2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forum"Wow! Latest ISideWith Results Show Sanders Winning in All 50 States"
Latest ISIDEWITH Results Show Sanders Winning in all 50 States
State results were calculated from 98,081 voters for September 2015 for the question If the Presidential election were held today, which candidate would you vote for?
Click on this link and hover over each state to see the results of this poll!
Presidential Election Clinton V Sanders
Out with the OLD, in with the NEW. The Old Media is still trying to remain relevant in a world where the New Media is where people go to campaign for elections, for real activism, to get real results on what real people are thinking.
I expect that there will be cries of 'this means nothing, it's an internet poll'. Great, keep thinking that Social Media, which helped bring down a few dictators is irrelevant, no matter how wrong that may be.
Meantime this poll reflects the reality of the support for Sanders, the huge crowds are there because of the activism of those on Social Media.
I imagine when Television first started covering campaigns, the older generation dismissed that also.
Since Corporations took over the MSM their credibility has been shattered.
Obama benefited from the New Media also, while McCain had no clue how powerful a medium it is.
msongs
(67,401 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)only a few Corporations to own of it. Now there are NO standards that favor the people's right to fair and honest reporting.
Since deregulation, many voices are never heard on that medium. But they didn't count on the New Media thankfully, which I'm sure, now that they are beginning to see the power the people have which they thought they had under control, they will work hard to control that also.
If the TPP passes, that will begin to happen.
Which is why it is imperative that we have a president who is not Corporate owned.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)reddread
(6,896 posts)unless Bernie overwhelms their machinations, they will win with their chosen ones.
onenote
(42,700 posts)There are far many voices being heard today thanks to the Internet than ever were heard during any period this.
The Fairness Doctrine was repealed in 1987. Since that time, the Repubs won the WH in 1988, 2000 (sort of), and 2004. Democrats won the White House in 1992, 1996, 2008 and 2012.
In the 28 years before the FD was repealed, repubs won the WH in 1968, 1972, 1980, and 1984 (Nixon twice and Reagan twice). The Democrats won in 1960, 1964, and 1976.
Conclusion: the FD really didn't wasn't all that significant. I began practicing communications law in 1978 - I've observed it up close when it was in effect and after its repeal.
Finally, the 1996 Act was passed by nearly unanimous and overwhelmingly veto proof majorities in the House and Senate, with the support of the vast majority of Democratic members. While there are provisions in the act that I think were misguided, there also a number of provisions in the law that benefited the public. The ones that were misguided in my opinion were those that loosened certain ownership restrictions on broadcast radio and television. For example, the Act got rid of the FCC's national ownership cap for radio stations and increased the number of radio stations a single entity could control in a local market to
local radio ownership limits (allowing ownership of up to 8 stations in a market that has at least 45 stations, with lower limits for markets with fewer stations). The result of this has been more concentration in the broadcast radio industry, but it still isn't a very concentrated market by most standards. Nationally, the four largest group owners of radio stations together control around 1660 stations (roughly 11 percent of all over the air radio stations). The total number of radio stations has increased since 1995 by nearly 30 percent -- most of this growth has been in the number of FM educational stations (which increased from around 1800 stations to over 4000 stations); the number of commercial FM stations increased by over 1300 stations (from around 5300 to around 6650). I don't think relaxing the ownership limits was a good idea, particularly since it helped grow Limbaugh's distribution. But the reality is that Limbaugh is carried on around 600 stations (and dropping); NPR is syndicated to around 900 stations. Both have around 13 million listeners weekly.
Over on the broadcast television side, the act increased the national audience reach for TV station ownership to 35% from 25%, eliminated the FCC's network-cable cross ownership rule and the statutory broadcast station-cable cross ownership restriction, but left in place the FCC's broadcast-cable and broadcast-newspaper ownership bans, leaving the FCC the same power to continue or eliminate those rules as it had prior to the Act. Other provisions, not relating to broadcast television, included one that deregulated the expanded tier of cable service (but left in place regulation of the basic tier).
You'd be hard pressed to make the case that those changes in the law are the reason that the electorate is divided today. It's been divided for a long time.
Live and Learn
(12,769 posts)in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)Poll than any corporate owned MSM poll and THESE results are much more in sync with what we are witnessing on the ground and in real life. No one is ever going to convince me that the massive groundswell of support we witness at Bernie's rallies and online doesn't translate into huge poll numbers on corporate owned MSM polls.
DOES-NOT-COMPUTE
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Okay...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and Iowa which last week were 'irrelevant' are now 'scientific'. Lol! I'll remember all this when the next corporate poll shows Bernie beating Hillary and we are told again that they are not relevant!
It's just a poll, you would think he had just won the election or something seeing all the angst in this thread.
But you're right. The huge crowds, 33,000 at one event this week alone, combined with the fact that he wins nearly all internet polls, seems like a sign of something to me.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)DOES-NOT-COMPUTE
Everywhere I go, people look at those polls and say, "huh?".
DOES-NOT-COMPUTE.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)It's totally believable that Sanders is winning every single state.
Totally believable.
Divernan
(15,480 posts)And in Hillary's home state of New York:
SANDERS - 62.8 %
Clinton - 37.2 %
w/ 24,279 responses
In Bernie's home state of Vermont:
SANDERS - 88.8 %
Clinton - 11.2 %%
w/1243 responses
Pretty sweet!
AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)Cuz everybody knows what happens on DU doesn't happen in the rest of the country!!
Metric System
(6,048 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to make her the winner, I bet it would become 'SCIENTIFIC' instantly
Metric System
(6,048 posts)about polling methodology? It's no laughing matter.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Someone's on a roll!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Not my fault if there are no UNscientific polls where Hillary is the winner. I looked to be fair but just couldn't find one.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)AgingAmerican
(12,958 posts)nt
zappaman
(20,606 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)of a so-called scientific poll that can't be verified and/or proven. Prove the methodology of the poll by revealing the contact names and numbers so the methodology can stand up to scrutiny.
brooklynite
(94,516 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)that CANNOT be verified and proven
NobodyHere
(2,810 posts)"We were underpolled because we didn't have land lines"
"We won all the internet polls"
Yet their candidate lost big
aspirant
(3,533 posts)because I'm sure you're not proposing these phone polls have been 100% accurate all the time.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Why are they so angry, it's just a poll!
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)including multiple times, and a scientific poll?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Prove to me that a respondent in a phone poll wasn't counted multiple times.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)'scientific' are polls that leave out more than half the voters they should be polling? Regardless, Bernie wins hands down in all Internet polls, scientific or not.
They are free to post some internet polls Hillary has won. I couldn't find any. Maybe that's the reason for the distress.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I do have a landline. It is for my blind brother. He could never figure out a cell phone.
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)That, plus, I could not get the smallest amount of information in answer to my question above, which you helped to answer.
Sounds like posing any question or trying to analyze the comparison provokes that distress. It's just a question, and any question is met with anger.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)that phone polls don't call the same number several time? How many polls are contacting people who don't use land lines anymore. They have acknowledged that with the increase of cell phone use, they are not getting to an awful lot of voters.
Pollsters themselves say they are concerned about their methology considering how wrong they got several major elections recently
If they are so scientific how come they got the UK election so wrong? Seeing the rising up of the people against neoliberal policies everywhere, you don't even need a poll to make an educated guess at the possibility that neolibs are likely to be thrown out of office wherever they are running.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)Aerows
(39,961 posts)There is no reason to be so rude.
Every voter should be as enthusiastic about a candidate in the election. We all need to turn out and vote, otherwise we will keep getting the same recycled candidates that do little besides feather their own nests at the expense of the people.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)what makes a poll scientific?
Hepburn
(21,054 posts)It is scientific if it gives Hillary a horrendous and insurmountable lead over everyone; it is not scientific if Sanders is ahead.
Source: Take a guess.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Yes, please continue lecturing other people on what "scientific" is. It's not as if posting an Internet poll with absolutely no controls completely undercuts your credibility at all!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)How eg, are the dealing with the fact that a majority of voters no longer use landlines? Yes, we know, some of them are adding a % of cell phone users now trying to catch up with the technology.
And how do we know that they are not calling the same numbers more than once?
How come they are getting it so wrong lately, acknowledged by the 'scientific' pollsters themselves?
I am getting lots of kicks out of this poll, thanks for yours btw.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Maybe if you post another few shit internet polls you'll feel better.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)60. "Prove that the world of political pollsters is legitimate
Bring to DU lists of contact names and numbers from individual polls so we can verify these numbers and make sure one respondent didn't get counted multiple times or if they just made up the numbers to please their MSM payers. I'll be waiting champ"
Still waiting champ
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Or fail to understand that simply poking holes in another method doesn't validate theirs.
Whether phone polls are accurate or not is irrelevant. There's been no evidence presented that this internet poll is reliable, controlled for duplicate responses, or randomly sampled.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)that phone polls are "reliable, controlled for duplicate responses, or randomly sampled."
I'll continue to wait champ.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)The person making a claim has to provide evidence. Even at that, reliability of phone polls has absolutely zero bearing on the reliability of Internet polls.
You're the one calling an important element of the social sciences "propaganda." You provide the evidence, not me.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)good so you think they are meaningless too, glad we agree
"Reliability," it seems to be the common thread among polls, so I'm delighted that you think phone polls are unreliable too.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)I didn't say phone polls were unreliable. I said I'm not defending them because, again, the reliability of phone polls has nothing to do with the reliability of Internet polls.
You brought up the topic to deflect from how utterly unreliable this poll is.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)You say this poll is "unreliable", tell which phone polls are "unreliable" too.
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)You're the one who keeps trying to change the topic.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)So they must not be worth your time and unreliable, I'm glad your not a wobbler.
Polls are polls are polls and are naturally related
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)will from now on. Voters are voting in all these online polls and Bernie is winining in all of them.
No one from the 'accepted' poll companies will be calling me, eg, because I have a cell phone. My MIL, otoh, a lifelong Dem was called consistently while I received no calls from pollsters.
E' xplain how 'scientific' it is to eliminate a huge part of he electorate in polls?
Face it, people like Sanders, millions of people. Hundreds of thousands are volunteering their time and professional skills to help him win this race. They are voting in online polls obviously, though not all of them, I haven't eg.
So, explain how 'scientific' a Primary poll is when half the population isn't being polled.
And how 'scientific' is it to include people who are not even in the race.
THIS poll focused only on those who are actually running.
Your 'scientific' polls are skewing the results by including Biden who isn't running.
How scientific is that?
Aerows
(39,961 posts)My God. Some folks around here are acting like the Democratic Primary is the Super Bowl, and yelling at the TV somehow makes their favored team play better.
Scootaloo
(25,699 posts)'Course, pretending that polls from September the year before the convention are meaningful towards the final outcome is pretty fucking hilarious too, but that hasn't stopped any of the Hillaryclintonsupporters.
So let Sabrina have her fun.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Woo!
Oh and unicorns and rainbow sparkles too!
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Renew Deal
(81,856 posts)kenn3d
(486 posts)Thanks sabrina 1,
This went up on my G+ first thing this morning.
Hope everybody will share this out on whatever social media you use.
mythology
(9,527 posts)they would be informed enough to understand that this is literally worthless as a measure of public opinion. I would be embarrassed to show this to people as some representation of a candidate's support.
Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)
Name removed Message auto-removed
RiverLover
(7,830 posts)& Rec.
Thanks for posting, Sabrina! Love this!
Enthusiast
(50,983 posts)Thank you, sabrina.
restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)thanks!
who hooooo!
MindfulOne
(227 posts)It's hard to tell where the colors go from HRC to Bernie, so I played with the settings and got this:
http://iSideWith.com/map/kc-y
State results from 352,790 voters since Jul 2015
for the question "If the Presidential election were held today, which candidate would you vote for?"
Bernie Sanders: 51/51 (100%) states won
Hillary Clinton: 0/51 states won
99Forever
(14,524 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)much over usage!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)If one person wants to vote in a poll two thousand times, who should we be to stop him?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)so we only voted seven times: my five email addies and her two.
Shame on any who might have gamed this by cheating.
Number23
(24,544 posts)sheshe2
(83,750 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)A revolutionary in the Bernie army ND!
It's sweeping the nation with woo! Down with science , nobody's got time for that!
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Godhumor
(6,437 posts)It is basically a larger DU poll.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)on any forum on the internet, Bernie wins hands down. And that's what matters in the end, how the VOTERS, not just members of the Dem Base who are still using Landlines, view the candidates.
I haven't seen Hillary win a single online poll yet. Not to say she hasn't, but I haven't seen it.
This is the future of polling, the old ways are too flawed, admitted now by the pollsters themselves who were unable to predict eg, the UK elections, the Greek elections.
Their methods are old and haven't caught up with the new tech world we live in.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)This actual pollsters are going to be so redfaced when Bernie sweeps 50 states by the largest percentage of modern time.
And, no, it is a big DU poll with zero to do with reality. Just like DU GDP, in fact.
ChimpersMcSmirkers
(3,328 posts)It's trash and many people think it artificially pushes people to bernie.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)many do you think were 'artificially pushed' to be there?
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)dorkzilla
(5,141 posts)The more people know about Bernie, the more they realize he is REALLY on their side. No slick media campaign, no measured, focus-group approved answers, just a man with a vision. A vision that has been 100% consistent for decades.
Im sorry but my big issues are womens health, the environment, reinstating Glass-Steigall and the TPP. TPP was a deal-breaker for me. I wouldnt support anyone who supports the TPP.
Our only hope is that the other countries havent been bamboozled into accepting this fast track BS and they soundly reject it. Money doesnt trump everything else.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I voted 16 times!
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)are hiding their heads in shame.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Skidmore
(37,364 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)until Grad school, when I was FORCED to take a Research Methods course. It was so eye opening to the basic misuse of polling and numbers (in general), that I took 3 or 4 more grad-level Statistics courses.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)they treated Stats and Research Methods as a block within my area of study, so I tend to think of them that way. I took three stat courses and the methods course. I never considered myself a math whiz but the methods course was invaluable to understanding applications.
The poll referenced in this thread has been all over on FB and is just so dishonest that it could be considered malpractice.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Malpractice? Or, propaganda ... the former is generally, unintended.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)but was uncertain as to how it would be received. It's probably both at this point.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)How so, and how is THAT 'scientific'? Are DU polls 'dishonest' too? DK polls? I remember Obama winning internet polls also.
Nearly all online polls show Bernie winning.
All it is is a reflection of how people who use the internet feel about the election.
No reason for people to be so angry.
That poll isn't a reflection of how people use the internet either. It is a reflection of the dishonesty and/or ignorance of its creators only what the people who took that quiz are said to support.
As for people in a crowd, I don't take that as a representation of any more than people being curious at this point. I've been in crowds at political speeches and never voted for the person I came to listen too. In Iowa, that is quite common. The caucus is more than three months away. Lots can happen in that time period and the scientifically taken polls will go up and down. I'll track on them. At least they have methodology and their skew can be tracked.
in_cog_ni_to
(41,600 posts)a LANDLINE PHONE, this poll represents a much more ACCURATE overview of who voters will vote for.
Not only do the 87.4% internet users have to deliberately go to this web site to take the poll, but they do it WILLINGLY. While the ONLY 48% who still use landline phones are interrupted at dinnertime, while working, helping kids with homework and are more likely given leading questions to answer that will favor whichever CORPORATE OWNED CANDIDATE is Paying for that particular Corporate Owned poll.
Not only is the internet a much, much larger sampling - it's more accurate. REAL PEOPLE ANSWERING REAL QUESTIONS - because they want to, not because some CORPORATE OWNED pollster interrupted their dinner to ask them leading questions that favor the Corporate Owned candidate.
87.4% U.S. CITIZENS USE THE INTERNET
51.7% U.S. CITIZENS DO NOT OWN OR USE A LANDLINE PHONE
The INTERNET is a larger sampling of voters and therefore - MORE ACCURATE. "Scientific" or not. Sampling landline users isn't "scientific" either and much, much less accurate because of the small sampling.
The CORPORATE OWNED MSM is pretty much just obsolete. Bernie knew that. He also knew the Corporate Owned MSM would be pushing their CORPORATE OWNED CANDIDATE, so he BRILLIANTLY chose to tap into the POWER OF THE INTERNET. Looks like he did the right thing.
Only CORPORATE OWNED MSM "scientific" polls can be trusted? Bull. No CORPORATE OWNED MSM poll should be trusted. Period. Our MSM is CORRUPT. Why is it corrupt? Because it's owned by CORPORATIONS.
Have a nice day-
PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)Do you know what a convenience sample is?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Last edited Wed Oct 7, 2015, 09:28 AM - Edit history (1)
must be able to be proven and verified
It is not "trust me" from the pollster that their #'s are correct without bias.
These pollsters have no governmental oversight and oversee themselves, ripe for corruption
Yes. Yes. yYes.
sgtbenobo
(327 posts)Clondualkin outside of Dublin.
sheshe2
(83,750 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)showing her at 93% they'd be accused of propaganda and alert-stalked off DU.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Hillary supporters?
Actually they WERE posting polls every week showing Hillary at OVER 80% in the polls before Bernie and O'Malley entered the race.
Scientific polls no less! No one ran them off the board, we just pointed out that when you are the ONLY candidate, it might not be wise to believe those polls will remain at over 80%.
Scientifically we were proven to be correct.
Metric System
(6,048 posts)are not, well, scientific and are meaningless. I don't think any Hillary supporter believed her numbers would stay above 80%. That's just unheard of and completely unrealistic.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)So there!
sheshe2
(83,750 posts)Ummm~
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(some of) the left is JUST AS anti-intellectual, as the right ... that we mock.
tishaLA
(14,176 posts)because threads like these are what makes life worth living. Colbert couldn't do better than some of these rationalizations.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Duckfan
(1,268 posts)Was planning on it till I read the above argument.
Oh, what the hell. K & R
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)Silliness.
Never change GDP. Never change.
Number23
(24,544 posts)its margin of error was over ten percent, but just with AAs. The very group that the headline was actually about.
And even though it showed more black people voting for UNDECIDED than supporting Bernie Sanders, that didn't stop several GDP denizens from screaming that black people were now FINALLY!!!! "feeling the Bern." Surreal, it was. SURREAL.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)MSM landline phone polls that don't reveal names and contact #'s to verify results are estimates and guesses at best
No way to determine if the pollsters use the same respondent multiple times.
Pollsters have no govt oversight and please point out the multiple times pollsters were sued for dispensing invalid #'s or faulty methods.
Its all propaganda so criticizing one is criticizing all.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)(the few that exist) don't retain the numbers called?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)and ask for the contact list with numbers to verify their polls, then get back with the responses
Please point out the laws that require them to retain these numbers so they aren't overseeing themselves.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)Has me not wanting to go down your rabbit hole.
Good day.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)by suggesting they retain these people and numbers
Good Day to you too
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)had posted this unscientific piece of shit poll, they'd get laughed off DU.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)MSM pays for these polls
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)You're calling all the media polls - ALL of them scientific - unverified - because you don't like the outcome? Has it really come to this with the Bernie supporters? That you will discount scientific polls and use this piece of crap?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)estimates and guesses aren't facts
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)with my question. Those polls reported on in the media are scientific polls - the information on the who, what, where and how they were contacted is available, a margin of error is available. And you want to compare that with this poll where plenty of DUers have already claimed they were able to vote at least a dozen times on? Seriously?:
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"the information on the who, what, where and how they were contacted is available, a margin of error is available.
Get lists of names and contact numbers from these pollsters so we can call and verify their results. I will be waiting
"claimed they were able to vote at least a dozen times on? Seriously?" Prove to me that these pollsters didn't use the same respondent multiple times or even just made up the numbers without calling anybody. I will be seriously waiting for these lists.
I see we have come to the delusional part of the program and I'll just remind you what happened in 2012 with the unskewed polls dude. Maybe you will get that pony.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"come to the delusional part of the program" The only delusion here is your inability to provide proof of the legitimacy of political pollsters.
Call pollsters now or in the past, I don't care, and get the contact names and numbers of all poll respondents for verification and legitimacy and if you can't then ride your delusional pony that farts out unproven numbers, dude.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)You seem to think I give a shit if you believe the polls. I'm all for allowing anyone any delusion they wish to engage in. Enjoy.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)as "I'm for allowing anyone" to believe also in these unproven, delusional, political, phone polls, dudette.
I guess the fact those scientific polls do tend to match up with election results has escaped your attention. Whatev. Internet polls are nothing but a complete joke but if you think a poll where you can vote more than once is legitimate, knock yourself out.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)by getting a list of contact names and #"s that phone poll respondents weren't counted multiple times also. Without this proof, phone polls aren't legitimate either.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)you aren't worth the trouble are you having a problem with? If you wish to think that internet polls where you can vote multiple times are more accurate than scientific polls done by actual polling companies, you are welcome to your delusion. I'll just continue to laugh at you.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Just simply prove that the phone polls don't count respondents multiple times and are legitimate and we can be done with this.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)You seem to be reaching that point of ascension:
We're all friends here, am I right?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)but sometimes proof is necessary for one to emerge from the darkness.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)eom
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)at this point' or whatever.
I'm laughing at how upset you all are by an 'unscientific' poll.
It is a poll.
I don't know who is being contacted in those scientific polls either other than most of them are registered Dems, which means they are not registering the support Sanders has from other demographics.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)of mine that called polls irrelevant. That's quite simply a lie. You also have a very strange definition of upset. That would be entirely your problem since we've already determined you don't mind lying about my posting history.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)I put that right up there with the Inhofe snowball.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Why do you think it will for Sanders in 2016?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Last edited Tue Oct 6, 2015, 02:16 PM - Edit history (1)
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)Bring to DU lists of contact names and numbers from individual polls so we can verify these numbers and make sure one respondent didn't get counted multiple times or if they just made up the numbers to please their MSM payers. I'll be waiting champ
sadoldgirl
(3,431 posts)I have always given my main vote to Trump,
just because my vote is my own and not that
of a pollster.
Don't trust major news agencies. Do trust quick Internet joke polls.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Fox and the rest.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Walt Starr's thread and the moon bombing thread come to mind.
Godhumor
(6,437 posts)And measures up with the" CNN only polls people over 50" insanity, as well as the "Hispanics are breaking for Sanders" gambit based off a sample of four Hispanics.
And it with pointing out these threads both happened recently. The lack of basic understanding of how number systems work on GDP is staggering.
DCBob
(24,689 posts)Fantasy is fun!
MrMickeysMom
(20,453 posts)... It should have a section in Disney World, it's so fantasy...
Thank you for playing.
kenfrequed
(7,865 posts)I don't think this polling is representative or accurate, but I do think it represents an interest in the Sander's campaign that the mainstream media has been failing to adequately cover at every stop. Even some reporters have recently admitted that they need to start treating Bernie as a serious candidate. CNN so desperately wants Biden to run that they have been pimping for him every step of the way for some crazy reason. I think a lot of people in the mainstream media really don't want to have to cover Bernie Sanders at all.
And as was previously stated the great CNN poll that trumpeted Hillary's recovery only managed to garner a statistically viable number of 50-64 year olds. All other age groups were not collected at statistically useful numbers. This probably suggests absolute incompetence in polling which resulted in a poll that never should have been published.
ChiciB1
(15,435 posts)Do YOU Feel The Bern??
Those of us who support Bernie have a gut feeling that SOCIAL MEDIA is doing what MSM can't! Spreading Bernie's message! I know I only used FB for minor issues, mostly tennis, but more and more I keep posting BERNIE SANDERS clips and rallies!
People are getting to know him. He's now getting huge attacks from TPTB and MSNBC seems to have been bought by Hillary! Just my simple opinion!
zappaman
(20,606 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)KoKo
(84,711 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)eom
reformist2
(9,841 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)eom
Ino
(3,366 posts)Uncle Joe
(58,355 posts)Thanks for the thread, sabrina.
kenn3d
(486 posts)Yes. And many independents, and disaffected Republicans, and others who simply haven't had any incentive to cast a vote for anyone of any party for years, may also find that their answers to this survey lead them to elect Bernie Sanders.
ISideWith is really not a poll at all of course. It's a guide for low-info, ill-informed, lazy, fed-up, angry, clueless, and energized "will be" voters of 2016.
If we get out the vote... if enough uninvolved estwhile non-voters come to the polls with a mind toward saving our democracy...
It might just make a difference. No matter what the establishment says.
Share it, I say!
wendylaroux
(2,925 posts)HooptieWagon
(17,064 posts)I think it's eye-opening. I have a hunch many of the respondents are young, or perhaps voters who had given up, and probably aren't polled by the 'establishment' pollsters. This is a huge hidden sea of untapped voters who are heavily in Bernies favor. Get them out to the polls, and Bernie is going to win in a cakewalk. Hillary offers them nothing.
KoKo
(84,711 posts)Metric System
(6,048 posts)there really is little difference between our candidates. I don't remember what I got for Biden last time but this time it's 83%.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)This should be on the front page!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)couldn't find one.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)That's 100%!!!!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Still 100%!
A landslide!
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)Just ask six term President Ron Paul.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"This is the future of polling, the old ways are too flawed, admitted now by the pollsters themselves who were unable to predict eg, the UK elections, the Greek elections.
Their methods are old and haven't caught up with the new tech world we live in".
SunSeeker
(51,550 posts)Bill USA
(6,436 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)KittyWampus
(55,894 posts)Thinkingabout
(30,058 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)I had a feeling they were going to use it to push some propaganda, like it means actual votes.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)I know.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Not a scientific post.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)as an unverifiable, unproven landline phone poll
aspirant
(3,533 posts)hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)All we need is the names and contact #'s of all poll respondents in each poll.
It shouldn't be hard for a believer like you to obtain these lists from your friendly pollsters.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)not credible poll!
T
Have you seen the thread where people were asked who they supported, Trump or Hillary, and they ALL said Bernie! Lol!
Sometimes you just have to accept that the people find Bernie to be the most qualified, viable, electable and best representative of the people in this race.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)IIRC, it didn't "know" most candidates stances except for Sanders, so he got all the points. LOL.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)And they would not appreciate you maligning them.
Also, they love Sanders.
malokvale77
(4,879 posts)I live in Dallas, Texas. Everywhere I go, anyone who cares wants Bernie Sanders.
They all say the same thing. Bernie really cares.
Thanks sabrina 1.
Go Bernie.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)the winner in every online poll, which btw, is where most political activism takes place in this century. Amazing to see the enthusiasm, the activism, these 'moon bombers' are responsible for the huge crowds going to Bernie's events.
Maybe we're imagining 33,000 people at his last big event this week?
These online activists are also responsible for his consistent upward trending in the polls to where he is now beating not just the Dem front runner but all of the Republicans also.
However, I'm not going to complain about how the other candidates are still using old fashioned methods to judge this election. The less they know about the new world we live in re technology and the power it has on major event, the better it is for my candidate.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)trust them.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)and deserve our trust.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)The rules are the same for all of them.
So why are there so many polls showing Bernie the winner?
Here on DU eg, no one can vote more than once, we get to see who is voting.
If the results were the other way around, I have a feeling we wouldn't be hearing how irrelevant they are.
All polls are irrelevant at this point imo.
What they do is show where the enthusiasm is for a candidate.
Young people eg, who are a driving force in Bernie's campaign, using the internet to campaign for him, helping people to know when there are events in their areas.
What is so 'scientific' about traditional polls? Most of the ones we see here are polling only registered Dems and mostly of that number, Dems still using landlines. That leaves out a whole lot of voters who are not being polled.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)You can run around and think this is important but you are only kidding yourself.
I can tell you here in Brooklyn Sanders will not win.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)a very unscientific prediction. And with such certainty. Which is ironic considering your objection to unscientific predictions.
Sanders has a very active on the ground volunteer army across the country who are very tech savvy and are using the tools available to them to promote their candidate.
Surely Hillary has people who are organized on the internet also? With all that corporate money to spend if you think that Social Media is irrelevant to a political campaing these days, you and her campaign, are kidding themselves.
Actually she is on Social Media along with her supporters. The fact is, Bernie has more supporters at this point.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Come here and get involved in Brooklyn politics and you will see he can't win.
South Brooklyn, central Brooklyn, and Eastern Brooklyn will overwhelm any support he has in the hipster areas.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)for every online poll on the internet.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)got no responses.
Every candidate has the chance to win any of these polls. Regardless of how 'unscientific' they are, or whether they are click bait or not, it doesn't change the fact that there is enough enthusiasm for one candidate to cause him to be the winner in every one I've seen.
So really, all the snark and claims of 'who cares' doesn't change the fact that hundreds of thousands of people are voting in these polls.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)are willing to spend time voting in silly internet click bait polls. So good for you,I guess.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)mean "absolutely nothing" if their #'s can't be proven and checked.
sufrommich
(22,871 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)you got nothing
zappaman
(20,606 posts)NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)irrelevant? Just get to work, like Bernie's supporters are promoting your own candidate rather than than helping OUR candidate, which is fine with me, btw.
I hope you know that inane barbs have zero effect on me, my strategy is and always was to USE them to kick good threads. That's why I respond to them. I never waste a good opportunity to promote my candidate.
How's the new 'cave' going btw?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Seriously, this thread is comedy gold.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)It needs some kicks to get it started! I hope it doesn't upset you as much as this one did though.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Bernie in these polls, actually won any?
If you can find one and post it in your OP I will return the favor and kick it for you.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)And thanks sincerely for the laughs!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Pretend laughter, bravado etc. I guess it's one way to handle it!
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I don't have a candidate.
You know what they say about people who assume...
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)The Dr. OZ contingent here gave us a good laugh.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)engage in more intelligent discussions.
So I take it the fact is, Hillary and Bernie are using the internet to promote their candidacies and Bernie is beating her hands down.
I see no credible argument so far to disprove that.
Obama used the internet also, I know I was an Obama supporter back then and heard the same arguments. See that worked out.
Btw, I thought those who personally attack this site and its members had their own site now and were leaving the one they clearly despise?
tishaLA
(14,176 posts)it's more in that league. Or maybe Olive Garden dining in Times Square.
Aerows
(39,961 posts)are supporters of Bernie, I think Hillary and her supporters should take a step back and analyze why that is the case.
I live in one of the most conservative states in the US, and a very conservative county, too.
When people around here are supporting Bernie, you *KNOW* he has broad spectrum appeal.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)we are seeing so much anger at the poll.
I am thrilled to hear about your state, same thing where I am, a conservative area of NY. He has so much cross over appeal, Hillary not so much.
The so called 'scientific polls' are not polling Bernie's actual supporters because they can't. But even in those limited polls he is trending upwards every month.
Bucky
(53,998 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)Keep bringing us these internet polls
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)candidacy.
Not to mention they appear to upset all the Right people! Lol!
RandySF
(58,794 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)You can't do better than 50 states!!!
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Bon Appétit!
zappaman
(20,606 posts)How is this not on the front page?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)How is it not on the greatest page?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Always happy to lower my expectations for a worthy cause.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Can we get 100?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)This deserves a Part 2, which deserves 100 recs!
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Landslide!
Clean sweep!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)I am sorry, but that's the way things are!
zappaman
(20,606 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Might be my favorite thread on DU!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)on DU has ever thrown over their candidate not winning a single Internet poll.
I'm going to watch this poll now and post the results whenever I see them.
I remember people throwing fits over Obama winning internet polls also.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)winning every internet poll. And guess happened in that election.
This is a great sign for Bernie!
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Like I said, my favorite thread on DU!
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)He is leading in all states! Amazing.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)Everything but the curtains.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)it's the transparency of sunshine that the people want.
Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)Evergreen Emerald
(13,069 posts)And I am not sure exactly what you mean? We somehow got off track. I was talking about the inevitability of Sanders that is obvious from the polls and the posts here.
He must be so excited that he has won this thing.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)not non-transparent, unverifiable pollsters.
Yes the revolution is very "excited".
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Since he's not a Democrat?
Not sure I agree with that...
aspirant
(3,533 posts)into a Democratic debate, is that what DWS says?
So all the pollsters are non-democratic in their actions too?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... letting a non-Democrat into a Democratic debate.
BS is NOT a member of the Democratic Party, and by his own choice. That's simply a fact.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)has she spoken out against allowing Bernie into the debates and on primary ballots?
Or is this just a handful of her supporters?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... objecting to BS participating in the debates.
But his participation doesn't make him a Democrat.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)These are Dem debates and Dem nationwide primary ballots.
Are you protesting to HRC to remove him from all dem. debates and elections and what has been her responses?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... but wants all the benefits of being one.
Who said anything about removing him from the Dem debates - other than you?
All I'm pointing out is that BS is not a Democrat, and participating in debates doesn't magically transform him into one.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Independent debates, Green debates, Repub debates?
If you don't qualify as a Dem, how do get accepted to a Dem debate?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Do you think BS will be magically transformed into a Democrat by being there?
He has refused to join the Democratic Party. Ergo, he is not a Democrat. I don't know why you're so confused by the simple facts.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)The debate organizers are the Dem party and Bernie doesn't have to be transformed, he's been welcomed by the Democratic people.
If tomorrow Nader decides to run as an independent, will he be included in the Dem debates?
Stop avoiding HRC's stance on this, is she for or against Bernie running as a Dem?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)We're not talking about who's welcome to debate and who's not.
I merely pointed out to you that BS is not a Democrat.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)are you following her lead or are you going rogue?
Does HRC think Bernie is not a Dem?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Well, the thing is that HRC supporters are free to think for themselves. They don't have to check-in with headquarters to find out what they're supposed to say, or what position they're allowed to take. They are not expected to "follow her lead", and holding differing opinions is not considered "going rogue".
I understand it's different for BS supporters, who are expected to lockstep behind their leader and never deviate from the prescribed way of thinking - or so it seems, and very obviously so, from the way the BS supporters here conduct themselves.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)you think Bernie isn't a Dem and HRC thinks he is.
Conclusion: you aren't speaking for her or her campaign and are going "rogue"
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)I don't know whether HRC considers BS a Dem or not - nor does it matter. He has REFUSED to join the party, and that isn't changed by what anyone "considers" him to be.
Where did you ever get the idea I was speaking for Hillary or her campaign? Why would you think I was?
And again I note your perception that if a supporter holds a different position or opinion than their candidate, they are "going rogue". And again I will point out to you that while that may be true for BS supporters, Hillary supporters are not locked-into the positions or opinions held by their candidate-of-choice.
I understand it's different for BS supporters, who apparently are considered "going rogue" if they deviate from the sacred script decreed by Bernie. That's your problem right there - you can't comprehend people who think for themselves and are not expected to lockstep behind their candidate.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)there are some great self-thinkers there.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I must have missed it...
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Has HRC publicly said Bernie should be removed from the Dem debates and Dem ballots?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)I find it odd you won't or can't answer it.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)if she thinks he's a Dem, simply put, why don't you?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Weird...
aspirant
(3,533 posts)If he is participating in Dem debates and Dem primary ballots, he's a Dem and now show me where HRC says he isn't a DEM.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Would you like to phone a friend?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)time to phone your friend HRC so she can let her supporters know if she thinks Bernie should be removed from DEM debates and Dem ballots.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Did you give up trying to answer?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"If he is participating in Dem debates and Dem primary ballots, he's a Dem"
Tell me HRC's stance on Bernie participating in Dem debates and ballots
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Really I am.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... or anyone else in the universe, says that BS is a member of the Democratic Party, does that make him one?
HE chose not to join the party. If I choose not to join the Catholic Church, do I become a Catholic because someone says I am?
This is pretty simple stuff - I don't understand why it confuses you so.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)she's your beloved candidate
If you don't choose "to join the catholic church", you don't participate in their masses, communion and confessions. This is simple stuff.
Bernie is participating and welcomed with open arms in Dem debates and Dem primary ballots
Since you are unwilling or unable to state HRC stance I'm concluding she is welcoming Bernie as a Dem in the Dem debates and Dem primary ballots. This puts you at odds with your candidate
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)That seems to be the difference between being an HRC supporter and a BS supporter.
And by the way, many non-Catholics participate in Catholic weddings, baptisms, etc. Thousands of non-Catholics attend at mass at churches and cathedrals all over the world, especially tourists and those interested in seeing particular ceremonies taking place - and they aren't transformed into Catholics by doing so.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)and against HRC's position on Bernie as a Dem.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... there is no such thing as a "rogue supporter".
Look, it's obvious that you, as a BS supporter, don't understand the concept of people supporting a candidate without lockstepping in unison and adopting every single thing that candidate says or does as being their own position.
This discussion is pointless. The minute you started talking about people "going rogue" because they don't parrot every opinion held by their candidate, you made it abundantly clear that you think that's what supporters are bound to do.
Maybe you are - I'm not. And neither is any other HRC supporter - or O'Malley supporter, or Chafee supporter, etc. It's only the BS supporters who allow their candidate to dictate their thoughts and actions, and obediently follow his lead without question or hesitation.
It's cult behaviour - and if you're happy with that, that's fine. But other people haven't drunk the Kool-Aid, and don't intend to. So stop pointing your finger and yelling "ROGUE!!!!" every time you see someone who disagrees with their candidate, because outside of the BS Cult, that word is meaningless.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)I'm glad HRC and the Dem party considers Bernie a Dem and only a handful of her "rogue supporters" vocally dispute this. Oh well, just as long as they don't pretend they are speaking for her and the party.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... that HRC and/or the Dem Party considers Bernie to be a Dem.
And no one is pretending "to speak for her or the party".
Being as you want to argue with things not said and points not raised, why don't you just continue this discussion with yourself?
Just be careful not to say anything rogue - for people like you, that has consequences.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"No one said that HRC and/or the Dem Party considers Bernie to be a Dem".
That's why the Dem party and HRC are going thru with the Dem debates including Bernie and also not challenging Bernie's Dem primary ballots. Is what happens when someone agrees with you.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)Bernie REFUSES to be a member of the Democratic Party. It's not like he forgot to sign-up, or figured he would be magically transformed into one if he ran on the Dem ticket, or participated in Dem debates.
He REFUSES to BE a Democrat - and has said so himself. So if you want to pretend that he is now a Democrat against his own oft-expressed desire to NOT be one, that's your prerogative.
Just be sure to check-in with BS HQ to be sure you're thinking that will not be considered a "rogue" move. Gotta stay in lockstep, unless you want to draw undue attention to yourself.
Nighty-night!
aspirant
(3,533 posts)The Dem Party and HRC welcomes Bernie as a Dem candidate. Have you told the Dem party and HRC that Bernie "refuses to be a democrat"? What are their responses or are you just speaking for a small "rogue" community.
If Bernie doesn't choose to run as a Dem, why doesn't the party and HRC grant him that option and release him from the debates and state ballots? Simple, isn't it.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... to his running on the Dem ticket? Do you keep up with politics at all?
They are also well aware that he has refused to become a Democrat. Do you think these people just fell off the back of a turnip truck? BS has made it abundantly clear that he doesn't want to BE a Democrat. I don't know why everyone seems to know that - except you.
I don't think you realize how telling it is to keep using the term "rogue". As I've told you repeatedly, there is no such animal in the HRC camp - only the BS camp considers supporters who go off-script "rogue". The supporters of all other candidates are free to agree or disagree with any position their candidate takes.
It's only the BS supporters who apparently are "not allowed" to do so, and therefore consider people who hold their own opinions - in agreement with, or contrary to their candidate's opinions - as "going rogue".
aspirant
(3,533 posts)agree he is a Dem "running on the Dem Ticket". So why would they agree to such a thing if Bernie "refused to become a Democrat? This is silliness and must have its roots in a band of rouges
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... that he is NOT a member of the Democratic Party, nor does he want to be.
I don't know why I am explaining this, over and over, to someone who purports to be a BS supporter. How could you NOT know what he himself has said on the subject?
Did you just start following politics yesterday? I only ask, because it sounds like this is all news to you.
The Party agreed to allow BS to run on their ticket. They did not agree that this made him a member of the Party, nor did BS agree that this somehow made him a member of the Party - which he has expressly stated he is NOT a member of.
Hey, the Democrats get it, Bernie gets it - why don't you get it?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"The Party agreed to allow BS to run on their ticket". Why did they do that?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)If you didn't know that BS has refused to be a member of the Democratic Party, you have a lot of catching up to do.
Perhaps they have webinars you can participate in. That way you can actually learn something about your own candidate.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)"The Party agreed to allow BS to run on their ticket". Why did they do that?
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)I didn't.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)and now you know nothing about it. It's time you attend some webinars.
NanceGreggs
(27,813 posts)... your best source of information would be the people who made the decision.
You obviously don't even know what party your candidate belongs to, so I find discussing anything political with someone that ignorant of the facts rather pointless.
I do confess that the only reason I kept this exchange going for as long as I have is to keep this particular thread active for all to see.
Believing that a poll that Shows Sanders Winning in All 50 States is a valid one is comedy gold, and I just wanted to spread the laughter!
aspirant
(3,533 posts)We're all waiting to know why a national party would say to a candidate, come and be on our ticket. The candidate allegedly replies that he isn't a Dem and refuses to become one. The party says no problem, we want you just as you are. They both agree and live happily ever after.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for the next one and post it as soon as it comes out.
Great poll, great result. Clearly the PEOPLE want Bernie. Hundreds of thousands voting for Bernie.
hrmjustin
(71,265 posts)Logical
(22,457 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Why do you ask?
Logical
(22,457 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Also ones that are BS against BS.
One recent example...
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=657870
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)be honest at least.
This is a real indication of the REAL support there is out there for Bernie Sanders.
I love this poll because it is a true reflection of what the PEOPLE want.
If the people felt the same way about Hillary, she would be winning these polls. She isn't, period.
You should relax, if it's such a BS poll why are you so obsessed as to still be throwing a fit over it days later? Seriously, this is bad for you.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Really?
Really, really?
aspirant
(3,533 posts)Really, really, Really?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)even running?
I remember the same thing with Obama. He was winning all the internet polls. And we got the same 'oh, it's an internet poll'. We live in the 21st Century now, people don't use landlines, they use the internet and this poll shows how enthusiastic people are about Bernie.
Why don't you post some internet polls that Hillary is winning?
RandySF
(58,794 posts)Provide the names and cell phone numbers of all who were polled so we can verify and not accept the unscientific "trust us" from the pollsters
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)That's really funny. I'd like to see him win any state other than Iowa or NH. And he probably won't even win those two.
I'll give this a rec just for the comedy value
aspirant
(3,533 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)that's the real Revolution
ucrdem
(15,512 posts)Bradical79
(4,490 posts)We would also pretty much never have a Republican controlled presidency or Senate again. Just more reason to fight harder. It's not just about Sanders vs. Clinton either, since the Democratic party has been an absolute disaster when it comes to local and state politics, which has really hurt Congress too. Win or lose, we have to keep fighting.
pinebox
(5,761 posts)Kind of like the same exact thing Hillary supporters used to shout about Obama on this very forum. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5529775
RandySF
(58,794 posts)Unscientific with self-selecting sample.
aspirant
(3,533 posts)RandySF
(58,794 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)Provide the names and contact #'s of all polled in every poll so we can verify that 1 respondent wasn't counted multiple times
Polls that are not verifiable are not scientific
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Well it is comedy gold for sure!
All the clickbait internet polls say Bernies got it locked up!
ronnykmarshall
(35,356 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Will he win Puerto Rico?
They send a delegation to the convention.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Why no mention of Guam!?
zappaman
(20,606 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Bernie is definitely gonna be ahead in American Samoa.
StrongBad
(2,100 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)He will be the first candidate to sweep all 50!
Feel the Bern!
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I love how they substitute smilies for substance. It's wonderful. Instead of talking issues they would talk optics. Let's see how their optics work out in the primaries and caucuses.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)They will be seating a delegation at the 2016 convention.
Is Bernie ahead in Northern Marianas also?
Cha
(297,180 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Cha
(297,180 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)As a fair and dispassionate observer it is my observation that the results of the poll in the seminal post are totally legitimate.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Cosmic Kitten
(3,498 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)I'm assuming this is still true since Bernie is winning some online polls regarding the second debate!!!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Last week I accused a Clinton supporter of being full of shit when they told me you posted this. You acted as if you hadn't either. You really were deceptive in the things you said to me last week with respect to this. Love the transparency of du.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)It's one of my favorite threads and I happened to notice some folks seemed to have forgotten about it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)To everyone else, I love this thread. It corroborates all the other online polls AND two studies we now have to move forward into the 21st Century regarding the old, outdated polling methodology which has those old pollsters admitting now they may become obsolete if they don't start updating their now failing methodology.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)To everyone else, I love this thread.
It's right up there with the Moon Bombing and Olive Garden threads!
Yes, an all time classic!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Did you know some DUers keep "documentation" on other DUers???
Creepy!!!
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)firebrand80
(2,760 posts)vorgan24
(50 posts)Sanders is doing well in online polls, but in real life... Well, I think both candidates endorsements speak for which of the two is doing better in the real world.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts).
Scuba
(53,475 posts)brooklynite
(94,516 posts)...how's it going so far?
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)This post intentionally left blank.