are more important topics to expend your energy on, because by your definition, one of the Democratic Presidential candidates is not a voting Democrat and would not have received the survey.

[MrMickeysMom]

59. Newspaper sources would be good to compare now...

Also, the point I have made is that this survey should have had ALL Democratic candidates listed as a weighted choice.

When you caucus with the Democrats, you vote with the Democrats.

Your great concern for how I spend my energy is noted.

[LuvLoogie]

43. Bernie is in charge of his own name recognition.

He's got decades of work as a Democrat to do in order to catch up. Maybe he should have stayed in New york City and run for the House and Senate in New York. Maybe he sold his ideals short by retreating to Vermont instead.

[MrMickeysMom]

61. "Catch up" to what?

Decades of work as a better purveyor of Democratic values is what he's already contributed. It's about time for the Democratic party to catch up to him.

[LuvLoogie]

62. The disaffected Left is a school of fish.

It went from Warren to Sanders overnight. What I mean by "catch up" is to actually establish a political network of like-minded individuals to begin farming a team. You need a legislative strategy from the ground up.

Jan Schakowski is just as "Progressive" as Bernie Sanders. Sherrod Brown is just as "Progressive" as Bernie Sanders. Russ Feingold is just as "Progressive" as Bernie Sanders. And they have been DEMOCRATS their entire careers.

Bernie Sanders is not going to build an overnight legislative base from radio show listeners via Instagram and Twitter. He is only relevant as a Democrat, and can only promote his values via the Democratic Caucus. Preaching is not leading.

[MrMickeysMom]

68. Says the person who thinks these things are equal...

I do not, nor do I for one moment think that the election of a president is effective enough to change our present course.

You trivialize the base of Bernie Sanders. This is your observation within your own school of fish.

[demwing]

64. Despite the logic that the last thing you hear is often

the first thing you remember, this survey is a name recognition test.

But bless your heart for admitting you were puzzled :wave:

[NurseJackie]

65. The outrage is absurd.

[demwing]

66. of course

uhm hmm

[NurseJackie]

67. I know, isn't that crazy?

When there are so many other legitimate things to be upset about, this one is what people choose to focus on? Amazing.

[MrMickeysMom]

72. It's amazing that this is the only survey to hear from the voters...

... unless you can point me to another survey.

If not, then the low priority on your list as a Democratic voter is connecting to your party and holding your party leader's feet to the fire.

[MrMickeysMom]

70. You said it best...

It's a name recognition test... but, it's pretending to be a survey...

The DNC really doesn't want to know what we think. They just want to test the theory of who's name, when repeated over and over and over and over again will be the first thing you remember. It produces skewed data.

Anyone who thinks the survey is a non-starter and nothing to be upset about is the same person who thinks that never caring what the Democratic voter thinks is just fine.

Stunning... yet you can't help be in awe of how some of this thread's robotic obedience shows how what a fine job the DNC is doing to fuck up the members of the Democratic party.

[AgingAmerican]

9. We already know that DWS has zero integrity

So this is to be expected.

[MrMickeysMom]

25. Enough of what we can expect...

I'm demanding they either will USE Democratic voter's input, or they don't give a FUCK on steroids.

I see it's the latter.

[AgingAmerican]

30. Their corporate masters would rather risk throwing the election

Than see Sanders nominated.

[senz]

13. I agree, multiple choice is standard for this type of questionnaire.

When you add to that DWS's intransigence w/regard to the number of debates -- which both O'Malley and Sanders protested -- and her previous history as Clinton's national campaign co-chair, it's obvious this is just one more tactic in her continued efforts to shoe-horn her old pal into the nomination -- voters be damned.

I hope it backfires.

[AgingAmerican]

33. They know she will automatically win on name recognition

They fear the electorate.

[brooklynite]

15. Folks, you DO know that this is just a fundraising pitch, and the survey is meaningless?

Oh, who am I kidding...

[MrMickeysMom]

17. It's clear who you are kidding...

... You didn't get that survey, now?

Do you vote?

[brooklynite]

18. Of course I vote...

...I've voted in every election since 1977.

But given my direct contacts with the Finance people at DNC, DSCC, DCCC, etc, they don't bother sending me junk mail.

[MrMickeysMom]

19. Huh... you must not think kindly of how they mail out to party members, either...

That's telling...

[brooklynite]

20. -I- think its a huge waste of time and effort...

...but then, I don't work in fundraising.

[MrMickeysMom]

23. You know... This isn't some project management fundraising moment...

It's an election that will result in a president who can lead us out of a hot mess. It's also about a populous needing to inform the leadership.

But, none of this is informing the party. It's a fundraising effort, so it's, like, okaaaayy.

[UglyGreed]

26. Brooklyn must be one of those elite

members of the DCL, cough, cough I mean Democratic Party. You know the ones that pay $2000 a plate to hobnob with the top dogs......

Bill Clinton provided a brief warm-up act to Hillary Clinton on Sunday evening: The former president schmoozed with donors at an East Hampton fundraiser, where about 175 guests attended, each paying from $500 to $2,700.

But the former president was not there to upstage his wife: Once Hillary Clinton finished with the photo line, her husband sat on stage and listened, with no speaking role during the program.

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/08/clinton-east-hampton-bill-joins-hillary-at-fundraiser-213175

[NurseJackie]

22. I haven't received this particular one …

… but other similar ones were clearly intended to "inform-by-surveying" and to get people motivated enough to send a few bucks.

[onecaliberal]

27. I got the same piece of shit survey. I'm going to call. I won't be as

Nice as you were.

[MrMickeysMom]

28. Well, don't give them any excuse to hang up on you, one...

... I was pretty pissed off, and I was also on speaker phone with their front lines.

Can you believe some of the answers people on this thread are giving? It means very little more than fundraising. The ploy is that they give NOT ONE shit what we convey to them. It's a done deal and they need more money FOR it.

WHAT THE FUCK.

[onecaliberal]

31. I won't help fund their third way corporate, screw the working people and middle class

Anymore. I already stopped giving last year. They're in the Clinton corporate bag and they think they're going to shove her down our throat.

I'm done after this election. We probably already made the planet uninhabitable for my future grandchildren. It's so far beyond stupid I sometimes think I'm living in an alternate reality.

[MrMickeysMom]

34. You said a mouthful...

Absolutely unreal...

[onecaliberal]

35. Truth hurts?

[MrMickeysMom]

37. Shit no...

Truth must squarely meet power. Truth or seeking it, always sets you free. These DINO type corporate masters can't seem to deal with truth too well or give a shit about it.

[onecaliberal]

49. Sorry, I should have been more clear, my comment

wasn't pointed at you. The truth is killing the HRC supporters. They will cut off their own noses to spite their face.

[MrMickeysMom]

51. That's why my mother and grandmother would say...

..."They cut off their own noses to spite their face..."

I miss both their wisdom, especially my mother's...

[onecaliberal]

57. It sounds like they were very wise. You do them great justice with good judgment.

As we've seen not everyone is capable of breaking away from voting for the corporate masters.

[ChiciB1]

29. I Just Replied To A Thread Saying The Very Same Thing!

If ALL that gets reported is how HILLARY has already WON the nomination, and it gets repeated over and over and over and over, how in HELL would anyone who isn't a political junky think otherwise??

No coverage of the other two and if there is it's RARE and a contrast as to WHY neither can win! Keep saying the same thing over and over and over... YEAH, that's the WAY it WILL BE!

I'm more than disgusted and infuriated, I'm appalled that we are essentially being TOLD how it's going to be and just DON'T BOTHER trying to change it!

Is this America, the BEACON of Democracy that we SPREAD to every other country we can? I DO know that people I know from other countries have asked me why we've let this happen, and many don't have much respect for us anymore!

[MrMickeysMom]

36. ..." many don't have much respect for us anymore..."

If we let this shit continue, WE won't have ANY respect for us anymore.

Ergo, I'm taking every experience I've had with people everywhere (not just DU) and I won't stop pointing this out. I simply have to balance that with life. It's a FACT.

I'll be damned if someone shoves anything down my throat.

[ChiciB1]

73. I Told My Husband Just Recently That I Feel Something Is

about to POP pretty soon. I even marked it on a calendar for him. He has never used a PC or other technology which is very unusual in today's world. He has used a cell phone, but rarely. He will have to get up to speed on a few things. Anyway, he still wants a paper calendar so I marked the day

I'm like you, I tell everyone. I'm the political activist in my family which they call my addiction. All my friends and neighbors know I'm no shrinking violet and not shy about giving my opinion. I do try to use the "kill 'em with kindness" method most of the time, but think we're close to edge where it's going to get very messy.

I'm done with ALL the games and underhanded schemes we've had shoved at us. The people in this country need to WAKE UP and start fighting back or we're going to be TOAST! It's been my message for a long time, but NOW it's time to light some fires!

Sorry for the late reply, but so much is happening right now. So tonight there's a DEBATE and I'm betting far too many people are going to fall all over Hillary because she was Secretary of State, which IMO is NO REASON for support! We're in this mess because too many people have their fingers in the pie and have let far too many people go unpunished for what they've done! Too many crimes have been committed and too much meddling in places we should NEVER have been.

Just ask the question "how did we get here?" Then who are the characters who have sat on the sidelines and let it happen?

I know I sound like chicken little and sky is falling, but MAYBE IT IS! I'm so fed up and I have to admit I'm worried and fear what's coming!!

[AgingAmerican]

32. This was done intentionally because Hillary has name recognition

Thus leaving it blank means she automatically wins the poll. This proves they are afraid of the electorate.

[Persondem]

39. What a messed up bit of logic that is

So if someone doesn't know Sanders and almost certainly would not check the box next to his were the names listed then that person is denied the opportunity to vote for someone they don't know because the names aren't there?

Wow!!

[MrMickeysMom]

42. That is about the poorest use of logic I've read tonight

Your hasty generalization is based on insufficient evidence. You have no fucking idea who would or would not check a box unless you had the box to check.

The "wow" realization should occur to you, and frankly, I'm not going to hold my breath thinking it will come.

[AgingAmerican]

45. It's what they do

It's how they operate

I would suggest you re-read what you just wrote. Either you jumped to conclusions or are a writer for the Onion.

[Persondem]

40. Just for this OP ...

and if you want substance please see my other post on this thread

[Adrahil]

46. Dear God! They let you pick WHOEVER YOU WANT!? BIAS!!

Sweet Jeebus....

[MrMickeysMom]

52. Read for meaning...

Jeebus fucking crisss... If you're not going to bother reading through this thread, that's your problem.

[wyldwolf]

60. Faux poutrage du jour

[Nye Bevan]

63. If it had said "Who do you support? Write her name here....."

I would concede that you have a point. But in its actual form it seems unbiased to me.

[MrMickeysMom]

71. It's biased...

Read the survey and you'll figure it out.

[Vinca]

69. The stuff that comes from the DNC goes straight to the shredder.

They're way too biased this time around and I refuse to pony up - I mean "contribute" - any loot.