The Results Are In and the People's Choice is Clearly Bernie Sanders!

[sabrina 1]

Last edited Mon Nov 16, 2015, 01:50 PM - Edit history (2)

:





Editing to add this:





:


So once again, the Corporate Media ignoring its own viewers, decides who the winner is!




Editing to add this Straw Poll also:

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. But Internet polls don't count!

So they say.

[sabrina 1]

3. They would count if they were the other way around! Lol!

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

17. Of course.

[Sheepshank]

97. what a silly unfounded comment

you know for sure the Bernie crowd would be all over that, swarming with the negativity if it were Hillary in the same seat. It wouldn't count then either if any Hillary supporter were stupid enough to try and use these types of polls.

Your 50 states thread, and now this type of stuff is really embarassing to the rest of us Dems that prefer more grounded reality based polls.

[Le Taz Hot]

19. And my question back

to those who claim that is, "Don't Hillary supporters have roughly equal access to computers and the internet?" I never get an answer to that one.

[Plucketeer]

27. This has been my wonder as well

Maybe once the Postal Service delivers all those post cards and letters we'll see a turn-around!

[sabrina 1]

51. So far, apparently to prove that people can cheat on these polls, two of Hillary's

supporters have stated to me they did just that, one in this thread actually. Stated they voted 'more than once'.

I voted only in one of the polls after the debate and I only clicked once for Bernie.

So it appears that Hillary supporters ARE 'clicking', some more than once, and she STILL can't seem to win a singe online poll.

[polly7]

58. Yeah, that's kind of strange, isn't it.

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

And if anyone believes many more of those supporters haven't clicked more than once, I have a beaaaauuuutiful bridge for sale.

[sabrina 1]

62. First they told us Hillary's supporters don't bother to 'clickety click on online polls. But

apparently the do as they themselves admit.

I have a study on the impact of Social Media, Twitter in particular, on predicting elections which I intend to post later.

I'm fine with Hillary's campaign still living in the past regarding the new technology that is, even according to pollsters themselves, going to have to be incorporated into polling methodologies to keep up with the times, as the old methods are lacking now in many ways to accurately predict outcomes.

[polly7]

77. Makes perfect sense, Sabrina.

Looking forward to seeing your study.

[leftynyc]

66. So, according to you,

Proving that someone can vote more than once in the same poll translates into Hillary voters wasting our time by continually voting multiple times in a poll we know is unscientific and further, we are obviously so few in numbers we can't move the poll. Perhaps the proof the poll is bullshit - as is any poll where you can vote more than once - was just to prove to you why we don't waste our valuable time voting for bullshit polls. Nah - it must be that ALL POLLS THAT DON'T SHOW BERNIE AHEAD ARE OBVIOUSLY SKEWED. And now we've gone round the bend and have Bernie supporters making the same argument we all laughed at when Romney's people tried it. Unbelievable.

[sabrina 1]

69. No, not according to me. Read again, according to THEM, according to Hillary supporters.

Lol, right here in this thread one Hillary supporter, NOT ME, I'm a Bernie supporter, stated doing just that.

I have participated in exactly ONE poll, and clicked just ONCE for Bernie.


You will have to direct your comment to Hillary's supporters who admit to clicking more than once.

[leftynyc]

74. ONE Hillary supporter

PROVED the polls was bullshit by pointing out they were able to vote twice. The rest of us don't see the point in wasting our time. And yet you still push these ridiculous online polls. I actually feel very sorry for someone who lives in such denial.

[aspirant]

86. Prove to me your lame "scientific" polls aren't "bullshit"

Choose any poll and get the names and contact #'s of all respondents so we can verify and replicate those polls to insure that any respondent wasn't counted more than once.

We'll be waiting

[leftynyc]

127. LOL

I wouldn't waste my time like that. If you didn't see what ignoring real polls did to the right wing in 2012, that's entirely your problem. Enjoy your denial.

[aspirant]

130. Prove that they are "real polls"

and if you can't, they are "Bullshit"

[leftynyc]

132. You seem to think I

really give a shit if you want to live in denial. I don't. I've already wasted enough time on this ridiculous topic. Enjoy la la land.

[aspirant]

164. You have no proof, just blind trust

[WHEN CRABS ROAR]

168. Conduct your own unscientific pole, here's how.

On a large 2 foot by 3 foot foam board write

HONK
FOR
BERNIE

Go to a busy intersection and hold the sign up high so the drivers can read it.

A couple of things will happen, it might get loud with horns honking and others will realize how many supporters he has.

Now is the time for a real progressive populist movement, but the message needs to be clear and not overly complex and it needs to be repeated over and over to drive it home into the minds of the people.

Then Bernie will win.

[sabrina 1]

114. No, wrong again. Two so far .... and all they proved was that even with cheating

Hillary can't win an online poll. The candidates all have the same conditions for these polls. If I were her campaign, I would be very concerned about the consistency with which she loses these polls across the political spectrum.

[leftynyc]

129. LOL

Yes, I'm sure she's shaking in her shoes about losing unscientific, ridiculous online polls and being so far ahead in every poll that comes from a reputable source where you can actually see the methodology. Your land of denial sounds like such a nice place, enjoy it. No wonder I stay off the primary threads, reality has no real place here.

[bjobotts]

191. I refuse to run down any of our dem candidtes but

I prefer Bernie. All 3 are better than any repubs. Let's make sure our disagreements are concerning policy and character and not sexist or blind prejudice. After looking at republican's field I'm grateful we have such good qualified candidates running for president on the dem side. Hillary was double Obama in the polls at this point in her last election cycle and I can'r forget how Hillary sided with McCain against Obama saying he was not experienced enough like the 2 of them were to be president...and I thought to myself you never side with a republican against your fellow candidate...but it was the condescending way she said it. Bernie has always been Bernie but Hillary not so much. Still I will vote for her is she is our candidate.

[leftynyc]

61. Of course we do

But don't see the point in participating in unscientific internet polls. Why waste our time?

[Le Taz Hot]

71. So, you are positing

that most Hillary supporters feel it's a waste of time to participate in online polls and are, therefore, underrepresented in online polls? I'd love to see your source on that.

[leftynyc]

78. Doesn't have to be an online poll

Just any polls that is unscientific, where people can vote more than once. And since there is zero science behind it, there is no way to prove me right or wrong. THERE IS NO DATA. That you don't understand the obvious is not my problem.

[Le Taz Hot]

87. But none of that explains

why, assuming Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters all have roughly the same access to online polls, are they consistently showing Bernie in the lead? Originally you claimed that the Hillary supporters aren't interested in participating in online polls but offered no evidence. Now you're claiming two things: 1) There is no data, in which case you have no proof at all that these polls are unscientific or that Hillary supporters aren't interested in participating online polls, and 2) that it's unscientific because people can vote more than once which is not at all the case for all online polls. Very few of them fit into that category, as a matter of fact. But all that aside it still does not answer the original question which was that there is a reasonable assumption to be made that Bernie supporters and Hillary supporters all have roughly the same access to online polls, and, if that is so, why are ALL of them showing Bernie on top?

[leftynyc]

124. Such a long post to say

absolutely nothing at all. I have no idea why anybody would be stupid enough to engage on online polls knowing they're unscientific and therefore useless. Are Hillary voters smarter about their use of time? I have no idea. I only know I don't know one Hillary supporter who would waste their time on an online poll.

[Le Taz Hot]

148. Really? I thought it was fairly comprehensive

but since you got nothin' I'll leave it right where it is as your responses speak for themselves.

[leftynyc]

151. Online polls are a waste of time

If you wish to waste your time, knock yourself out. If you further wish to make assumptions about the motives of others based on them not wanting to waste their time, also your call.

[PosterChild]

171. I think self selecting polls attract . ...

..... enthusiastic suporters of marginal candidates who have a high need for affermation because they have a suspicion that their candidate isn't going to win and they need a boost to keep them going.

[Le Taz Hot]

174. Could you site your source for that?

Thanks.

Btw, I like the "marginal candidates" thing. 'Course, when a candidate is attracting 20,000 + one has to wonder how marginal that actually is. Clicking on an online poll is one thing, driving several hours to see a "marginal candidate" is quite another. Add to that the thousands of events that are created for the "marginal candidate" every week. The Wall Street candidate doesn't seem to have the same enthusiasm. Wonder why that is?

[PosterChild]

185. My source is....

..... "i think". It's just my opinion based on personal experience and observations in the past of supporters of third-party / second tier / idelogicaly rigid / marginal candidates .

"Marginal" might be a bit harsh. However, you have to admit bernie isn't mainstream .

I heard bernie on cspan yesterday . He was asked, how , even if he did win the presidency, he could achieve his goals against a Republican congress. He started going on and on about the "movement", the "revolution", inspiring "millions and millions" of voters, etc, etc. I'm thinking this guy knows he isn't going to win and he knows congress isn't going to turn so he's doing this song and dance just to whip up his base into an enthusiastic frenzy. Right or wrong this is what I consider a marginal candidate.

[Le Taz Hot]

198. Partisan opinion.

Last edited Tue Nov 17, 2015, 02:54 PM - Edit history (1)

As I suspected. Well, there's going to be a revolution in this country one way or another. It's already begun. We can do it legally and peacefully, or, if the status quo Wall Street darlings want to continue shutting out the 99% in the political process, this country will see another kind of revolution. Whistle past the graveyard all you want, but make no mistake, it's coming.

[PosterChild]

210. LOL, that's crazy talk....

.... but the fact that such crazy talk is prevelent amongst bernie's supporters is indicative that he is, indeed, a marginal candidate.

My advice is that you confine your "revolutionary activities" to answering on line polls. You'll live longer and stay out of jail.

[Ed Suspicious]

96. So much well focused energy behind her campaign! I bet you don't discount social media advertising

from your candidate. I bet you participate in online political discourse. I bet you find all sorts of online news and reporting to be important. Why is it you accept the importance of and participate in the online political atmosphere at roughly the same rate in all ways except online polling?

[leftynyc]

126. I can't believe you're even asking

me this ridiculous question. What does knowing that social media has a big impression on the younger voters have to do with wasting ones time on a poll that has no science behind it at all?

[Ed Suspicious]

134. I'm just saying that the idea that Clinton supporters in particular would materially participate in

all online political activities at roughly the same rates and in roughly the same ways as Bernie supporters except when it comes to online polls is a bit much for me to believe.

[leftynyc]

135. Well

When something is a waste of time, perhaps you shouldn't be so surprised when someone refuses to engage. That's what smart people do.

[Ed Suspicious]

136. So Hillary supporters are generally smarter than other candidate's supporters? I know you'd like to

believe that, but again, I have my doubts.

[leftynyc]

137. If that's why they're not

participating in bullshit online polls, then yes. I know it's why I'm not participating but I wont speak for all Hillary supporters.

[sabrina 1]

207. I find it odd that people say they are too smart to participate in online polls. So how do we

explain that in fact Hillary's supporters DO participate, if you look at the polls you see them clicking just like everyone else. The problem seems to be that Bernie has more supporters in so many of these polls.

[PosterChild]

170. Exactly. I wouldn't go near one. eom

[PosterChild]

169. Self selected polls ...

.... if that's what they are.... are pretty much bogus regardless of Internet access. I wouldn't get too excited.

[tazkcmo]

178. Sometimes I doubt

Seems like so many have land lines though.

[MrMickeysMom]

179. Good point, Le Taz! eom

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

38. It just seems strange that Hillary's supporters don't participate in them,

scientific or not, if for no other reason than because it looks good. Don't they have internet access too?

[thesquanderer]

43. Maybe a greater percentage of HRC's supporters are older, and use the internet less (n/t)

[sufrommich]

45. Maybe more Hillary voters understand what clickbait is.nt

[sabrina 1]

73. Maybe they did click, see this thread eg, where at least one supporter says

he clicked more than once. That is the second Hillary supporter who apparently does click these polls.

We all understand what clickbait is, the odds are the same, regardless of any of the objections, for all the candidates.

[leftynyc]

68. Why waste our time?

It seems pretty fucking pointless to participate in any poll that is not scientific. If you wish to waste your time, knock yourself out. I've got much better things to do. Like write Hillary another check.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

70. I don't participate in online polls either.

I was just asking the question - but I doubt your answer is the correct one. It's more likely that Hillary's supporters don't use the Internet or social media as much because they are older.

[leftynyc]

76. I don't think that's correct

All the ones I know aren't what I call old and they're all on the internet plenty. They simply don't participate in online bullshit polls because they have better things to do.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

84. Well, then, I guess that must be it.

I must have failed to consider the inherent superiority of Hillary's supporters.

[chervilant]

92. Bwahahahahahaha!!!!

That whole exchange is a hoot!

Feel the BERN!!!

(It's gotta be hard to discount Senator Sanders' impact on the political landscape--he's EVERYWHERE these days!)

[leftynyc]

131. LOL

We'll see soon enough. That land of denial you inhabit sounds like such a nice place.

[chervilant]

163. Awwwww... one of those "have to have the last word" folk?

Nice try, leftynyc. Nice try. Keep up the good work.

[AlbertCat]

103. I must have failed to consider the inherent superiority of Hillary's supporters.

And of course you forgot she's already won.... apparently.

Meh.... why bother with polls? It's her turn.

[leftynyc]

122. Spare me

You want to waste your time on polls that you KNOW are unscientific and therefore useless, knock yourself out. If that makes me superior, I can live with it.

[sabrina 1]

187. What do you mean 'they don't participate' ?? They DID participate. There just weren't enough

of them. That is nonsense, the numbers are there. And right here in THIS thread we have Hillary supporters stating the voted for her multiple times. And STILL she didn't come close to winning!

Let's stop with the nonsense that her supporters are not participating when it's clear they ARE doing so.

[leftynyc]

200. I sure hope you don't mind

that I'm finding this whole conversation so freeking laughable that I'm entertaining others with it. But you go ahead and take comfort in unscientific polls and whine about the "corporate" skewing of polls. I'm sure romney and the rest of the right slept much better fooling themselves the same way in 2012. You'll sleep better and I get entertained - everybody wins.

[George II]

125. I have voted in just about every election - Federal, State, and Local, since 1968. I never saw....

....paper cups with colored push pins at any of the polls!

[redstateblues]

177. I was obsessed with online polls when Gore and Kerry

Ran. It was a waste of time and did nothing but make me feel falsely confident. I don't do it any more. It's a joke.

[DJ13]

180. Online polls really measure the enthusiasm of the candidate's supporters

Hillary has always had a huge problem generating enthusiasm.

Enthusiasm is also a good measurement of the commitment supporters will have in showing up at the polling place to vote for that candidate.

The Clinton campaign knows this stuff, thats why they have been running (scared) a full court press since the first debate, using her long time ties to the DC media to try and tamp down enthusiasm for Bernie so it doesnt turn around and bite her in the early primaries.

They are desperate to try and reinforce the notion that theres no point in voting for Bernie, since "he cant win" anyway.

Its all political bullshit games, utilized by some desperate people.

[redstateblues]

189. Bernie is a good guy

He's losing by a wide margin and his surge seems to have hit a ceiling. His 20-30% is very enthusiastic. His one note campaign needs to find a way to broaden his support or he will get crushed on Super Tuesday

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

181. They do participate. They just lose. What else is new?

[thesquanderer]

40. Internet polls can count...

...if they still use statistically valid methodology, as some do.

If no margin of error is provided, that's a dead giveaway that it's a non-scientific poll.

[Cali_Democrat]

142. I think the constitution should be amended....

so that internet polls are used to elect our representatives in Congress and the President.

It makes sense!

[pnwmom]

167. Self-selected, non-random polls ARE completely meaningless. n/t

[Doubledee]

203. The polls I noted

were not confined to the internet Why did you believe otherwise?

[Adrahil]

2. ROFL!!!!!

Yeah, remind me not ask you do any honest analysis of anything.

Do REALLY believe that crap?

If so, I have a nice bridge over here.....

[JackInGreen]

5. Is it the one

Hillary built with Wall st. Interests because they 'like what she does"? Too expensive, no thanks.

[sabrina 1]

7. Not my fault if the public, once they hear the candidates on the issues, chooses

the one who best represents them. Hillary's supporters are free to participate also.

Same thing last time, people hear Bernie and they like what he has to say.

[Adrahil]

205. That would be fine if the poll demographics made any sense.

But anybody who knows even a tiny smidge about statistics knows that a self-select poll is worthless, and it is is dishonest to present it as anything other that what it is. But I suspect you know that and are engaging in some good ole band-wagon propaganda using the meager tools at your command. If you really believe this, you are in for a disappointing future. I'll point out that a TON of self-select internet polls showed both McCain and Romney winning by huge margins. How'd that work out for them?

[Doubledee]

4. A resounding maybe

I do not think your inclusion of a poll by Fox adds gravity to your position. I do like Senator Sanders positions on many issues but think the jury still out as to which candidate is "winning".

I cannot seem to silence the little voice that tells me whichever candidate wins, regardless of party affiliation, the American people still lose.

[sabrina 1]

105. All polls that were available online, are included. There are probably more.

[HubertHeaver]

156. And that jury will remain "out" until February 1, 2016.

Even then we won't have a clear idea until after March 1.

[Renew Deal]

6. If it worked for President Ron Paul, it will work for Bernie!

[sabrina 1]

9. It worked for Obama too! He like Bernie understood the new media. Sad to see

Hillary supporters still unable to move with the times.

Haven't read any of the new studies regarding the power of the new media I see, but that's okay, I remember the exact same reactions to online polls in 2008

[Major Hogwash]

63. Fuck Ron Paul.

Even EarlG sez that about Ron Paul.

[sheshe2]

162. Lol~

You got that right!

[PosterChild]

172. +100 !! (NT)

[boston bean]

8. Is this anything like the People's Court?

[sabrina 1]

11. 2008 all over again!

[Duval]

41. Right!

[Plucketeer]

29. Not really, your honor

Given Hillary's not the peoples candidate.

[sabrina 1]

144. Excellent response. Wish I had thought of it myself!

[BeanMusical]

186. Lol! Good reply.

[sufrommich]

10. When will these media outlets be publishing these

poll numbers with front page headlines? It seems like these lopsided numbers would be breaking news.

[sabrina 1]

12. Lol, CNN deleted its own poll, are you kidding? They didn't expect so much support

for the 'wrong' candidate. But then they are so out of touch with the people it's no surprise.

[sufrommich]

15. "CNN deleted its own poll". Yeah,that didn't happen.

No, Internet, CNN did not delete its poll showing Bernie Sanders won the Democratic debate

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/oct/19/nowthis/no-internet-cnn-did-not-delete-its-poll-showing-be/

[SCantiGOP]

33. Sufrommich:

Please do not interject reason into this little circular reasoning discussion. They desperately need their daily fix of delusion wherever it can be found.

[sabrina 1]

192. How condescending of you. Maybe in the end that is what will lose this election for Hillary as it

did last time, the condescension of her supporters towards people who actually do care about their families, their loved ones and their children's futures.

We know, you Hillary supporters are far more sophisticated, educated, superior to us mere plebs. That's what we heard last time also. It didn't work out very well back then airc.

[SCantiGOP]

204. I din't support Hillary in 2008

I'm supporting her this time because she can win the general election and Sanders couldn't if he were to get the nomination.

[zappaman]

209. Thanks for the correct information.

Not sure why some keep flogging that bullshit, but I suppose they have their reasons.

[Agschmid]

34. Really?

Good lord.

[sabrina 1]

184. Yes, really, and then they deleted comments asking them why. Yeah, I know, we are making it all up!

We are also making up that Media Lobbyists are working for the Hillary Campaign.

Nothing wrong about that? Really?

[NCTraveler]

13. There is zero way anyone with their heads out of their asses.....

thinks Sanders did better than O'Malley. I would add Clinton to that as well but I don't want anyone to have an aneurism. I have gone from feeling bad for people who use these metrics to flat out laughing at them. The best part to me is the touting of polls from corporate entities ten times the size of CNN. These corporate click-bait polls are catered to LIV's and damn do they eat it up. These corporate entities are leading you around by your nose. You're making it too easy for them.

All good for you though as Sanders is clearly the peoples choice. Shit, I giggled just typing that.

[sabrina 1]

14. Looks like a majority of the people don't agree with you. Same as 2008, so I'm

fine with the dismissive attitude of Hillary's supporters today also.

[NCTraveler]

21. "Looks like a majority of the people don't agree with you."

Completely fact free. That is what your statement there is. My statement wasn't dismissive at all. I directly laughed at how easy it is for massive corporations to lead many around by their noses, as it the case here. Touting click-bait polls, put together by institutions ten times the size of CNN, says nothing about reality. This is the corporate media attempting to create a race for their own profits where one doesn't currently exist. They know the best way for them to do so it to make their own news with these false polls as the actual scientific polls say something completely different. Not sure what you have against science but it actually means something to most of us. This is one hundred percent corporate medias way to get readers and to have LIV's spread bullshit in hopes of a race. It's going to be a real shocker for some when Sanders doesn't even come in second in Iowa. They are going to go back and pick unscientific polls to call bullshit. Nothing but a republican tactic.

[Duval]

46. I hope you are proved wrong.

If you "travel" to Durham/Chapel Hill, you'll see a lot of Bernie stickers and even t-shirts.

[NCTraveler]

98. Love Chapel Hill.

One of my best friends is a doctor there.

[restorefreedom]

143. om did much better than at the first debate

but also he did not get fair time at first debate. i think at second debate, om and sanders did will but om had the biggest improvement because he had more time to get his message out and it wasn.t just sound bites.

also fyi om just did a nice interview on msnbc with thomas roberts. i hope they que it up on the website later. it was really good imo

edit...its already up!

http://www.msnbc.com/thomas-roberts

[onehandle]

16. FEEL THE CLICKY-CLICKY!

[img][/img]

[sabrina 1]

18. Hillary's supporters did click. She just didn't have enough of them apparently.

[Jester Messiah]

28. I'm surprised she doesn't have a botherd on retainer.

Seems like something she'd do, if she had the net savvy.

[sabrina 1]

36. Her campaign is run by old school political people. They have no idea of the

power of the new media. Obama's and Bernie's supporters are very tech savvy. Change is hard for some people and her campaign spends huge amounts of money on the old, traditional polls.

They don't get that those polls are using outdated methodologies, which they themselves admit.

Eg, landlines, as the number of people NOT using landlines grew over the past number of years, pollsters didn't keep up with the changing trend and were not polling young people, eg, who don't use landlines. They have admitted this and are now trying to include more cell phone users, but laws prevent them from calling cells phones and I believe Gallup is in the middle of a lawsuit right now, or many it's been settled regarding cell phone calls.

Also people's distrust in polls has skyrocketed over the decades, meaning huge numbers of people are refusing to respond to pollsters.

Not to mention that some people will lie to them.

So to say that online polls are useless, is simply inaccurate. Sure they are not 'scientific' but they provide an instant picture of people's reactions right after an event, such as a debate like this.

[Jester Messiah]

39. Yeah, they evidently don't "get" the Internet.

What astounds me though is that it falls to the level of an unknown-unknown with them; they don't know that they don't know. If they at least recognized that they don't get it, they could hire somebody that does and take their advice into account.

[LovingA2andMI]

30. LOL!!!

[brooklynite]

20. ...and some have spoken more than once! I did...

[sabrina 1]

23. I'm a Bernie supporter and I only clicked once. So what you're telling is that even

when Hillary's supporters CHEAT on these polls she STILL can't win any of them?

Another Hillary supporter said the same thing yesterday.

That makes it even worse, doesn't it?

[Agschmid]

37. It isn't technically cheating.

They all have disclaimers that say the results are bunk.

And also they don't seem to have IP blocks so apparently it's encouraged.

[brooklynite]

82. 1) I didn't cheat...

Nothing in the poll said I could vote only once.

2) I could care less what the outcome was; I voted multiple times to point out how meaningless this is.

[sabrina 1]

85. Well, imo, it may not be cheating, but it's not something I would do.

[brooklynite]

95. I can vote multiple times for AMERICAN IDOL...

...and these polls probably have less significance.

[NCTraveler]

22. Can you break down the demographics polled....

and the methodology? A link to that information would be fine.

[sabrina 1]

25. The participants in these polls are people who watched the dabate.

Traditional polls on the debate apparently don't worry too much whether or not those they poll watched the debate or not.

One such poll eg, polled 71% of people who did not watch the debate.

What kind of methodology is that?

[NCTraveler]

32. "The participants in these polls are people who watched the dabate."

That is not an honest statement in any way.

[JohnnyRingo]

47. They are however, people with an internet connection.

As we all know, those are the vast majority of people who will vote in 2016.

I recall when the same thing happened in 2004 with Dennis Kucinich. He was the most liberal candidate available and therefore a shoe-in for the White House, until he wasn't.

[sabrina 1]

80. I remember it happening with Obama who was, the most liberal candidate available

at the time which was four years later when participation by voters online had exploded. And it appears that they chose Obama.

I also remember the derisive posts such as I am seeing here, again, regarding online polls back then.


Times have changed, a lot more people now using the internet than landlines and traditional pollsters have not caught up to that, which they admit.

[leftynyc]

72. You have no idea if they

watched the debate. They SAY they watched the debate. For all you know a fraternity in bumfuck KS voted for Bernie. That you continually tout these bullshit online polls is entirely your problem. Those who understand these things get to laugh our asses off at it. That's how it works.

[brooklynite]

190. I didn't watch the debate when I voted...nor did I say I did...

[leftynyc]

199. Which would make you exhibit A

in making my point. This whole line of argument is laughable. Online polls are bullshit and those who take comfort in them are as bad as the republicans who whined about skewed polls.

[MaggieD]

24. Foolish

But keep believing online polls are accurate or matter. It's good for a chuckle and everybody can use that from time to time.

[sabrina 1]

26. No one said they are 'accurate'. No poll is accurate actually. But they provide a picture

of the reactions of the public right after they watch a debate. Remember Obama's online polls?

Bernie clearly was more impressive in both debates. O'Mally imo, was far better than Hillary also.

[NCTraveler]

31. "the reactions of the public right after they watch a debate."

No, they don't.

As I said, it's gone from painful to watch to amusing. The sentence I quoted from you here is completely false. Corporate media has you hook, line, and sinker. I highly doubt you typed that sentence with a straight face. It is simply a blatant falsehood you are promoting.

"No one said they are 'accurate'."

Serious competing thoughts you have going on here. If you believed the sentence I quoted above, you wouldn't have been able to start with this one. Though if one is attempting to spin what corporate media is selling, starting off with the truth and then spinning out of reality becomes necessary, so I get why you presented it in the manner you did.

Want to play a game? I'll throw out some online instant polling from events in the past and we will laugh it up as you spin each one as somehow representing something. lol.

[sabrina 1]

42. Lol, okay! I'm waiting to see Hillary winning some online polls and am willing to bet

they will be all over the internet.

A recent study of the power of Social Media is out, regarding its power to predict events, including politics. I think I will post it.

The old ways are proving to be inaccurate for many reasons. Pollsters have been studying why they are failing to properly predict outcomes of elections eg.

People CAN and DO lie to pollsters btw.

Even more refuse now to participate due to a skyrocketing mistrust in traditional polls which has grown over the decades.

Not to mention the use of mostly landline users a demographic that has decreased rapidly over the past number of years.

[NCTraveler]

48. I actaully agree with just about everything you have written here.

It is nice to see you move on from your initial narrative to this. Big change. Yes, social media is extremely powerful. Not just in predicting events, but in swaying peoples purchase power and thought process. It is a brilliant, empowering, yet a horrifying new power in society. As is being done with their online polling, these corporate entities have a new way to game those with limited critical thinking skills. Facebook can flat out move opinion. It's why they are the beast they are and such an enormous corporation. I successfully use Facebook for my company. We literally change people's movements. People think facebook is simply about the people. They clearly haven't seen the side of facebook I have. I use them to BUY influence.

[sabrina 1]

67. I don't do FB for all the reasons you mentioned. Never trusted it, it was the first

'new' at the time, online site that asked for way too much info, so I passed and have resisted many requests to use it from friends and family members who do.

To me, FB is a monstrous idea, and my first reactions to it have not changed one bit.

[MaggieD]

90. I guess that's why the Sanders campaign spent $200K buying the top Twitter trend

... during the previous debate.

[Kentonio]

101. Please learn how Twitter works...

[MaggieD]

111. I'm aware of how twitter and all of social media works

But thanks for the insult. It seems that one of the top campaign tactics is to insinuate people are stupid. Not sure why anyone in the Bernie camp thinks that is effective, but as a Hillary supporters I do thank you.

Maybe you weren't around during the first debate, but the Bernie campaign spent significant effort and MONEY trying to persuade people to go to online polls and vote for him. Sorry, but that is a laughable effort in my opinion.

[Kentonio]

115. I'm not insinuating you're stupid.

You're just either not completely savvy with how Twitter works or you're deliberately using language that suggests there was something unsavory occurring when there was not. When you promote a tweet it has nothing to do with 'buying the top Twitter trend', it is basically just an advert that appears in the space above the top trending tweets. It is no more unscrupulous than any other form of advertizing yet it was misunderstood by some and mischaracterized by others as a negative or sneaky move by Sander's campaign.

You see I was actually being kind, I assumed you had misunderstood rather than deliberately attempted to decieve. I'm nice like that.

[MaggieD]

118. Oh, but I am completely savvy

It's just that reality doesn't fit what you want to believe, so you pretend the facts are not the facts. IMO.

[Kentonio]

123. I just explained exactly how the 'Promoted Tweet' system works.

You can either provide evidence that I am wrong or you can engage in meaningless mud throwing. Would you like to provide some kind of proof that I am wrong about how Twitter's Promoted Tweet system works, or would you prefer to continue this dishonesty?

[MaggieD]

128. Yet it does not explain why he spent $200K on it

Unless it was to drive a false narrative after the first debate. So you miss my point, but don't let that stop you.

[Kentonio]

140. Your 'point' was a disingenuous one.

There is absolutely zero ethical difference between purchasing the Promoted Tweet spot or purchasing a slot on prime time TV to run a campaign advert. The main difference being that $200,000 buys you very little good TV coverage, so buying it on Twitter at a time when lots of people are going to be using Twitter is actually very clever.

If your point was that his campaign did something very effective and intelligent, then I am happy to concede your point.

[MaggieD]

146. I don't think it was...

If a campaign or it's supporters are going to tout meaningless online polls than I think it's relevant to say they spent money to do that.

[Kentonio]

150. What do online polls have to do with anything?

The Promoted Tweet was..

Wish Bernie good luck before tonight's debate and sign our card: http://bernie.to/good-luck-bernie … #DebateWithBernie

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/653992135088205824/photo/1

The link takes you to a sign-up page to sign a good luck card for him before the debate (and presumably signs you up for their mailing lists).

https://go.berniesanders.com/page/s/good-luck-bernie?source=ads_twitter_20151013

[Juicy_Bellows]

176. Some folks have a hard time admitting when they are wrong.

I see it here all the time. Nice posting!

[Elmer S. E. Dump]

183. And it makes them look silly and stupid

[sabrina 1]

195. Thank you! He is very tech savvy. Hillary's campaign surprisingly still has not realized that

we are in a new era of technology and are still operating in the last century as if the MSM and Traditional and outdated polling methodologies are still the way things are. Benrie AND Obama both understand the progress that has been made and have both made excellent use of the new media. I'm quite happy in fact, that Hillary's campaign is still living in the last century when it comes to media and polling methodologies.

[MaggieD]

89. Scientific polling is accurate

In fact, it is exactly how we tell that elections in other countries are not being manipulated. Just ask Jimmy Carter.

[Logical]

83. Like many of your posts! Nt

[MaggieD]

88. Can you be specific?

What is "foolish" about my posts? Whatever you have in mind, I don't think it can hold a candle to the foolishness of believing unscientific online polls are indicative of anything.

But give it your best shot.

[NCTraveler]

100. The Results Are In and the People's Choice is Clearly An Angry Drunken Dwarf!

Madonna, Leo Bested By Angry Drunken Dwarf In Beautiful People Poll

http://www.mtv.com/news/1431607/madonna-leo-bested-by-angry-drunken-dwarf-in-beautiful-people-poll/

[MaggieD]

112. Woo hoo!

The people have spoken!

[SidDithers]

44. Click damnit!! Click like your life depended on it!!!!....nt

Sid

[sabrina 1]

54. Lol, Hillary supporters did click, they clicked I am told, more than once and STILL

she can't win an online poll of people who watched the debates.

Same thing happened with Obama.

Deja Vu is so strong on this it's amazing.

[JoePhilly]

55. Lol

[Major Hogwash]

60. If the election was held tomorrow . . .

. . . who would you vote for, Sid?

Com'on, tell me.

[sabrina 1]

165. I was just going to ask him the same thing. Great minds I guess ... lol!

[BeanMusical]

188. Stephen Harper.

[tritsofme]

49. lol, it must be ever so much fun to live in Never Never Land!

[Matariki]

50. How would we ever know if polls are rigged?

Or worse, elections?

[marym625]

52. Bawhaha

I have the same meme.

[Gore1FL]

53. I can't say I believe polls this early in the game

I am supporting Bernie more than anyone else at this point, so I welcome good news, but too much can happen between now and then to consider any of this definitive.

[George II]

56. Mostly online "polls", where teenagers, people in Europe or Asia or Africa can "vote", and also....

.....in some people can vote more than once.

Mostly useless.

[Attorney in Texas]

57. Clinton lost the debate. Online polls are not what confirms this. The media focus on Clinton's 9/11-

Wall Street gaffe is what confirms that she is the big loser from the debate.

O'Malley did well in the debate, but you wouldn't know that unless you watched it.

Sanders did well, too, but that will be lost on those hundreds of millions of Americans who did not watch the debate.

Clinton did a very good job aside from her unfortunate 9/11-Wall Street comment, but almost all of America won't know that either.

The only widely repeated story from the debate was the Clinton gaffe and so, whoever won the debate, it definitely wasn't Clinton.

[AlbertCat]

107. This^

The more people learn about her than just her name....


Imagine if there were more debates....when people wanted to watch!

[SoapBox]

59. And then the one poll glowing about Hill from PPP...

Was bought and paid for by Correct the Record...the David Brock SuperPAC. Ya him...the idiot that tried launching a bogus attack on Bernie a couple months ago, getting Bernie a million in donations...yup, that idiot.

Camp Weathervane just can't figure it out.

Oh well!

Go Bernie and Berners!

[polly7]

91. ........

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[George II]

64. Washington Times??????

[Gman]

65. Seriously? And this makes the Greatest page?

Online polls??

I guess, if it makes you happy.

[aspirant]

75. If Hills supporters are clicking more than once,

why isn't her campaign hiring professional clickers to up the numbers?

Would this be done thru one of her contracted PR agencies or would both Hill and Bill just sit beside their computers and continually click online polls until Hill has the lead?

[Duckfan]

79. Good To See You Got These Results Sabrina1

...Before they deleted them.

Good grief we just can't let anyone see that the people thought Bernie was the favorite among poll responders.

[sabrina 1]

166. Like last time, yes. The resistance to these simple polls is amazing though. Makes me think

someone knows they are far closer to the facts than even we know at this point.

[zentrum]

81. This is actually

….scary. I'm getting concerned that DWS/HRC/DNC are engineering a coronation that will be weak in the general.

Of course I'll vote for any Democratic candidate in the general and will unenthusiastically vote for her if she's it. But after all the young people I meet who are impassioned for Bernie, I worry that they will not turn out for her. People new to politics may not understand how dire a Republican loon will be.

[Utopian Leftist]

106. Good points.

Bernie generates enthusiasm that is unparalleled in American politics.

Hillary generates . . . a wide range of things that rarely begin with enthusiasm.

[Metric System]

93. I bet there are a lot of Sanders supporters with sore fingers today.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

110. They don't need no stinkin' Internet polls.

Hillary has already won. Didn't you get the memo?

[druidity33]

182. wow...

I can't believe that got a hide. I wonder why? Am i missing something?

[CharlotteVale]

94. He's my choice!

[UglyGreed]

99. K/R

[nikto]

102. When Hillary talks like a Republican ...

Is she speaking her true soul?


Food 4 thought.

[moobu2]

108. Those are just internet polls

The Bernie Sanders campaign sends all his followers links to them so they can vote and distort the results. Sad and pitiful really and desperate looking too.

[sabrina 1]

120. I have never received a single link to a single poll from the Sanders campaign.

Hillary supporters doing that? Is that what you intended to say?

[JimDandy]

196. Nope. Not a single link or mention, ever, to any internet poll in any communications from Sanders

campaign.

Big Fail.

[zappaman]

113. OMG!!!!

[sabrina 1]

116. Stalkers are creepy!

[SunSeeker]

117. No, online self-selecting polls are not representative of all "the people."

Online polls do not capture a large demographic: older voters. Older voters are just less likely to engage in social media and participate in such polls, as another DUer pointed out:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=817095

And right now, older Dem voters widely favor Hillary while Bernie has a lot of his supporters among the youngest Dem demographic, that love to click online polls. That is why Bernie gets ridiculously lopsided results in his favor on such polls.

[Skidmore]

119. ...

[sabrina 1]

121. Wow, Hillary supporters are very, very upset over Bernie's online polls. Hey

if they mean nothing, why all the anger?

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

138. Good point. If they mean nothing at all,

why waste their precious time - time that I have been informed in this very thread is far too valuable to waste clicking on internet polls - arguing about why internet polls are meaningless and the fact that Bernie consistently wins them by large margins is likewise meaningless? Maybe they don't like it when Bernie wins anything, even meaningless things. Or maybe they are disturbed by the possibility that a lot of Hillary supporters don't use the internet because they don't have a connection at their retirement communities.

[sabrina 1]

141. Lol! Well, I provided them with a scientific study of the impact of the New Media

on elections thinking that maybe they would finally be able to discuss this 'scientifically'. Their reaction is hilarious! Here see for yourself: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251817376 Note the very first comment posted seconds after it went up!

I would say that we now have some 'scientific' proof that 'science' isn't the reason for all the objections.

More like they are remembering 2008 and how online polls favored Obama maybe??

[pinebox]

208. Quote of the day!

"Or maybe they are disturbed by the possibility that a lot of Hillary supporters don't use the internet because they don't have a connection at their retirement communities."

Bwahahahahaha!

[Skidmore]

145. Look.

No anger. You flatter yourselves if you think that. It has gotten to the point that some of this is just ridiculous. I'm here in Iowa, where we have had candidates, all sides, camped out here for at least a year. Some practically live here. Right now, there's not a thing that you can present which will make me want to do any more than get to the caucus and cast my vote for the candidate I have chosen. I've made my choice for reasons I have stated over many posts. Browbeating me, insulting me, mocking me, or any other thing you can toss out there will have no effect. I really don't care about these online polls. They are what they are. Convenience samples of whoever happens to see them at any given moment should they be on FB or whatever. Candidates will not be chosen by online polls, but during the election by people who have taken the time to get themselves to the polls.

[sabrina 1]

149. Oh please, 'browbeating' what are you talking about? This is a political discussion forum

there was a debate, how lucky we are that DWS ALLOWED us to have one on a Sat night. People will check polls, that's not BROWBEATING ANYONE.

Sick to death of the victim playing by Hillary supporters here.

As for you changing your mind, what on earth makes you think I would even try to do that? But I HAVE changed minds, brought people to register to vote here in my state, who were so disgusted with the entire system they hadn't voted in years until they heard about Bernie.

This site provides the means for members to not see anything they don't want to see.

I have zero problem ignoring 'browbeating of Bernie' posts and going to threads that interest me.

No one has ever made ME feel 'brow beaten' into who to vote for or not. I just do not understand that at all.

Maybe you would like all of Bernie's supporters to leave DU?

[Skidmore]

153. As I said,

you flatter yourself. What you do is not discourse by any stretch of the imagination.

[sabrina 1]

157. And telling people they are browbeating you because they post links to polls that

are favorable to their candidate, as if NO ONE ever does that, is 'discourse'?

[Skidmore]

159. Your posts are

consistently over the top rude, no matter how one tries to engage with you. Perhaps counting to ten and taking a deep breath and reading what you have typed before hitting the "post " button would help with your presentation.

[treestar]

161. +1

[zappaman]

154. "This is a political discussion forum"

On this we agree which is why everyone is free to reply to anyone else.

[randome]

147. And if they mean everything, why the eternal campaign to trumpet it?

I mean, if your polls are accurate, then Sanders has nothing to worry about, right? Boy, is everyone else going to have egg on their faces!


[hr][font color="blue"][center]Stop looking for heroes. BE one.[/center][/font][hr]

[NCTraveler]

215. That image is just dripping with anger. lol.

Love it. I see the dripping anger coming off its smarmy little yellow face. I can't stop laughing. It looks cute as could be. Angry? Awesome.

[Cali_Democrat]

214. LOL. nt

[Nitram]

133. Well I guess Clinton might as well hang it up.

Definitive proof that she can't win the election. Except that I thought Bernistas didn't believe in polls...

[NCTraveler]

139. With your edit.

It is clear at this point you are just mocking Sanders supporters. Not nice.

[MADem]

152. Washington Times! Fox! Internet Polls!!

The Young (and fired) Turks!



Yeah, the results are "in" alright! Click, clear cache, click!

Ok then, let's all abandon hope Right F...ing Now!!!

You can't bully people with fake data into making them love him, you know. The attempt, quite frankly, is pathetic.

[sabrina 1]

155. That's all you saw? Okay!!!

I love that Bernie's support is across the political spectrum too. Unlike Hillary which is confirmed in the straw poll, which is limited only to the Dem base, which is now only 32% of the electorate and he now has one third of that also, with numbers tending upward all the time.

[Melissa G]

158. Wall Street Journal says Bernie Won

http://www.wsj.com/articles/wsj-survey-44-of-democrats-think-bernie-sanders-won-debate-1447609672

[Kalidurga]

160. My favorite denouncing of the online polls is...

The one where they say it's people from Europe and China voting for Bernie online. That is so cool Bernie is much more loved in other countries than Hillary.

[Sheepshank]

175. Probably from india

Gotta keep those call centers busy

[sabrina 1]

206. Lol, sometimes people don't realize how they are hurting their own candidate. Bernie

will make a great president.

[Kalidurga]

212. Yep

They love him in Europe not exactly something to criticize. So far I have seen Denmark, poor people, the pentagon, white liberal males, Cornell West, and climate change, become terrible things to Hillary supporters.

[Darb]

173. Don't alert on me Bro*, but that's a bunch of baloney.

Jussayin'.




* - Trigger warning for painful truth to follow.

[sabrina 1]

213. Lol, these polls sure get a few people very agitated around here. But my question is

if they are meaningless, as they claim, then why all the angst over them?

I rarely alert so no worries. Why would you think anyone would alert on that comment?

[840high]

193. Sabrina - you make my

heart happy.

[sabrina 1]

194. Aw, thank you. You and all of Bernie's supporters make mine happy too!

[Cali_Democrat]

216. That's wonderful.

Bernie....the people's choice!

[lovemydog]

197. I'm most interested in seeing how the voting turns out.

We'll soon see.

[rjsquirrel]

201. The people?

Lol

[stonecutter357]

202. I am voting for Hillary Rodham Clinton....

[sabrina 1]

211. I'm with the People's candidate, Bernie Sanders!