What you're advocating for is more in line with the future shown in the movie 'Idiocracy".

Then you can still get help.

Start here:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/net_election/2000/01/why_online_polls_are_bunk.html

7 years before the first iPhone before Facebook or Twitter. The internet today has very little in common with the internet in 2000.

I would have agreed with that article then, now not so much.

Man, I love it when someone gets slammed and then crickets....

...I'm enjoying this too much.

telling the truth about our 'rigged system' which the people already know.

Your media pundits are trusted by only 17% of the population.

Bernie doesn't have to worry about their 'scientific' opinions.

Tens of thousands of individual donations totalling over $3 million dollars, rewarded Sanders for his strong showing in the debate, where he stuck to the issues, didn't spend most of his time trying to explain 'mistakes' and then 'evolving' on issues. He simply was consistent on the major issues the American people care about.

That is why he won.

That being the case of course the "credible news outlets" with the "actual journalists" shouldn't fucking well be conducting them in the first place if they know that and are going to ignore the results.


However, having disregarded the overwhelming results of their own informal polls... they then proceeded to declare the opposite result based on... what actual credible scientific polling or research? Their focus group? Oops, Bernie won that too.

Was it... a show of hands of the editors? What? If they're going to make a case that essentially *every* informal unscientific poll that showed one result... including the poll they themselves conducted... was wrong then what superior data are they basing their own announcement of the exact opposite result upon?

Cripes, these propagandists get lamer by the second.

Shows how they can control information.

Damn them. I mean that truly.

They're conducting them for entertainment and to drive traffic. Feel free to criticize the media for that purpose, but be prepared to tell us that you never read the newspaper comics page...

WHAT DATA were they using to make their pronouncement that Hillary won and disregard not only their clickbait online polls but also their *own focus groups*?


Or is your argument the entire slew of "Hillary Won" headlines should be equally treated as pure entertainment and not having any actual journalistic value or integrity?

are not doing a good job of getting our message out'. Now to me the NEWS is not a MESSAGE. This was when she went to the Senate to look for funds to help 'get our message out'.

And NOW I see, CNN has shut down the volunteer group who started #Bernie2016TV. No, no one is trying to stop the people from getting the facts they need.

That volunteer group livestreams Bernie events since the media doesn't cover them.

Second time a Big Corporate Media outlet has shut them down!!

Explain that if you can.

...corporations, for better or worse, get fussy about controlling their own content and intellectual property.

issues like this?? Really? I cannot BELIEVE the lame defenses of CENSORSHIP by the Corporate Media on this forum.

You must KNOW that this is about to become a huge deal. And that it is going to reflect very badly on your candidate? It's already causing outrage and the story just came out.

I live in a Democracy.

Censorship kills Democracy.

This is going to harm your candidate because no matter what excuses are made, people are already forming their OWN opinions.

Even her supporters who actually do care about our rights, are beginning to have doubts now, as right or wrong, people assume this is being done on her behalf.

She needs to step forward now, the way Bernie did for her and protected her, and make it known she does not approve of this at all.

I know she will be asked to do so.

All this does is remind people that it was Bill Clinton who it possible for a few Corporations to buy what belongs to the people.

Think about that before you go defending this censorship.

I'm guessing the answer was "no".

ACTUAL journalists" where they say that Clinton won. What's funny is that Clinton supporters keep whining about how the corp-media hates her, and now they are calling them "credible".

By the way, a number of top corp-media giants are sponsoring HRC for president. Not the people's candidate.

So what do "credible news outlets" base their "news" of Hillary's "victory" on?

That would be their opinion . . . .

I wouldn't even mind if some "credible news outlet" put out stories saying that this or that "expert" thinks that Hillary "won."


But those headlines in the OP pretty much prove that those outlets are shilling for Hillary. Why you think that is credible, is beyond me.

….is that the Democratic party may be facing a real problem in the primary and the general if the actual people, as opposed to the establishment, do not support her.

No campaign manager is ignoring these "click polls" believe me. Because they are sending a signal.

And do you really mean to say that MSM gets to decide who "won"?

The problem with this line of argument is they were ignoring their own polls.

If CNN does not believe in online instant polls, why did they put one up? Just to later ignore it? Why bother. Why did they just not put a link to abd encourage voting in a CNN online poll if they did not want a CNN online Poll. They could have saved a lot of time by not setting up a poll and weblink rather than set one up and then ignore it.

If Time does not believe in online instant polls, why did they put one up? Just to later ignore it? Why bother. Why did they just not put a link to and encourage voting in a Time online poll if they did not want a Time online Poll. They could have saved a lot of time by not setting up a poll and weblink rather than set one up and then ignore it.

Rinse Repeat for slate and all the other all these reputable main stream sites who seemed to believe in online polls before the debate because they set them up.

Please explain your logic that credible news organizations do not see value in online polls if they all set them up. It it just that they ignore results after the fact that does not fit their narrative.

Advertising rates are based on the number of eyes on a page the same way newspaper sales used to be. Have you never wondered why these sites don't publish these polls as actual fact instead of dropping them after a day and putting a new nonsense poll up the next day? They are designed to produce clicks.They don't even pretend to be anything else,there's a disclaimer on all these polls for a reason,they aren't real. For some who claim Clinton supporters don't understand the internet,there's an awful lot of naivete about the purpose of these polls here.

What you say is reasonably true generally however these are specific polls for debates. And regardless of whether such polls usually disappear in a few days, they usually are referred to in the post debate summaries in forming the media view of the debates.

My understanding is that some of these polls were directly linked to the actual debate feed. News organizations clearly have made the post debate questions of "who won" or "what people though" an integral part of the debate.

My further understanding although I could be wrong is that during the post debate talking head and pundit analysis sessions, the site journalists did not refer to the results of their viewership polls at all this debate. This contrasts from past debates where they at least seemed to treat the polls as having some value. My direct memory is they have spent time reporting such poll and focus group results in past years and past debates in defining their recap of what happenned in the debate..

Regardless of whether such polls are globabally meaningful, they clearly reflect some aspects of the network or sites viewership and is usually reported and influences the sites position on the debate. The question of what the polls mean as to the outside electorate is a different issue. Regardless of the the external use of an online poll, the news sites have used them to describe the mood of the electorate and to my memory (being in the late 50s) I can never remember a time when the initial reports from the pundit class were directly opposite the online polls and focus groups. It usually takes them a few days to decide that their first analyses were wrong (an example is they changed from Gore winning to Gore losing the debates to Bush).

we would have an entirely different story from CNN and the Hillary Supporters today,
and THAT poll would still be UP and quoted every 5 minutes.

I mean that is basically what you are saying.

Are you saying the overwhelming majority of the 15 million who watched say he won?

That means 'those who responded to their request to say who they thought won the debate.

So the people who watched it, responded. And they said 'Bernie' by about 80%.

Now we know if those polls had been in her FAVOR we would be receiving lectures on how polls directly connected to events are 'more scientific' and that makes them 'more credible'.

Their blatant contractions of the people who responded in every poll they put up, is simply laughable.

As I said, Baghdad Bob laughable.

And program the 'polling' algorithms so that every Bernie vote cast automatically adds a Hillary vote or two as well

is why I am thrilled with the deja vu I'm getting. It's a great sign for Bernie Sanders.

Btw, I keep asking this question and NO ONE has answered. Maybe I'll be lucky this time.

How 'scientific' is a poll that is supposed to be gauging how the the Primary Candidates are doing, that includes a NON CANDIDATE?

Sort of skews all that science doesn't it?

But we have figured out what does 'scientific' polls are actually doing.

Have you?

But if it gets your conspiratorial ya yas going, I say knock yourself out. The rest of us will base our opinions on valid, scientific polls in the days and weeks to come.

Seriously, if this is all you guys got pack it in.

great sign for Bernie.

So where are all the Hillary supporters?

Wait, Corporate Talking Heads is all you've got?? Lol!

Please, we pioneered hating corporate media.

THEIR polls. So where are the Hillary supporters?

You're right, Bernie won the debate. Ok.

some time! Funny how they all use the same talking points. 'It's unscientific'. Lol, let's see how 'unscientific' millions of dollars are! As the Big Corps tell us, 'money talks'! Nothing unscientific about that!

Thanks Rhett, I am so entertained by it all. Reminds me of 2008! Alll over again!

I guess the PEOPLE are not 'scientific'! But they know who they want as POTUS!

interested in keeping Goldman-Sachs happy.

Also, the reactions you are getting here, people denigrating data with no data of their own, shows a serious desperation.

You really think just because someone supports Clinton, they don't care about people???

If you dare to support any liberal progressive other than Bernie you are..

1. Stupid

2. A tool of Wall Street

3. A capitalist pig

4. A corporate whore

Bernie fans winning hearts and changing minds SMH

The billionaires back Clinton because they know she will be friendly to their goals (quid pro quo) and their goals conflict with what is good for the people. Clinton represents the status quo which has given us 16,000,000 American children living in poverty. I do not see how a president that won't tax the wealthy will fix our poverty problems.

It's my opinion that Clinton is concerned more about the 1% and their profits than she is about the 99%. She won't even raise the SS cap.

means you have nothing.

To say Clintons supporters "don't care about people" sounds about right coming from someone who told another poster they probably voted for Obama "because of his smile".

I'll miss you when you go.

I look forward to your support of the Democratic nominee!
Hopefully he or she will have a "nice smile" so those of us who aren't as smart as you, will vote!

'authority' over what he does or does not do?

Your comment is extremely STRANGE to say the least, unless you are personally connected in some way to Rhett??

I could care less what YOU do, it's none of my business.

So how is what Rhett does a year from now YOUR business?

Spooky, Wow!

Kick!

to a stand. He is good. Has so far concentrated on me with quotes from my past that he hopes to embarrass me. It's kinda creepy but attempts to intimidate are laughable.

Speaking of not taking a stand, did you notice that when asked about recreational marijuana, Clinton refused to take a stand, instead she wants more data. More waffling. I hope someone kept track.

Also in her final statement she said she wants to see wages raised for working Americans. Rhetoric. What about jobs for the unemployed? And how much of a raise does she desire? I think she supports a $12 min wage. Well that would be a raise but still not worth bragging about.

n/t

tear CNN,Fake Noise,ABC,NBC and MSNBC a new orifice with the defense of Clinton and those damn E-Mails and getting to the real debatable issues that affect the folks who pay the bills and not the Wealthy. Have to say,Bernie is the real deal and he single handily saved Ms. Clinton's butt on this topic. Did you hear anything in regards to e-mails coming from the Clown Trolley? Game changer baby.

positions on anything she could, right before the debate. People are not fooled by this kind of flip flopping during campaigns. But it was obvious that Bernie was the 'inspiration' for her sudden shift to the Left, at least for now.

about expanding SS benefits, HRC avoided answering that question even tho Anderson asked more than once. She said she wanted to help the most vulnerable SS recipients. That can mean almost anything. Sen Sanders wants to raise the cap, but again she avoided that and the Medicare for all.

what the hell does that mean?

When pols use fuzzy language, it's either because they don't know what the hell they're talking about (Palin?), or because they don't want US to know what the hell they're talking about.

Where do you think Clinton falls?

themes and sound bites all night,were as Sanders did his what you see is what your going get.

they will use in media ads. I have concluded over the years that she is not the smart woman I used to think she was at all.

No really smart person would, eg, have voted for Bush's war. They would have known he was lying and known he could not be trusted with that kind of power.

The email thing also, I knew from the first time I ever used a computer never to put anything on it you didn't want anyone to see.

And I am not SOS. I think most people know this. Karl Rove eg, ALMOST got indicted, but of course that went away also, for making the same mistake, thinking you could disappear emails.

This is the 21st Century and anyone who puts out info on the internet that they would be horrified by if it was ever seen by anyone other than those they trust is not smart enough to be POTUS imo.

Her owners won't allow it.

my spouse said,what the hell is she pushing the third way idea of means testing and privatization. Bernie picked up on that and his body language wanted to just pounce on this but being restrained let her dig her own grave.

poor. You would think that she would know that we already have a program that does that in place SSI (not SSDI) and you do not have to fix SSA to do it.

All that needs to be done to fix that problem is fix the cost of living benefit for SSI that has not changed in many years. The top level for SSI in my area is $758 a month. Make it $1000 and you are giving a lot of help to those of us in that situation.

including? 10, 100, 1,000? And who will pay? The other SS recipients? The working class?

"I want to expand things", "I think all college students should have the same opportunity _____."

I was looking for other rhetoric she put forth during the debate.

who are poor. No one needs to change SSA at all because you are right. If we use SSA to help then the money others put into the plan is used in a different way than before.

With the present form of help (the SSI program) the money comes out of the general tax fund and not out of the SSA fund. There are a lot of elderly women who did not work enough to receive enough SSA to live on. I get $278 a month. SSI supplements that to bring it up to $753 a month. It is people like me that she is saying she will help. However, if she uses SSA to help us she will be hurting other SSA recipients.

SSI covers poor elderly and disabled persons who are not eligible for SSDI yet. That is the program that needs to be fixed to reflect the real cost of living in each area of the country. This is not one of the problems of SSA.

Yeah, that caught me ear too. BEING a SS recipient, I'd like to know how "vulnerable" is defined. And if I'm NOT in that strata, am I just outta luck???

Heard that. We are retired and do ok but anything big would shake us. Savings. What is that? I have a few thousand thats it and lucky to have that.

she didn't explain where the help was coming from. Her plan may be to readjust benefits (enhance, I think she called it).

trying to get Bernie's attention, lol, to remind him to ask her about the Chained CPI. He did, but Cooper went to another question right then, so she got off the 'hook on that one.

She had to admit to making two 'mistakes' as she calls them, not very impressive for someone wanting to be President, Bernie otoh, looked very good on the Iraq war, went into his other war votes, the Patriot Act she voted for etc.

When I saw the attempt to minimize the Iraq War vote here yesterday, asking flippantly if Bernie might 'demagogue' that question, something of course he never does, I KNEW they KNEW the question was going to be raised.

She essentially said it was necessary to give up our rights to assure our safety. She should have been asked if she ever considered the possibility that once we gave up our rights, we might never get them back. But the 1% isn't concerned because they didn't give up anything precious to them, in fact they gain power via the Patriot Act. The NSA/CIA Dark State is a tool of the Oligarchy and they will not give up their expanded powers.

He certainly saved her ass. It was big.

I guess the Corporate Controlled Editors slipped up?

viewers/potential voters. So why would the Corporate Media ask their viewers for their opinions and then ignore them?

Maybe in their DC bubble they anticipated a different result??? I have noticed how out of touch these insiders are with the people, but seriously, if you ask for an opinion, your creds take a dive, as is happening as we type, straight down into the gutter.

Btw, how much did Hillary raise during the debate?

claiming Sen Sanders made a much better showing. Progressives are not surprised. I hope someone captured what HRC said about the issues. Some was quite a lesson in rhetoric. Doesn't want to expand SS benefits, but enhance them. Avoided answering the question about raising the cap on her friends. Her solution for getting college education for American children was to tell them to work like she did and to tell the states to try to keep tuitions down.

just discussed on the young turks. apparently reality did not confirm to their corporate narrative.

was just reporting what i heard on tyt.

perhaps a cnn follower, if there are any here lol, can share that info.

the 32,000,000 American children living in low income homes because it's much more important to ensure corps get their profits.

There are two sides in this class war. I would hope that all Democrats would side with the 99%, but there are some that choose to follow the wealthy, maybe hoping to get a handout.

That right there means ANYTHING you say can't be taken seriously.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=6658778

problems of poverty, our failing infrastructure, our seniors struggling on SS and Medicare, our homeless vets, and the AA males getting gunned down in the streets. HRC is the 1% and though she gives some lip service to social justice, her first commitment is to those billionaires (e.g., Goldman-Sachs) that are not only supporting her campaign but also giving her money to enhance her personal fortune. But you know that and you don't care.

The Princeton Study reports that we no longer live in a Democracy but live in an Oligarchy. You must be comfortable with that because 8 years of another Clinton will continue the status quo.

That will not stop the Populist Movement. 50 million Americans live in poverty and yet you throw your support behind the Billionaires.

Sure Rick.
And I probably voted twice for Obama "because of his smile".

You'll be missed.

Why did you vote for him? You don't seem to support progressives or progressive issues.

Your sanctimony is awe-inspiring.

I don't like authoritarians.

that run this country? Nope. You are content with the establishment and the status quo. I think you like to be on the side with the biggest bully, the wealthy. Tell me otherwise, tell me you want to see poverty reduced. If you support a Goldman-Sachs Administration, you would appear to value Corp-Profits over the health and welfare of the People.

I like to think for myself so kool-aid is not my drink but you should refrain because it is not working out foryou.

... but it's pretty clear it's a staple in your home.

I clearly, am not.

But I'll consider the source.

Any?

At all?

Thanks for the thread, sabrina.

k&r

What are you? Some kinda pinko, Commie, turrist or sumptin'?

pundits, press etc.

through cable media, commercial media, and the bulk of print media. They will deliver the message that benefits their candidate. You can either believe it or choose to ignore it, but NOBODY will change it. Hillary could be down double digits, but you would never learn that from listening to controlled media sources.

You and your polls!



http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251650529

After being educated, I really don't understand why people keep pushing these silly internet polls. It makes them look incredibly ignorant.

It really makes people look silly. Not one single scientific poll found anything anywhere near the poll in the link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=110x9869

Understanding how online self-selected polls are in no way, shape or form useful really isn't that hard. It's not a random sample, they tend toward younger respondents, also white respondents and the most fervent. But none of that translates into actual real world impact or truth.

when you can't prove, verify or replicate these lame phone polls.

Pick any 5 and return with the respondents names and contact #'s so we can verify that a respondent's vote wasn't counted multiple times.

WE'LL BE WAITING

And when they got the results of these 'unscientific' viewers they didn't like them, how scientific of them, so a few 'scientivfc' taking heads determined, 'scientifically' of course, who the winner was.

So scientific, the Corporate Media is!

This is getting so thoroughly ridiculous that it's at the point of LAUGHABLE.

Since when are Fox, CNN's Don Lemon? Seriously? and the rest of the pretend 'journalists' on the Corporate Media 'Scientifically' qualified to determine who won a debate??

I am laughing my head off at the sudden 'trust' in the credibility of the 'scientific' conclusions of anyone on the totally discredited Corporate Media.

Or have people developed total amnesia re their 'scientific' conclusions about Bush/Cheney's lies that led us into the horrendous War Crime still ongoing in Iraq?

Soon someone is going to tell me how credible Judith Miller is!!

All you can do is laugh at the sheer ridiculousness of it all.

Bernie won, period. It's not the end of the world. It's just a fact determined by hundreds of thousands of viewers and STATISTICS that are readily available to the Corporate Scientists IF they care to look at them.