2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumWhen will the 'scientific polls' start polling all potential primary voters?
Just wondering, so far I've seen just one poll of Independent voters which showed Bernie way ahead of Hillary.
And while it's hard to poll non-registered voters, we have been signing up people from that huge demographic for Bernie, getting them back into the system, in open primary states they cannot be tracked by polls.
Here in NY however, a closed primary state with a ridiculously early registration date, planned to occur before the first debate, we managed to get some previously non voters registered as Democrats. So far, not one of them has been polled.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)they are extremely worried about Bernie's success, however following people around internet forums with lame comments like this, IS very creepy.
I can't imagine doing such a thing. But then I don't have a stalker personality and would prefer to openly and honestly discuss issues.
Which stalkers I know, never do.
Amimnoch
(4,558 posts)Having a couple myself, I sympathize. Even on different sides of the aisle, wrong is still wrong.
Of those who do much posting from the other candidates side, I've found you refreshing, respectful, and focused on the positive more than going after the negative.
Response to Amimnoch (Reply #7)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
questionseverything
(9,646 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)thread apparently!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)make and have noticed those who support Hillary, such as yourself, who do not engage in the kind of behavior you mention, and what I referred to. Thank you for making DU a better place!!
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)Following people around and making lame comments. It is creepy. On the other hand, when someone comments on something I posted as an OP on DU, I never think of their comments as stalkerish. I mean, I did post the OP and expected that people might read it and, with luck, remember it.
Commenting about an OP someone has posted isn't anything like stalking. Not even close.
Now, following people around and commenting on what they said a decade or so ago somewhere else? That's a bit suspicious, it seems to me. But not commenting on recent OPs someone has posted. That's just normal DU behavior, I think.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)eom
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)That way, nobody can talk behind my back in public. I see it all. I tried Ignore for a while, during the time the Meta Forum was still alive. Then I emptied my list one day. What a revelation that was! Now, I'll never Ignore anyone again. Nope.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)eom
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)I learn from experience.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)NOT comment on situations you are not familiar with. This wasn't about you at all.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)I remember. I do.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Response to sabrina 1 (Reply #3)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)Response to bravenak (Reply #28)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)"Speak the truth and people lose their mind."
bravenak
(34,648 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)eom
bravenak
(34,648 posts)As Hillary continues to climb to the sky, we will need to be extra kind to others. Be magnanimous, if you will...
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)bravenak
(34,648 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Remember how he handled that chubby kid?
bravenak
(34,648 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)eom
bravenak
(34,648 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)getting hides.
I will tolerate stalking for so long, then I will do as I did here. You were not even in the thread, so nothing to do with you at all, which has now been clarified.
Let me ask you though, why did you NOT correct Democratsincebirth when he mistakenly confused the poster to whom I WAS referring with you? I know I would have immediately done so.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)If you mean that person who was harassing my via pm, they are now blocked.
Someone else alerted on them and they WERE very rude so I can understand. Them harassing me and accusing me was very disturbing and I needed that to end.
If you think I will sympathize on one hide from a random poster, I cannot. I was alert trolled into four in one day... Why I should care more about whomever than myself?
As far as stalking is concerned... Have you also recieved hate mail threatening hides and alerts from a self described duer who says they outnumber you? If you are accusing me of stalking, that is a serious charge and I'd like to see your evidence or ask that you refrain from further accusations.
My replying to DSB has nothing to do with you and was not intended for you, therefore any accusations of stalking are unfounded.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)attacking this site and its members.
And where we witnessed a poster admit 'I am goading Cali into a hide'. How sad. I do not remember the name of the site, and won't be visiting it again. I saw no one, from what I witnessed from my short and last visit there, tell that person that they disagreed with that kind of thing.
Skinner says there is no alert stalking going on.
I imagine he has access to the facts.
Your replying to DSB was confirming something that did not happen. I would have corrected him and told him I was not even in the thread at the time of the comment. You did not.
He however has had the courage and decency to apologize for his mistake.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)Personally I am always happy to learn that not everything is about me.
But to each their own!
Enjoy the rest of your evening!
I'm off to work on Bernie's election!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)and the apology has been accepted. Leaving this sub thread continues the impression that Bravenak was in any way involved in this. She was not in the thread as you now realize.
Thank you in advance.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)It's not one of the best things on the internet, that kind of behavior.
We have your back, bravenak. Just roll with it, and we'll back you up.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)The primary will soon end and I hope we can all get behind the candidate without further rancor.
I appreciate you guys being a great support.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)can't come too soon. I'm ready to work to get our nominee elected. This place will get friendlier again.
bravenak
(34,648 posts)I should have already signed up but I keep thinking that after I pick my classes and know my schedule I will decide how to volunteer. I haven't figured out which skills to offer. I'm okay on the phones but hate calling unless it's to gotv.. Calling for money bugs me.
Maybe I can sign up to do outreach on campus. Get some shirts and hand out flyers. Design a website for info and call to actions. Still trying to figure it out.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)for his mistake. The apology has been accepted by me. The situation had zero to do with anyone but the poster to whom my comment was directed. A jury has made its decision.
So you now have all the information needed to discontinue the false impression you are creating here. It's up to you of course. It's not my credibility at stake.
As I said, you need to refrain from commenting on situations which you are unfamiliar with. As is the case here.
I personally have EVERYONE'S back who is the target of nasty behavior. Not just a select few. I'm sure you are aware of that. Even people with whom I do not normally get along.
I believe in pointing out behavior, as I have here, that is damaging to this site and to its members.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)I need to do on DU. I don't need to tell you why that is. I will post as I see fit here, thanks.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)to promote a false impression, which has now been thoroughly clarified, apologies made and accepted, a jury decision on the issue rendered.
I will continue to point out false claims or impressions being created, especially if they are occurring in my threads, and nobody's 'concerns' about that will prevent me from doing so.
I totally reject advice, which we are treated to regularly as you surely know, from people unless I have the utmost respect for those people.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)in that, eh?
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)So probably no, not really!
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)referring.
Bravenak has never acted towards me or anyone else I know, as the poster to whom my comment was directed has. It simply amazes me that people do not read before they jump.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)But CaliDemocrat responded to a thread...
That's different than commenting on your comments.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)have.
Hopefully I will not have to deal with it again.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)I do make a distinction between responding to a thread and responding to a post though...
Again, I apologize...
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)eom
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)correct their mistakes ...
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)eom
DeadLetterOffice
(1,352 posts)On Tue Oct 27, 2015, 01:46 PM an alert was sent on the following post:
Stalkers give me the creeps. I appear to have a couple of them. Tells me
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=733482
REASON FOR ALERT
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.
ALERTER'S COMMENTS
Calling another poster a "stalker" is uncivil. It's a public message board and she posted an OP. Cali Dem has a right to respond without being called a stalker "with stalker personality."
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Tue Oct 27, 2015, 01:56 PM, and the Jury voted 1-6 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: And your stalker just alerted on you. I just found out my stalker is now a host of DU---he even locked a thread of mine today. Fuck Stalkers--fuck them all.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: This doesn't seem like a particularly relevant reply to the previous post, but not hide worthy.
RandySF
(58,691 posts)But not necessarily likely to show up.
daleanime
(17,796 posts)is that surprising?
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)That's why a poll like this would hold no validity pertaining to the election. With proper questions such a poll could tell us a lot though.
mythology
(9,527 posts)Or vote in significant numbers.
Historically they don't.
To be usefully predictive, it makes sense to only survey people most likely to vote.
HassleCat
(6,409 posts)Even in states where independents may vote in either party's primary, most don't, at least compared to those registered as D or R. We have an unusual situation this time, with Sanders troops working to get non-affiliated voters to support Sanders in open primary states, but the polls tend to stick with those registered as Democrats. Some polls even narrow it down further, polling those "very likely" to vote in the primary. It's probably accurate, because it falls into the category of self-fulfilling prophecy. Many independent Sanders supporters will see the constant barrage of polls assuring them that Sanders stands no chance, and they will not bother to vote.
questionseverything
(9,646 posts)in 08 everyone was supposedly surprised that hc came in a distant 3rd
frazzled
(18,402 posts)with the occasional anticipated important swing states sometimes as well. Since NYS is neither an early nor swing state, it is not surprising it is not being polled at this time.
Primaries are often difficult to poll. Caucuses are almost impossible to poll. Everyone chill with the polls, whether good or bad for your candidate.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)to be valid if they use the correct scientific methodology right?
brooklynite
(94,482 posts)You sure about that? I remember a post complaining that this was DNCs job.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)In the meantime while Bernie fans were spamming internet polls...Hillary's ground game in Iowa was signing up every person they could.
And we see some results this morning.
Awesome for Hillary. Bernie, not so much.
frylock
(34,825 posts)at those events. Maybe not. It might have been a late night of dinner and drinks with Senator So-and-so and his wife.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)"Wow! Latest ISideWith Results Show Sanders Winning in All 50 States"
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251650529
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)That's not fair. I mean...
zappaman
(20,606 posts)In this regard...
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)wrote a long time ago like that. That would be rude and, you know, stalkerish.
zappaman
(20,606 posts)Not to most.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)Seems like forever to me...so much has happened since then. And now the polls in Iowa. How quickly things change, eh?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)The suggestion there is some inchoate mass waiting to be mobilized that only the special people know exists would be funny if it wasn't so sad.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)Everyone talks about that mass of people as if it agrees with them. Democrats, Republicans, individual politicians. They all say, "The American People want...whatever they are trying to sell."
Corollaries are things like "Democrats want..." or "Millennials all vote for..."
I think there's a logical fallacy that uses those as examples. Argumentum ad populum, I believe it is, or "Bandwagon."
As a fallacy, it's one of the most popular in use by political writers.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Argumentum ad populum just means something is right because a lot of folks say so.
MineralMan
(146,284 posts)One claims widespread support for pet ideas, without any actual evidence of that support. It's sort of a different way of using the fallacy, one we see very often in political discussions.
When it's used to claim that "Democrats want Sanders as President," and someone calls the poster on that, the word "Real" is placed before "Democrats" in a lame attempt to qualify the statement, as if there were a definition of "Real Democrats." It's funny stuff, using logical fallacies is.
We see it here very, very often.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)eom
NuclearDem
(16,184 posts)zappaman
(20,606 posts)Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)release the 'BernPolls' they are commissioning. I'm sure that would provide you with what you are looking for.
Might show fifty state landslide results.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251650529
"I'll remember all this when the next corporate poll shows Bernie beating Hillary and we are told again that they are not relevant!"
"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."
"Regardless, Bernie wins hands down in all Internet polls, scientific or not."
"And how do we know that they are not calling the same numbers more than once?"
"Voters are voting in all these online polls and Bernie is winining in all of them."
winter is coming
(11,785 posts)It's a decent predictor for many elections, but you can go badly wrong if large numbers of casual voters go to the polls.
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)Let him release his internal polls and then we can speak to the veracity or lack thereof public polls.
workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)Didn't Bernie say he would never hire a pollster, or is that wrong?
DemocratSinceBirth
(99,710 posts)workinclasszero
(28,270 posts)to date.
And if any other mere mortal does they are flip floppers of the worst kind with their finger in the air etc.
Looks like Bernie has his finger in the air now, a day late and a dollar short, I might add.
frylock
(34,825 posts)but I'd be happy to retract my statement and apologize if you can post a link of Sanders making that statement.
Response to sabrina 1 (Original post)
DemocratSinceBirth This message was self-deleted by its author.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)we keep seeing polls of REGISTERED Democrats registered with who? In my state you do not name a party when you register to vote, no such question on the form and if there was I'd consider it an invasion of privacy
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)We register by party to vote here and you can always change parties even at the door on rhe day of the caucus.
Might I add that our state isn't gerrymandered all to hell either.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)msongs
(67,381 posts)Agnosticsherbet
(11,619 posts)What do you expect to learn from such a poll?
George II
(67,782 posts)restorefreedom
(12,655 posts)how to reach cell using millenials AND become impartial enough to share the real results.
so, never.
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)Where math and statistics don't exist.
riversedge
(70,182 posts)aspirant
(3,533 posts)where people believe in "junk science"
wyldwolf
(43,867 posts)... who are well known science deniers - including deniers of polling.
Skidmore
(37,364 posts)you have to do some groundwork?
A poll is a SAMPLE of a group, and not every one in the group. I'm registered and vote in every election, and have been included in poll samples on a couple of times. Have you been polled? I doubt it.
sabrina 1
(62,325 posts)been polled. My MIL though has been polled many times, I have answered the phone to pollsters when staying at her home in the 2012 election eg.
I am well aware of how polls are conducted.
Traditional pollsters have admitted that their methodology is not keeping up with current technology. They are supposed to have added a % of Cell Phone users, but statistics are now showing that fewer and fewer voters are now using landlines.
FlatBaroque
(3,160 posts)When such polling would benefit the corporate candidate.
Art_from_Ark
(27,247 posts)"Unfortunately, there are no recent polls that reported Mr. Sanders and Mrs. Clintons strength by party registration. But polls have asked voters about party affiliation, and voters who identify as independents are far likelier to support Mr. Sanders. In a recent NBC/Marist poll, Mr. Sanders led Mrs. Clinton by a huge margin, 59 to 21, among self-identified independent voters, while Mrs. Clinton led among self-identified Democrats by 57 to 28. Again, thats not the same as party registration, but the same phenomenon will probably hold there as well."