Words are cheap. Consistent record is what counts.

Many many not even know who Aesop was let alone what "Aesop smiling" means hahaha

The slight nuance here is an aberration

They'd be baby gurgles.

Democracy and junk.

But I'm fairly certain HRC could've canceled her appearance in the debates and she more than likely would still be declared the winner by the the mainscream media.

than that of the online polls.

Those damn kids and the their online polls! That is certainly no measure for public opinion in this day and age.

...but online polls do mean something.

There's a history in this country. Large media outlets use various forms of polls and focus groups to gauge reaction to the debate. Many broadcast outlets show "real time" reaction to the debates, as people report their approval/disapproval throughout the duration of the debate. Focus groups are routinely used and interviewed during and after the debate. And of course, many online polls are available on websites.

These are all devices that are standard and have been used throughout countless election cycles. Some would argue that there is too much of this. It's standard.

Those devices do mean something. They've been great indicators of who did well, and didn't do well in the past. Why are they suddenly some kind of magic voo doo? This reminds me of what the Republicans tried to claim, when they insisted that exit polling wasn't reliable.

I didn't necessarily think that Sanders won the debate. I thought Hillary did a bit better, but she didn't trounce Sanders. We all know what it's like to watch a Democrat get trounced. We saw that with Obama and Romney in the first debate. Obama was owned. This was not that kind of a scenario. Both Sanders and Hillary did well.

I think everyone is moving on from this. This is one debate. There will be more. However, it's just a bit bizarre that now online polls are some kind of punchline now. hahahah...online polls! LOL...online polls!

Please, people.

But probably if they had brought in a cardboard prop of HRC, then she would have still "won".

but from what I have seen of the debates thus far, I'm not so sure they didn't.

Is the conclusion I've come to, after a decade on du. Not just conservatives but all people. The difference between polls that are representative vs online polls, requires a basic understanding of scientific methods.

This whole thing Reminds me of the Jonathan haight article on emotional dog rational tail.

I would make an exception for online polls that attempt to emulate a random sample by employing controls to ensure it measures the universe it is attempting to measure.

No one ever suggested that online, self-selected polls are scientific. What people, including myself, were suggesting--was that post-debate information means *something* within the total context of the debate (that includes online polls, focus groups, post-debate scientific polls, donations that poured in, etc.)

I doubt anyone on DU thinks that those online polls are scientific. That's not what anyone has said. But that doesn't stop Clinton supporters from endlessly arguing that point.

This is a straw man that has been built up, and as the tearing down happens--Sanders supporters are positioned as lunatics who can't comprehend data.

It's very bizarre to see Democrats using these tactics on Democrats. I listen to a great deal of right-wing radio. I worked in PR/media relations for many years, and I find their underhanded tactics fascinating (and disgusting) from a PR standpoint. Rush Limbaugh is especially skilled at extricating a straw man from a legitimate debate point---then arguing against the lies he has built up in his own mind. It's a device used to manipulate and deceive.

This is exactly what is happening here. And now, we see articles and media memes that tout the spoiled-brat-hipster mentality of the Sanders supporter. Ok, really? Rush Limbaugh is that you?

Tactics like this will only push Sanders supporters so far from Hillary Clinton--that they may not show up to vote for her if she is the nominee. These right-wing-style tactics may quell debate and help Clinton in the PR war--in the short run--but they could have a chilling effect on Democratic turnout (if she is the nominee) and they certainly won't impress Independents--who will most likely decide this Presidential election.

You are now trying to focus everyone on the word "scientific".

It doesn't matter whether you call it scientific or factual, or meaningful, the connotation is the same.

No matter how hard you try, you cannot escape the fact that online polls that have no attempt to control and understand the sample that is voting has no value at all. It's entertainment.

That nothing but the online polls matter because everything else if biased.

Get that clicker finger ready!

I only despair for science.

at Bernie's website, I have nothing to despair.

And that happened - a lot - too.

Well done!

And Hillary both did well. I didn't watch enough to be able to declare a winner but if Hillary "won", that's cool. If Bernie "won", that's cool, too. I think a lot of folks are taking this too seriously. It seems like DEMS won.

I stepped away from DU for a few weeks recently but came back to see how thing were shaking down throughout this past week.

The collective freakout on different levels is utterly hilarious. I've been here since the site opened up and I can't really recall it ever being like this. I don't remember it being so lopsided so early on either, which is probably part of it.

I didn't watch the debate. I'm not getting involved in a choice - hell, my primary is in MA and most things will largely be settled by then anyway.

But damn if there isn't a huge amount of entertainment value in watching what's going on around here. So much of it felt like when I used to peer into freerepublic to see what was going on there years ago. So many identical comments and arguments.

Hilarious, folks, hilarious.

that a lot of the low-post-count people are actually right-wing and libertarian infiltrators. They post anti Hillary posts for their tea party or Ron Paul masters referencing right wing sites. The natives fall for the invaders and embrace them.

Again, it is speculative on the part of some people and so far no one has confessed to secretly being a right-winger. Nevertheless, your experience might vary.

Because they are scientific...which is better than just letting thousands of people vote and accepting the results.
Control is better because those who control always do it for the right reason...and can always provide a rational for their control...(this represents America today because it did yesteryear and things never change)

We would be better off is we just scientifically polled and skipped the expense of an election...I am sure it would suit a lot of people.

We progressives are running around with our hair on fire, or being led by the nose by filthy liberal elitists. You insulted us and I recognize that. Because there are facts existing that present conclusive evidence that there is yellow journalism afoot. I did not watch the debate. I do not care about these debates. They mean nothing. The only way to win, is to leave the best quote for the media to use in=the reports. Like when Reagon said ' there you go again', or when that crazy admiral said to that idiot Dan Quayle ,'I knew john Kennedy and you are no John Kennedy'. Bernie had the line , 'No one cares about your dam emails'. It was very dramatic and he hit the nail on the head. Hillary looked like his daughter triumphant and proud of her dad. She is not a statesman. She is very smart, but she is the cororate candidate and that may be ,in 2016 ,the kiss of death.
If the Kochs want to defeat Hillary, they should back her.

BTW, Hillary will win with or without the "hair on fire" Sandernistas.

" I knew Jack Kennedy, and you are no Jack Kennedy" it seemed odd that JFK, whose name is John, but it was 50s-60s nickname. He was Wicked Smart and so was Bobby. Now I'm feeling as old as Bernie Sanders. Hope you kids can get him elected!!!

"The revolution was probably going to go sour anyway"

I've been reading a lot lately about how Wall street is going to eviscerate Bernie. CNN and all of corporate media are after him.

But the people are what really matters, right? And "we" far outnumber the 1%. So I see a big issue in the horizon in big business(the upper class) clashing with the rest of us. The upper class are scared shitless about Bernie. Excuses like, he's a communist, Bernie supports freebees for everyone, etc.. They are going to lie to us, distort the truths, and completely control what you hear and see.
Is this what we want for the great people in this country?

This election is all about how corporations and politics are destroying our democracy. After 40 years of their Reganism, the people have had enough. It's not working for a large majority of people, and something has to change. If not, democracy as we know it, will disappear forever. Oligarchy will be here to stay. Enough is enough. Period...........

Bernie was right on. We need a political revolution to stop these corrupt assholes that want it all.

except in communist countries the rich people are the political leaders like in North Korea or Venezuela.

If someone comes up with an idea that catches and another invests in that idea, they both get rich. That's the way the world works. That's how America has prospered.

If you haven't noticed, this country is not prospering, except the 1%. And it's not enough for them. They want it all. They want to control all of politics and media. And the middle class is disappearing at an alarming rate. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH!!!!

it's that the people who aren't rich are being inexorably squeezed into poverty while the rich continue to fatten themselves at the expense of the poor.

When you've got a job you feel secure about, a comfortable place to live, food to eat, healthcare you can afford, and a little spending money in your pocket, you may envy the rich but you don't resent them. When you don't have those things--or you had those things and lost them due to the greed of corporations and the ultra-rich--it's a different story. If we keep going down the road we're on, it's going to destroy this country and likely lead to violence.

because they refuted the pre-ordained outcome of that election.

eom

hold the same opinion as the voters in those trashy non-scientific polls.

not about who's old enough to vote. Of course, eighteen year olds are teenagers and they can vote.

Hillary was polished and she spit out a lot of belligerent tough talk, like she always does....

On policies she was very vague. Her example of being tough on the bankers that paid her and her husband tens of millions of dollars in speaking fee and donations to their private foundation, was that she asked them to cut it out before 2008 crash. Although we bailed out the big banks, Hillary wants you to believe they are not the ones who did wrong or need to be regulated, rather it was shadow banking's fault. She also said, she is willing to wait until the next crash before she is willing to address big banking risk to economy. Safe to say she will not touch the banks and the inherent risk of being too big to fail.

Banking failures and fraud is nothing new, it seems to happen every ten years or so. We are constantly bailing them out.

On the other hand, Bernie was good on policies and his record supports that he isn't just making up things he thinks voters want to hear.

Hillary could have gotten hammered but, this wasn't the time to do it. Bill Clinton deregulated banking, allowed media to consolidate, he passed NAFTA, and he gave China most favored trading status. He removed the inspectors from Iraq that allowed Cheney to claim they had WMDs. And Hillary gave up Congress's Constitutional authority by voting to give Bush AUMF.

Would someone be kind enough to define the phrase "and stuff"?

That's sounds about right

Yes, I have been educated this week.