Veritigo_X
Member
Are they wrong though?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Democratic National Primary Debate #1 |Tokyo2016| Rise of Mecha-Godzilla
- Thread starter B-Dubs
- Start date
- Status
Are they wrong though?
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
That's the rhetoric used on people of a certain skin color or religious affliation.
It's not good.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
What?
It's not a defense force! It's a basic understanding of how accurate polling works! If I tried to use an online poll for anything in my old college research methods class I would have gotten an F at best. They are simply not accurate by their very nature. No attempt at random sampling, self selection from within a narrow subset of people, few if any controls to keep people from essentially ballot stuffing. Any resemblance between them and the actual outcome of anything is a big enough coincidence to start looking at physic powers as an explanation.
Can some candidate please put forth a platform that adds a Stats class and a Research Methods class to the mandatory list?
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
I was actually talking about their reporting, not the debate itself.
The complaint was that CNN was reporting her the winner contrary to fact-- which doesn't pass the sniff test. CNN's other behavior doesn't jibe with this. Occam's Razor suggests that maybe, just maybe, Hillary did win the debate. I pointed to 538 as an example of another party that thinks so.
They don't mean anything. Anyone who knows how polling works will tell you that.
Trojita
Rapid Response Threadmaker
You haven't seen that rhetoric used after a terrorist attack, the riots in ferguson, etc.? Seriously?
bearythebear
Member
I'm sorry, should have been more specific. Reddit is just being swarmed by Bernie supporters bashing Hillary, or the media for ignoring polls they clearly manipulated, etc. Giving me flashbacks to Ron Paul
Nope. You don't understand polling.
EatinOlives
Member
How long have you been involved with politics? Online polls have never meant anything statistically significant. Not for Republicans, Democrats, Independents, not now, not ever.
It's laughable you seem to think that people pointing this out are a "defense force". Online polls being inaccurate isn't some magical conspiracy brought in to discredit Sanders, give me a break.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Every day I post in poliwhatever here I'm attacked for supporting Kucinich in 2008. Bunch of militants in here. Fucking crazy.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
I don't see how it's applicable at all in politics. Are you comparing Sanders' supporters to oppressed people? There's a huge difference between using an argument against a political candidate's support base and the history of people discriminated against for their color of skin or choice of religion. If the majority of Bernie supporters want people to see Bernie positively then they should be vocal about it instead of letting some 'loud minority' stir public opinion of him towards the negative. Otherwise they're not very good supporters themselves.
RastaMentality
Banned
Is it not possible Bernie fans stormed the polls on every major site through the subreddit or other social media?
Spider from Mars
tap that thorax
ftfy
Absolutely, but in the same breath there is this from Nate Silver:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/did-the-democratic-debate-change-the-odds/
The media have anointed her, according to 538, and it is really interesting to observe. When polling does come out and we get to see some hard numbers unlike the buzzing of the pop media, I think Bernie may be much closer to her.
Of course this is possible.
I've seen quite a few Sanders threads and while there are indeed some unreasonable zealots around, people on the other side just lazily put all Sanders supporters under fire. We even had a discussion where people claimed to not vote for Sanders because some of his supporters are shit, often stated as just "his supporters" - or how some people like to generalize Sanders supporters here: "Standers". It's simply annoying.
You know your argument is bad if it includes "LOL". While the CNN bias is certainly real, online polls are fairly inaccurate, because they are heavily skewed simple by the fact that the people who vote on these polls are in general younger, male and liberal than the general population.
Sure, but that means that there is at least a sizable crowd of people who would do that. It's not a very good indicator anyways. Waiting for more sophisticated surveys.
these debates are kind of a joke. Clinton's been handed this nomination already.
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
I read all of this in Mark Levin's twerpy angry voice.
Lmao, yes! I've been looking forward to this all day
Internet polls are useless, anyone can put their vote in an online poll. You don't have to be voting age, or even from the US to put your opinion in. There is nothing reliable about them.
NullPointer
Member
Fair and balanced.
Fenderputty
Banned
Dat persecution complex.
Ok then I don't want to see any of you citing online polls for anything, ever.
While it is possible and maybe even likely that Sanders fans stormed the polls last night, I think its also possible that maybe, just maybe, Bernie resonated with people who went into the debate last night feeling like they didn't care for Hillary and were looking for somebody to root for.
Hillary supporters are so quick to just say this whole thing is hers for the taking. I'm sure somebody will come at me with reasons as to why Obama overtaking her was a "completely different situation!" but everyone said the same shit back then that they're saying now.
Look, if Hillary wins I'm all about putting a vote behind her so the Greedy Party of Fuck You doesn't come into more power, but you Hill fans need to lighten up and let Sanders supporters have their moments when they happen.
Oh, and also
BENGHAZI
E
N
G
H
A
Z
I
ChronotriggerJM
Member
Gotcha, that's definitely sensible lol. Personally I thought she did very well, I don't think it was the sweeping victory that outlets will lead one to believe, but possibly a very narrow victory.
I'm in absolute agreement that online polls are mostly useless. I do appreciate that they bring buzz and attention, which is something Sanders stands to benefit greatly from, but like others mentioned, it could be repeat voters, waves of people poll bombing websites, foreigners, etc etc. I eagerly await more analytical poll data.
^ Basically.
Ron Paul isn't Bernie Sanders though.
One of them has policies that by and large wins widespread support across party lines, another doesn't.
Ron Paul isn't Bernie Sanders though.
One of them has policies that by and large wins widespread support across party lines, another doesn't.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
All big business is invested into all candidates they see as serious contenders. You're naive if you don't think they'd invest in Sanders if they saw him as potential president.
ErasureAcer
Banned
Classy.
PhoenixDark
Banned
Both are ideological purists with no shot at their party's nomination. Both also have highly motivated online supporters, yet don't have much support in terms of actual people who vote/determine primary elections.
Bernie might win Iowa, seems like he'll win NH. But outside of states like Montana, Vermont, South Dakota, etc...he's going to get annihilated by Clinton.
I respect Sanders, he's the most honorable person running. But he will not be the nominee and he cannot win a general election.
Time warner is invested in Hillary to support the status quo on the networks they support just as much as Roger Ailes is for the proliferation of regressive ideals on Fox and the Wall Street Journal among other outlets. You can get FIRED at any of the stations Time Warner owns for talking about TPP in any sort of negative light, people have been.
If you actually think there's any legitimacy in "they're just blatantly pushing a candidate impartially cause she's gonna win!" i don't think you know anything about how big money influences these sorts of things, or really much about politics in general in the current era.
The irony of calling someone naive after your opening sentence... Time Warner has large investments in Hilary's campaign. Time Warner owns CNN, Fortune, Time, etc. Sanders is not taking large investments, as he considers it legal bribery. One of the monumental points of his campaign is he is not taking superpac money, and large investments, so yes they won't invest in him because he is not taking any investments from them.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
I don't recall saying media doesn't have influence. Just that it's naive to pretend Time Warner isn't invested in other candidates as well. They're obviously going to give more to the one they think has the best chance of supporting their interests, but they also give to the others as well. TW even contributes to republicans and GOP candidates. If someone at TW was confident Bernie was going to be our next president you can bet your savings that there would be a dump truck of money at his front door.
Do you not understand what Citizens United is and what Bernie's position is on it and for future election funding?
EatinOlives
Member
1) I never use online polls for anything even remotely important, that much is sure.
2) I'm not a "Hill" fan, as I prefer Sanders and will vote for him in the primaries. There's no need to have an "if you're not with us you're against us" mentality.
3) Sanders had a very strong showing and I wouldn't be surprised if he converted many people to his ideology. He's not a "fringe nut", as many of his strongest statements got the strongest (positive) reactions from the audience. Nobody is denying that he did well overall.
4) His performance in the debate and the general population's pre-conceived notions of who the "de-facto" winner of the primary are two different things. Hillary is still the frontrunner in the polls (the real polls), so really what she needed to do last night is to not crash and burn, and she didn't do that so she was handed the win. Is it fair? No, but that's how it works. If a soccer game is 3-0, all the winning team has to do is keep possession of the ball and defend and they win the game. Yes, the team falling behind needs to work twice has hard to even get within spitting distance of winning. That's how it works, and Sanders understands that 100%. Why do you think he kept talking about a "political revolution", encouraging as many people to vote and become involved as possible? Hillary is more "mainstream", and it's easier for her to maintain momentum than it is for Sanders to build it up. He's doing REALLY well at carving out attention and maintaining a presence, and slowly chipping away at Hillary's popularity, but let's be realistic: the tables weren't gonna turn after very first debate. That's just ridiculous. Pouting that you can't use online polls to prove that they did doesn't do anything productive.
yep. i'd say it is far more possible than bernie getting 81% of the nod on cnn.com with hilary at 13%. no way is 81% reflective of the public's perception. at all.
NoblesseOblige
Banned
Probably not, no. I'm not going to pretend Bernie Sanders is some altruistic Christ-like savior however. He's a politician, and a human, both of which make him susceptible to large quantities of money. It's easy to say you're against something when you're not the one benefiting from that something.
PhoenixDark
Banned
You're delusional. This is the exact same shit Ron Paul acolytes did in 2008 and 2012. He "won" nearly every unscientific online poll too.
shadowsdarknes
Member
He tried to call the debate a clown show lmao
It was a civil debate discussing policy stances.
That's not a clown show.
People you disagree with doesn't make something a clown show.
Actively making a debate into a spectacle of entertainment (like in the GOP) makes it a clown show.
shadowsdarknes
Member
Yep. Ron Paul was winning online polls left and right back in 08 and 2012. Ron Paul fans said the same shit. The media is deliberately out to make him lose!
yawn
Is that what I'm acting like? Quote me to show how I'm acting like that.
Maybe you shouldn't worry to much about how people are acting, and stop calling people naive on issues your unfamiliar with. Maybe read up about Sanders history and why again it conflicts with your statements on him being just as likely as any candidate to be seduced by money.
BertramCooper
Banned
Snowman Prophet of Doom
Member
Y'know, if I recall correctly, Hillary actually has MORE individual donations than Bernie, at this point.
I like Bernie, and would prefer him to Clinton, for a variety of reasons, but I must admit, this weird persecution complex Bernie supporters have where he's the ONLY good candidate, the ONLY one who will prevent the rich from enslaving us all, and everyone would just LOVE him if only the media would give him a fair break, comes across very poorly to those not already in his camp or who are more moderate supporters.
I prefer Bernie and wish the country was more receptive to politicians who were truly different, and who called out the problems of the country in direct language, rather than hiding behind buzz words and bullshit, but ultimately, I acknowledge his problems and have no problem voting for Clinton if it comes down to it. This, to me, is the rational position to hold, and I wish Sanders' diehard supporters would get off their high horse and join the rest of us in reality, where Clinton is less rhetorically tough on Wall Street and corporations that she ought to be but hardly some malevolent corporate puppet.
Ron Paul is not Bernie Sanders. What can people who claim this nonsense not understand?
Nobody gives a shit about defunding the FDA, killing social security and medicare, and taking away social safety nets like Ron Paul's crazy base does.
We Bernie supporters support 99% of the causes a majority of America supports when they are asked point blank. It has nothing to do with Ron Paul.
"Do you like your social security?"
"Do you like your medicare benefits?"
"Do you feel the government should play a much larger part in containing corporate abuses of consumers?"
"Do you feel the major Wall Street entities should be kneecapped to diminish their influence on politicians and domestic/global legislation?"
"Do you feel that the American government has an obligation to invest significantly into the infrastructure of this country?"
Its not an effing hard concept to grasp people. I swear, when a lot of self proclaimed moderate and liberal citizens, never mind the media are acting like Tea party people in actively attacking their best interests, i am really concerned about the future.
Fenderputty
Banned
What was uncouth about it?
Bottom feeding Nashville conservative radio hellspawn Michael DelGiorno,
"The GOP is the party of diversity."
"The Libs didn't even mention real issues like Planned Parenthood. Those people had neither style or substance."
"Bernie Sanders honeymooned in the Soviet Union."
"Socialism is just one firing squad away from utopia"
"Those gungrabbing commies want us to be more like Norway, Sweden and Denmark. They should be sent over there to starve in the streets like the rest of those socialists."
I've really got to avoid talk radio for my own mental health.
AnotherDayAnotherDollar
Banned
As someone with no favorite candidate, and not sure if I'll vote - and if I do, if I'll vote D or R - I gotta say that both Sanders and Clinton fans are....passionate. We have a few of those right here on this very thread.
Also, one of my coworkers informed me today that O'Malley taxed rain in MD? WTH was that? Why did no one call him out on it?
I can kind of see your analogy, even though I think it's poor. So say we ban automatic assault weapons and armor piercing bullets and all that. I still don't agree that gun shop owners/manufacturers should be sued if someone buys a regular, legal weapon like a hunting rifle (again with all background, mental checks etc done). Using your example, that's like saying someone buys a regular "non drunk driving" Ford Fusion, the buyer gets drunk one day and runs me over and I'm now allowed to sue Ford. I agree with bans on assault weapons and a whole lot of other things, I don't think I'll agree with you on this one.
Was reddit a thing back in 08/12? I am pretty sure it wasn't as big as it is now.
Also, one of my coworkers informed me today that O'Malley taxed rain in MD? WTH was that? Why did no one call him out on it?
I can kind of see your analogy, even though I think it's poor. So say we ban automatic assault weapons and armor piercing bullets and all that. I still don't agree that gun shop owners/manufacturers should be sued if someone buys a regular, legal weapon like a hunting rifle (again with all background, mental checks etc done). Using your example, that's like saying someone buys a regular "non drunk driving" Ford Fusion, the buyer gets drunk one day and runs me over and I'm now allowed to sue Ford. I agree with bans on assault weapons and a whole lot of other things, I don't think I'll agree with you on this one.
Was reddit a thing back in 08/12? I am pretty sure it wasn't as big as it is now.
Veritigo_X
Member
You're missing the point here. Sanders has a large active internet base more likely to vote in an online poll. It's very similar to Ron Paul's base in 2012. No one is saying that Bernie Sanders is Ron Paul, they are just using him as proof that online polls are meaningless. The CNN poll we're talking about could even be voted in multiple times if one were so inclined. Wait for actual polls to figure out how he did.
GAF even has its own poll now, as reliable as any other online poll.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked