Support NeoGAF

[Daniel B·]

As per my own [post=181795043]analysis[/post] in the PoliGAF thread, Facebook users had Bernie winning by a country mile:

Apparently, CNN was so concerned over the poll results, they later not only took down the live poll, according to Media Equalizer, they have been actively deleting pro Bernie comments!

Is this any surprise when Time Warner Cable, who owns CNN, has contributed over $410k to her campaigns?

This is discussed in the Secular Talk YT video.

 

[Fenderputty]

2 scientific polls come out showing Clinton had the most gains post debate. Immediate post to follow with conspiracy bullshit.

 

[B-Dubs]

None of those polls are scientific in any sense of the word, all they measure is voter intensity and tech savvyness. They aren't a reliable picture of the electorate, we've been over this already.

 

[teiresias]

As per my own [post=181795043]analysis[/post] in the PoliGAF thread, Facebook users had Bernie winning by a country mile:

Apparently, CNN was so concerned over the poll results, they later not only took down the live poll, according to Media Equalizer, they have been actively deleting pro Bernie comments!

Is this any surprise when Time Warner Cable, who owns CNN, has contributed over $410k to her campaigns?

This is discussed in the Secular Talk YT video.

When are you going to stop hawking this conspiracy nonsense? Keep that on whatever YT channel you're trying to get hits for instead of posting it in here.

 

[BobTheFork]

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/15/bernie_sanders_truthers_step_down_theres_no_conspiracy_to_hide_that_he_won_the_debate/

 

[Veritigo_X]

As per my own [post=181795043]analysis[/post] in the PoliGAF thread, Facebook users had Bernie winning by a country mile:

Apparently, CNN was so concerned over the poll results, they later not only took down the live poll, according to Media Equalizer, they have been actively deleting pro Bernie comments!

Is this any surprise when Time Warner Cable, who owns CNN, has contributed over $410k to her campaigns?

This is discussed in the Secular Talk YT video.

How much did Huffington Post and NBC donate to the Clinton campaign? Or do they have their own agendas?

 

[Cheebo]

You know you are losing when you argument devolves into to "it's a conspiracy!"

 

[lednerg]

My pet theory is that these so-called Bernie stans are trolls being paid off to make his supporters seem completely unhinged.

 

[Clefargle]

Bernie did well, but he missed his chance to actively promote Democratic Socialism. Instead, he punted and said he would educate the American people about it at some later date. That was your chance dude! Webb was alright, Lincoln was forgettable and seemed dodgy. Hillary came off as guarded and a bit hawkish, but she also seemed the most presidential. That's what will matter.

 

[Chariot]

My pet theory is that these so-called Bernie stans are trolls being paid off to make his supporters seem completely unhinged.

I think most of zealots are just that - zealots who are misleading themselves. I believe in Bernie and that he can win, but some people really stray off the path.

So what your saying is that Clinton is COD and Bernie is Shenmue 3. No one thinks Bernie has a chance, just like no one thought Shenmue 3 would get made...

I let everyone decide for themselves which franchises both are

 

[phanphare]

Bernie did well, but he missed his chance to actively promote Democratic Socialism. Instead, he punted and said he would educate the American people about it at some later date. That was your chance dude! Webb was alright, Lincoln was forgettable and seemed dodgy. Hillary came off as guarded and a bit hawkish, but she also seemed the most presidential. That's what will matter.

what? Bernie laid out his ideals right then and there and also many times throughout the debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7jlAZSGXf4

he even got a chance to get some of his democratic socialist views in when he complained about the "damn emails"

 

[Cheebo]

My pet theory is that these so-called Bernie stans are trolls being paid off to make his supporters seem completely unhinged.

I was talking to my dad who seems like he would be the type to support Bernie. He supported Kennedy over Carter in 80, Jerry Brown over Clinton in 92, Bill Bradley over Gore in 2000, and Dean over Kerry in 2004. When I ask why he won't support Bernie his exact answer was "because his supporters act like little shits".

Bernie is amazing and one of our greatest senators serving today, he deserves better supporters than conspiracy theorists the gamer gate men's rights wackos that dominate his Reddit page. I still don't understand what attracted these types of people to him. It baffles me.

 

[Chariot]

I was talking to my dad who seems like he would be the type to support Bernie. He supported Kennedy over Carter in 80, Jerry Brown over Clinton in 92, Bill Bradley over Gore in 2000, and Dean over Kerry in 2004. When I ask why he won't support Bernie his exact answer was "because his supporters act like little shits".

Bernie is amazing and one of our great senators, he deserves better support than crazy conspiracy theorists the gamer gate men's rights wackos that dominate his Reddit page.

See, this is the thing that comes up occasionally in Bernie threads here on GAF. It's weird. You won't support somebody or something because certain other people follow it? It's like not playing a game just because Pewdiepie liked it.

 

[Cheebo]

See, this is the thing that comes up occasionally in Bernie threads here on GAF. It's weird. You won't support somebody or something because certain other people follow it? It's like not playing a game just because Pewdiepie liked it.

Well pewdiepie is one person. Going on places like Reddit the cross the GamerGate/Men's Rights types pretty much control the Bernie subreddit. Which to this day makes no sense to me but it's the reality of this race on the Internet. Stuff like that makes people feel uncomfortable publicly aligning with the cause.

Politics is very social and about groups of people aligning in support of causes and candidates unlike a piece of media like a game. If you do not like the group of people behind the cause or candidate it makes sense one would think twice about getting involved.

Look at Republicans, it is fair to say the batshit insane confederate flag wearing gun toting tea party supporters makes someone who may lean economically conservative but isn't part of those fringes think twice about becoming a Republican as well. Supporters of a politician or party can hurt the party or politician they support. This is not a uniquely Bernie situation.

 

[Clefargle]

what? Bernie laid out his ideals right then and there and also many times throughout the debate.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7jlAZSGXf4

he even got a chance to get some of his democratic socialist views in when he complained about the "damn emails"

He talked about his principles. And he talked about some principals of Democratic socialism. But he didn't educate anyone on what is actually is. You're being too generous to the average voter, they need to be elucidated on what type of system he is pushing for. Instead, he used examples of how bad the system is now and offered solutions that sounded exactly the same as Webb and Chaffee. He sounded like a democrat and should have used that time to actually tell them positive positions of democratic socialism in contrast to the American left. He did not.

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry..._hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics&section=politics

This is the first real poll out btw. Not some straw poll bullshit.

While this poll is better than a facebook poll, it's still polling 71% of users who did not watch the debate or part of the debate, 86% of users who only watched part of the debate, and 33% of users who didn't even hear anything about it. Unless I'm reading the poll wrong, it shows more of a status quo which shows similar numbers that we have seen on polling without Biden in it.

I believe the poll also does say that out of ~140 people who did watch the debate, 55% thought that Hillary won.

How much did Huffington Post and NBC donate to the Clinton campaign? Or do they have their own agendas?

Can you link me to the NBC poll? I haven't seen it.

See, this is the thing that comes up occasionally in Bernie threads here on GAF. It's weird. You won't support somebody or something because certain other people follow it? It's like not playing a game just because Pewdiepie liked it.

I struggle with that too. Clinton supporters are just as annoying to me as Sanders supporters, but it wouldn't detract me if I decided to vote for her.

 

[pigeon]

While this poll is better than a facebook poll, it's still polling 71% of users who did not watch the debate or part of the debate, 86% of users who only watched part of the debate, and 33% of users who didn't even hear anything about it. Unless I'm reading the poll wrong, it shows more of a status quo which shows similar numbers that we have seen on polling without Biden in it.

I mean, that's a fair point, but I think, in practice, the relevant metric for the primary is still primary voters, whether or not they watched the debate. If the debate didn't reach them, or it only reached them through word of mouth and pundit analysis, then that's just a limitation on the effectiveness of the debate to change opinions. Also worth noting that only 23% of Democrats knew nothing about the debate -- the 33% figure includes independents and Republicans.

There are bright spots all over for this poll. For Hillary, obviously, 49% on Dems and leaners is great (note that the question was "Hillary or anybody else," so Biden would be included in that, and this is an improvement). As predicted, many of the "unsure" voters were just Hillary voters waiting for a reason to declare themselves.

At the same time, Bernie can point to his 44% improved opinion among Democrats and only 5% worsened opinion among Democrats as pushing the "people just need to know about him" narrative, although the 26% improved/22% worsened among independents and 16% improved/35% worsened among the GOP should make clear that there's no wave of Republican leaners willing to cross the aisle for him.

Meanwhile, Lincoln Chafee can take heart in the fact that most Americans aren't interested in watching the next debate.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Can you link me to the NBC poll? I haven't seen it.

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ters-unified-candidates-show-fissures-n445561

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

I wasn't much of a supporter before, but outside of the gun debate, Bernie won me over. Buuuuuuut, he doesn't stand a chance. It's too bad, really.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

As per my own [post=181795043]analysis[/post] in the PoliGAF thread, Facebook users had Bernie winning by a country mile:

Apparently, CNN was so concerned over the poll results, they later not only took down the live poll, according to Media Equalizer, they have been actively deleting pro Bernie comments!

Is this any surprise when Time Warner Cable, who owns CNN, has contributed over $410k to her campaigns?

This is discussed in the Secular Talk YT video.

It's here too! Ugh.

I was talking to my dad who seems like he would be the type to support Bernie. He supported Kennedy over Carter in 80, Jerry Brown over Clinton in 92, Bill Bradley over Gore in 2000, and Dean over Kerry in 2004. When I ask why he won't support Bernie his exact answer was "because his supporters act like little shits".

Bernie is amazing and one of our greatest senators serving today, he deserves better supporters than conspiracy theorists the gamer gate men's rights wackos that dominate his Reddit page. I still don't understand what attracted these types of people to him. It baffles me.

I agree. Since reddit likes Sanders I don't want him to win the election. Too much of a red flag.

 

[dramatis]

See, this is the thing that comes up occasionally in Bernie threads here on GAF. It's weird. You won't support somebody or something because certain other people follow it? It's like not playing a game just because Pewdiepie liked it.

I've said this before, but when I volunteered for the Obama campaign, the first thing stressed to us (the volunteers) is that we're representing the campaign and indirectly we also represented Obama. We were instructed to be courteous to everybody, including the opposition. Because on the ground, we were the face of the candidate.

If you were approached by a volunteer for the Bernie campaign that was arrogant about how much he knows better than you about the world, and he's a young whippersnapper talking shit about Hillary Clinton, would you feel better about the campaign?

 

[Aaron Strife]

We're moving left socially but right economically. And Bernie supporters tend to view economics as the ultimate basis of society (the base/superstructure argument).

Dunno if I would agree with this. When we had a Dem Congress and Dem President, we got a massive stimulus spending bill, the first new regulations on Wall St. in decades and yes, Obamacare. With the GOP Congress we've had spending cuts but also tax increases through the expiration of the Bush tax cuts. Over the past thirty years or so, yeah we're probably more conservative, but I think it's shifting or at least stopping.

 

[Meowster]

As per my own [post=181795043]analysis[/post] in the PoliGAF thread, Facebook users had Bernie winning by a country mile:

Apparently, CNN was so concerned over the poll results, they later not only took down the live poll, according to Media Equalizer, they have been actively deleting pro Bernie comments!

Is this any surprise when Time Warner Cable, who owns CNN, has contributed over $410k to her campaigns?

This is discussed in the Secular Talk YT video.

You can't escape this conspiracy theory bullshit anywhere, can you?

 

[Chariot]

Well pewdiepie is one person. Going on places like Reddit the cross the GamerGate/Men's Rights types pretty much control the Bernie subreddit. Which to this day makes no sense to me but it's the reality of this race on the Internet. Stuff like that makes people feel uncomfortable publicly aligning with the cause.

Politics is very social and about groups of people aligning in support of causes and candidates unlike a piece of media like a game. If you do not like the group of people behind the cause or candidate it makes sense one would think twice about getting involved.

Look at Republicans, it is fair to say the batshit insane confederate flag wearing gun toting tea party supporters makes someone who may lean economically conservative but isn't part of those fringes think twice about becoming a Republican as well. Supporters of a politician or party can hurt the party or politician they support. This is not a uniquely Bernie situation.

Did you just push GamerGate into this? Come on.
Hillary has idiots in her fan ranks too. Are you not voting Hillary either? Your voting the president of the United States into office, not their fanbase on reddit. The person, the politics and the political connections are important. You can dislike Sanders because you don't like his politics, but not voting for him because some of his fans are assholes and/or not very thick-skinned?

I struggle with that too. Clinton supporters are just as annoying to me as Sanders supporters, but it wouldn't detract me if I decided to vote for her.

Yeah. Hillary has plenty of deviant fans. Even on GAF there are a few strange fellows that seem more to care that Sanders didn't overtake Hillary than hat Hillary did well.

I wasn't much of a supporter before, but outside of the gun debate, Bernie won me over. Buuuuuuut, he doesn't stand a chance. It's too bad, really.

Don't say that. Just support and vote for him and see what happens

I've said this before, but when I volunteered for the Obama campaign, the first thing stressed to us (the volunteers) is that we're representing the campaign and indirectly we also represented Obama. We were instructed to be courteous to everybody, including the opposition. Because on the ground, we were the face of the candidate.

If you were approached by a volunteer for the Bernie campaign that was arrogant about how much he knows better than you about the world, and he's a young whippersnapper talking shit about Hillary Clinton, would you feel better about the campaign?

Most people that give opinions - good and bad - on anything on the internet are not official volunteers. Are the volunteers ringing on your door telling you that NBC is a conspiracy - or is it random people on the internet that are invested on various degrees with his campaign?

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/201...ters-unified-candidates-show-fissures-n445561

Why would anyone call that a conspiracy and is surveymonkey polling reliable? Real, genuine questions.

 

[Veritigo_X]

Why would anyone call that a conspiracy and is surveymonkey polling reliable? Real, genuine questions.

You can read their methodology here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/285396771/NBC-SurveyMonkey-ToplinesMethod10-15

The NBC News Online Poll was conducted online by SurveyMonkey October 13-15, 2015 among a national sample of 4,898 adults aged 18 and over. Respondents for this non-probability survey were selected using an algorithm from among the nearly three million people who take surveys on the SurveyMonkey platform each day.

Very different than a Facebook poll that literally allows anyone to vote in it (and multiple times if they wanted).

I'll also point to shinra-bansho's post above:

There's a difference between a representative sampling approach that happens to use the internet as a vehicle for polling and the awesome GAF scientific online poll.

I don't even know why this needs explaining.

 

[pigeon]

Why would anyone call that a conspiracy

I'm not sure how to answer this question. "Because they are crazy" comes to mind, but I'm not sure that's what you were looking for?

and is surveymonkey polling reliable? Real, genuine questions.

SurveyMonkey is okay. They do a lot of things to try to improve their polling and they're not opt-in, which is the biggest problem obviously with most online polling. But they still have a lot of adverse selection to worry about, which is noted on the first page of the poll results. (SurveyMonkey sends emails to people to ask them to do specific surveys, which is better than pure opt-in but still suffers from self-selection bias.)

The most reliable polls will probably come out next week, since they take longer to run.

 

[zero shift]

I can't see how anybody can actually think that Sanders won. While he did standout, he didn't break the house down like Trump did during his first debate. To add to that, Hillary did spectacular. People will say "but she didn't say anything!" is the point. Debates are to sell a politician as a president. They aren't looking who has the most concrete solutions to our problems, but the person who seems the best equip to handle them.That's why, if you want to get technical, there were few times when candidates gave a direct answer to anything (yes that includes Sanders). Hilary, by far and wide, was the most marketable person in that debate as she played it cool and was able to deflect her criticisms while criticizing her opponents and not sounding like a bully. Seeing Sanders winning would almost be as random as having O'Malley winning.

I mean, that's a fair point, but I think, in practice, the relevant metric for the primary is still primary voters, whether or not they watched the debate. If the debate didn't reach them, or it only reached them through word of mouth and pundit analysis, then that's just a limitation on the effectiveness of the debate to change opinions. Also worth noting that only 23% of Democrats knew nothing about the debate -- the 33% figure includes independents and Republicans.

There are bright spots all over for this poll. For Hillary, obviously, 49% on Dems and leaners is great (note that the question was "Hillary or anybody else," so Biden would be included in that, and this is an improvement). As predicted, many of the "unsure" voters were just Hillary voters waiting for a reason to declare themselves.

At the same time, Bernie can point to his 44% improved opinion among Democrats and only 5% worsened opinion among Democrats as pushing the "people just need to know about him" narrative, although the 26% improved/22% worsened among independents and 16% improved/35% worsened among the GOP should make clear that there's no wave of Republican leaners willing to cross the aisle for him.

Exactly. Everyone is winning so far. Hillary supporters, Bernie supporters, and the American left. There are just a few people that are angry because they can't have their cake and eat it too. Sorry you aren't going to get your revolution while the American economy is recovering at a rate beyond most of the industrialized world.

 

[Chariot]

I can't see how anybody can actually think that Sanders won. While he did standout, he didn't break the house down like Trump did during his first debate. To add to that, Hillary did spectacular. People will say "but she didn't say anything!" is the point. Debates are to sell a politician as a president. They aren't looking who has the most concrete solutions to our problems, but the person who seems the best equip to handle them.That's why, if you want to get technical, there were few times when candidates gave a direct answer to anything (yes that includes Sanders). Hilary, by far and wide, was the most marketable person in that debate as she played it cool and was able to deflect her criticisms while criticizing her opponents and not sounding like a bully. Seeing Sanders winning would almost be as random as having O'Malley winning.

I think Hillary did very well, but I think both O'Malley and Sanders made gains here simple by doing very well too. They showed that they are there and that they would be reasonable choices. I am not saying Hillary didn't won in absolute numbers that night, but I will say that she didn't manage to crush O'Malley and Sanders. Bernie had some good memorable moments like defending Hillary on the email issue and the Sandra Bland moment. Even if Hillary won, Sanders and O'Malley didn't lose.

Incidentally she also didn't beat Chafe and Webb. Pretty sure those two beat themselves up.

 

[YoungHav]

Debate winners are determined by watching the debate on mute. It's all about body language and demeanor.

 

[dramatis]

Most people that give opinions - good and bad - on anything on the internet are not official volunteers. Are the volunteers ringing on your door telling you that NBC is a conspiracy - or is it random people on the internet that are invested on various degrees with his campaign?

You should hope that all of these people who so ardently support Bernie on the internet are also actual volunteers. That's what actual grassroots support is, not comment threads on the internet.

But consider this: nowadays there is outreach on the internet too. The attitudes given to BLM and the like are akin to the same sort of poor form a volunteer in person with that attitude would be, no? Even if you aren't official volunteers, but still trying to spread the word about your supported candidate, aren't you also a face of a cause/candidate?

 

[B-Dubs]

Incidentally she also didn't beat Chafe and Webb. Pretty sure those two beat themselves up.

Webb snapped his own neck with that "I killed a man once," bullshit.

 

[Chariot]

You should hope that all of these people who so ardently support Bernie on the internet are also actual volunteers. That's what actual grassroots support is, not comment threads on the internet.

But consider this: nowadays there is outreach on the internet too. The attitudes given to BLM and the like are akin to the same sort of poor form a volunteer in person with that attitude would be, no? Even if you aren't official volunteers, but still trying to spread the word about your supported candidate, aren't you also a face of a cause/candidate?

They surely shape public opinion and are thus part of the face. But you don't judge the face only by the chin. And again. Hillary has bad supporters too, what about them. Is Hillary a bad choice because of these bad apples? I say no. Judge Sanders for him and his policies, not for something people on the internet say that are or are not supporters of his.

Webb snapped his own neck with that "I killed a man once," bullshit.

Also his constant whining about not getting enough attention.

 

[Daniel B·]

So in summary, because I highlighted that CNN has chosen to completely ignore their debate partner, Facebook, live poll, and instead proclaim the exact opposite of a decisive Bernie win, I'm somehow a "conspiracy theorist", a troll, completely unhinged, a zealott, a "little shit", an idiot...

And trying to brush asside the towering 73% vs 18% Bernie result, by advancing the ludicrous notion that Hillary would have won, except her supporters are not tech savy is absurd, beyond belief. Of Hillary leaning Facebook users, I can almost guarantee that, compared to Bernie supporters, they own more smartphones, for example.

I don't think Bernie won as decisively as that poll would suggest, and overall I thought Hillary had a good night, but for the Media to try and whitewash the actual winner, doesn't surprise me in the least...

I tried to find a CNN reference to the Facebook poll, and failed. Can anyone else?

 

[B-Dubs]

So in summary, because I highlighted that CNN has chosen to completely ignore their debate partner, Facebook, live poll, and instead proclaim the exact opposite of a decisive Bernie win, I'm somehow a "conspiracy theorist", a troll, completely unhinged, a zealott, a "little shit", an idiot...

And trying to brush asside the towering 73% vs 18% Bernie result, by advancing the ludicrous notion that Hillary would have won, except her supporters are not tech savy is absurd, beyond belief. Of Hillary leaning Facebook users, I can almost guarantee that, compared to Bernie supporters, they own more smartphones, for example.

I don't think Bernie won as decisively as that poll would suggest, and overall I thought Hillary had a good night, but for the Media to try and whitewash the actual winner, doesn't surprise me in the least...

I tried to find a CNN reference to the Facebook poll, and failed. Can anyone else?

No, all we did was point out that the polls you were citing were in no way scientific or representative of the electorate. As such they have no bearing on anything.

In order for you to be right, we'd have to ignore everything we know about statistics and polling.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Hillary Clinton and Sen. Bernie Sanders are in a dead heat in New Hampshire after the first Democratic Debate, according to a new poll released Friday.

The Suffolk University/Boston Globe poll conducted in the two days following Tuesday's debate reverses a trend in a series of surveys in the early primary state that had shown Clinton trailing Sanders substantially, another sign of the former secretary of state's strong performance in Tuesday's debate.

In the Friday poll, Clinton led Sanders 37% to 35%, a statistical tie well within the poll's margin of error.

Of the likely Democratic voters surveyed who watched it, Clinton was declared the winner of Tuesday night's debate, 54% to 24% for Sanders.

Suffolk surveyed 500 likely voters in New Hampshire's Democratic presidential primary Oct. 14-15 for the poll, which has an error margin of plus or minus 4.4 percentage points.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/16/politics/bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-even-new-hampshire/index.html

 

[Veritigo_X]

So in summary, because I highlighted that CNN has chosen to completely ignore their debate partner, Facebook, live poll, and instead proclaim the exact opposite of a decisive Bernie win, I'm somehow a "conspiracy theorist", a troll, completely unhinged, a zealott, a "little shit", an idiot...

And trying to brush asside the towering 73% vs 18% Bernie result, by advancing the ludicrous notion that Hillary would have won, except her supporters are not tech savy is absurd, beyond belief. Of Hillary leaning Facebook users, I can almost guarantee that, compared to Bernie supporters, they own more smartphones, for example.

I don't think Bernie won as decisively as that poll would suggest, and overall I thought Hillary had a good night, but for the Media to try and whitewash the actual winner, doesn't surprise me in the least...

I tried to find a CNN reference to the Facebook poll, and failed. Can anyone else?

Did you miss the other posts that linked polls that actually screened their participants? It tells a very different picture than your Facebook poll. Some people might be a little harsh, but you really shouldn't count on an unscientific poll like that. It doesn't say as much as you think it does. It certainly doesn't say that Sanders had a "decisive win."

 

[phanphare]

Did you miss the other posts that linked polls that actually screened their participants? It tells a very different picture than your Facebook poll. Some people might be a little harsh, but you really shouldn't count on an unscientific poll like that. It doesn't say as much as you think it does. It certainly doesn't say that Sanders had a "decisive win."

I agree with this but isn't it a little weird that CNN just removed the poll from their site?

 

[B-Dubs]

I agree with this but isn't it a little weird that CNN just removed the poll from their site?

Not really, they probably realized what was going on, Sanders supporters flooding the responses and inflating totals, and decided keeping it up would only confuse people once the legit polls came in.

 

[Daniel B·]

No, all we did was point out that the polls you were citing were in no way scientific or representative of the electorate. As such they have no bearing on anything.

In order for you to be right, we'd have to ignore everything we know about statistics and polling.

So, given the Worldwide popularity of Facebook, are you saying that if all those that favor Bernie, who are eligible to vote and do so in the Democratic primary, it will have a negligible effect on the result? Interesting.

 

[Veritigo_X]

I agree with this but isn't it a little weird that CNN just removed the poll from their site?

It's weird that they removed it without comment. But they could've noticed there was tampering to make the poll worthless. 73% of people saying Sanders won is a little suspicious, especially now that we have scientific polling data.

 

[kirblar]

So, given the Worldwide popularity of Facebook, are you saying that if all those that favor Bernie, who are eligible to vote and do so in the Democratic primary, will have a negligible effect on the result? Interesting

Yes, political polls which have a self-selected participant base are meaningless.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

So, given the Worldwide popularity of Facebook, are you saying that if all those that favor Bernie, who are eligible to vote and do so in the Democratic primary, will have a negligible effect on the result? Interesting.

With the preponderance of polls coming out that show the opposite, how long will you keep fighting this fight?

 

[phanphare]

It's weird that they removed it without comment. But they could've noticed there was tampering to make the poll worthless. 73% of people saying Sanders won is a little suspicious, especially now that we have scientific polling data.

I mean, I agree with this as well but it seems that it's generally accepted that online polls aren't scientific so why would they need to remove it? especially if a more legit poll would be out in a few days. if there was tampering then they could have at least addressed that as a reason for why they removed it.

I'm not trying to put the tin-foil hat on or anything I just find that CNN's actions after the debate raise questions that don't seem to have an obvious answer.

 

[Daniel B·]

With the preponderance of polls coming out that show the opposite, how long will you keep fighting this fight?

Didn't you hear that you can now buy a Baby Bib in his campaign store? With that level of inspired thinking, how can we lose?

 

[phanphare]

Didn't you hear that you can now buy a Baby Bib in his campaign store? With that level of inspired thinking, how can we lose?

hell, you can buy a Feel the Bern thermos

 

[pigeon]

So, given the Worldwide popularity of Facebook, are you saying that if all those that favor Bernie, who are eligible to vote and do so in the Democratic primary, it will have a negligible effect on the result? Interesting.

I mean, yeah? "Negligible" isn't quite accurate -- I'd say that all those people are already included in the polling. The problem is that there are lots of other people who aren't included in the Facebook poll, because they didn't actively seek it out, who will also vote.

Any idea how many people participated in the Facebook poll? Their approximate locations and demographics? Because those are kind of important metrics to judge any poll. For example, do you think Lincoln Chafee had a great night, given that 15% of the GAF poll chose him as the winner?

 

[eBay Huckster]

So, given the Worldwide popularity of Facebook, are you saying that if all those that favor Bernie, who are eligible to vote and do so in the Democratic primary, it will have a negligible effect on the result? Interesting.

Did you vote for Alf Landon in 1936 and/or are you descended from the people who ran The Literary Digest magazine prior to that year? Just asking questions here, because you seem to have an issue with the concept of random sampling in public opinion polling.

 

[Cheebo]

New Reuters/Ipsos post debate poll. He highest % yet for them. Over that 50% threshold.

Ispsos-Reuters
Hillary 51
Sanders 24
Biden 16
O'Malley 2
Chafee 1

 

[Fenderputty]

Link? I could only find the pre-debate? My google-foo is lacking