model of how things would be run if Hillary were President, the money spent on her political campaign follows this same M.O.

I'm still curious about the second question on my OP though regarding Hillary's plans for reforming social media as you're a supporter of her do you have any idea what those plans are?

Beep beep beep

In 2008, right before the Iowa caucuses, Hillary finally responded to widespread criticism tegarding her inability to connect with Iowans. She left speeches without taking questions, gave canned/boring talks and seemed very off standish.

Meanwhile, Edwards and Obama were speaking at small and large venues, answering questions, engaging with people and meeting many of us.

Hilary's response? She organized a town-hall and agreed to take audience questions. The only problem was that after the event a reporter from the Des Moines Register discovered that the questioners were a staffers and the questions were planted.

Seriously. The fakery from this campaign and the lengths to which it goes to appear "likable" and popular--when it is not--speaks volumes.

This is her second time running. You would think by now, that she wouldn't have to create fake fans. Sad.

Led and fueled by VOLUNTEERS.

Virginia has hundreds of volunteers gettinghisname on the ballot,and registering voters!

are deep denial.

Bernie is setting it on fire and he's not spending megabucks to do so.

Part of Clintons image is being bigger than life. Don't think Sanders doesn't have an image he works to present. You as well.

It is a cesspool of childish garbage.

they don't know why, so don't ask...it just is

How about How same-sex marriage threatens parental rights. Seriously, isn't possible to hate Hillary without going to right-wing websites?

that I posted on in regards to this subject.

The campaign ran ads on Facebook, which generates 'likes.' I ordered a pizza from a chain restaurant after I saw an ad on Facebook. If it was an astroturf pizza, it sure was tasty.

People seem to forget that poor country who also loves Clinton...

my OP and as you're a supporter of Hillary, do you know what her plans are for social media?

to give it.

I have yet to get an explanation of what the hell Hillary was talking about when she answered that important question about whether or not she changes her message based on whom she's talking to.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251682637

The supporters seem to be like the candidate herself, sidestepping, parrying, avoiding subject, and then eventually insulting. Meh.

what an eye opener! Thanks for the read.

Thanks!

Buying Likes is a signal that Camp Hillary is concerned she isn't as popular as competing candidates.

It's reflective of honesty. Parallel to how she was promoting TPP in China, but saying she is against it in a US national debate -- to trick people into thinking she is on the correct side, then flipping back to supporting TPP. Just not honest.

I see red flags and it's stuff like this that makes me not trust her.

we would be told how 'Scientific' FB etc. were.

They made this mistake in 2000 also, disminssng the millions of online activists.

Otoh, Hillary has tried to use Social Media, but she just doesn't seem to resonate with orindary people, especially the young!

Sanders: 848k
Clinton: 4.9 million

Hilary 372K

Bernie 302K

Do those numbers have a source?

Just go look.


But who knows, maybe they are a part of the great anti-Bernie conspiracy and are making up their own membership numbers, because of, um, something.

When you put numbers, etc., out there, you should include a link.

In debate, as in the Anglo-Saxon system of jurisprudence, the person who alleges that X is true bears the burden of proving that X is true. I did not put those numbers 'out there', you did, so the burden of proving that they are correct is yours.

I am not on trial, and you are not my judge.

The flaw in your position is that you assume I care if you believe me or not.

As I know the numbers I posted to have been factual when I posted them, what you think of them is irrelevant.

There was once a time when people here were willing to trust each other on simple statements of easily proven fact. But those days are long gone, alas.

You can't back up your statement with proof.

Have a nice day.

It's unfortunate that it doesn't extend as far as the effort it would take for you to go to Instragram for 2 minutes.

Well, I would have moved on if you didn't keep tugging at my sleeve.

If you think I'm a liar, fine, it means nothing to me.

I'm done with your pestering.

In law school, one of the first things they teach you is to never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer.

https://www.google.com/search?q=sanders+clinton+debate+winner+twitter&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8

What does a list of news stories about Twitter have to do with how many followers each candidate has on Instagram?

I'm quite sure you didn't count them yourself, so either someone whispered them in your ear, or there must be a link to a news source where they originated.

I simply went to Instagram and looked at each candidates "page" or whatever they call it there, and saw how many followers each has.

Or, if you'd rather, my Corporate Master called and gave me my daily orders to subvert democracy and thwart the will of the people, in this case by spreading the dastardly notion that Hilary had more followers on a social network site than Bernie has.


Take you pick.

Gotta go now, I've been assigned to go to the market and say something negative about Bernie in the check out line.

Bernie might really be winning the internet.

Here is the caveat though.

Sanders has his Senatorial Twitter profile and a Sanders2016 campaign profile. Clinton uses the same Twitter feed that she has used for years. She never started a Clinton2016 one.

On Instragram they have about the same. And yet again, Sanders is the newer profile set up the for 2016 campaign and Clinton is using her same one for years back.

Now with that knowledge, we can say that Clinton may have more in numbers currently but Sanders has has a higher number of followers in a shorter period of time.

In social media, trending is the more important rubric than just a static number.

that showed her winning or leading, I absolutely would dismiss it as unimportant.

It won't take take long until the first post debate polls come out showing the state of the race. And there were a couple of scientific polls on who won the debate, one which showed Sander winning, the other showed Clinton winning. I didn't dismiss either of them.

and ignore them,I would be embarrassed for any Hillary supporter who naively believed in them.

This site is becoming a parody site.

that Bernie won the debate and has contributed greatly to his campaign.

You can also whistle past the graveyard, deny the reality and impact of the Internet's increasing contributions to democracy all you want, if it makes you feel better.

I did enjoy how you described the internet as an "Institution" as if it were some monolithic thing.

majority of it can make an enormous impact when it comes together.

As some sort of endorsement and public announcement of something special.

Thanks for the joke.

As soon as you find where the Clinton campaign uses Facebook likes as a contest that means something significant, you be sure to let me know.

Bernie crowd are the only ones that seems the think comparing numbers on social media to other candidates is a defining moment. It's HILLarious

coupled with the amount of people that have donated to his campaign, as well as the record number of attendees at his rallies to that of other candidates. Hillary supporter is using the opinions of the punditocrocy as well as polling conducted primarily over land lines to crown her the winner months before the first vote will ever be cast.

So?

Come on! Enough of this.

I thought that's what democracy was about? Shouldn't we be holding all candidates feet to the fire? They're indebted to us, not the other way around.

cuz it isnt making much of a dent

basis.

But isn't Bernie beating her by about one MILLION likes? And I am sure he hasn't spent a penny on FB.

Excellent point!

won a given debate.

You need to use scientific sampling methods that are part of established polling methods.

I have seen a couple of scientific polls since the debate, one which had Sanders winning, the other had Clinton winning.

Here is the one that had Clinton winning.

http://www.oann.com/dncdebate/

I can't find the one that had Sanders up, but I saw it here on DU.

from what I remember reading.

Can you dig any deeper to find dirt on her?

By the way, not even going to your link, embedded in that is "OPINIONS"!

If you don't trust CNN, I understand.

I guess the entire opinion of what Hillary stated regarding social media reform was false then?

Thanks for the thread Uncle Joe

Thanks for the thread Uncle Joe!

How Does This Work?

Your fan page will be mentioned in real ads placed on social media related websites that belong to our marketing partners.

Your fan page will then begin to gain likes from Real users that Want to like your page. These likes are of higher value and quality.

Most important, these likes Will Never be removed by Facebook.

After you make your payment, it will normally only take us 2-3 days to successfully gain 1,000+ real Facebook likes for your fan page.

A State Department initiative to attempt to reach out to try to generate positive international opinion about the U.S. is not even remotely the same as trying to claim that an unscientific facebook poll is somehow accurate.

Oh and what an unmitigated shittastic source you have. Trying to link a State Department campaign on one thing with the deaths in Benghazi without mentioning that it was Republicans who cut the security budget. Classy source. It says a lot about you that you either didn't look in depth at the source, or you didn't care.

It sounds more like manipulation to make a Facebook Page appear to have more support than it did in reality. Some might call it a disinformation campaign by State to sway viewers to a particular position. So much money was spent for so little results that it got rightfully flagged.

out of desperation when things don't go the way they predicted they would.

and a host of other shared behaviors. This is what cognitive dissonance looks like.