...and I marshall all my people to overwhelm the online poll and vote in my favor.

You see nothing wrong with that?

It's not difficult at all to rack up thousands of the same vote from the same machine in a very short time period.

does a bogus poll sponsored by the Clinton Super PAC On the Record?

Pretty much the same - one involves the potential for gaming the poll with chosen individuals and the other involves the potential for gaming the poll with moneyed interests.

you just made.

Someone points to a online poll to prove global science doesn't exist VS pointing to a study commissioned by an environmental group to prove it does exist. They're both dubious but to declare they're the same is gross false equivalence.

because the methodology was flawed in the commissioned poll. One of your fellow Clinton supporters, a statistical analyst, has already fully and thoroughly debunked it. Therefore, we are indeed comparing apples to apples - two unscientific polls that prove nothing in reality except what one chooses to believe.

Both are unscientific, skewed, and therefore invalid.

You can put your fingers in your ears and go 'na na na na' all you want but it won't change reality.

with the fingers in the ears and na na na'ing!

How old are you exactly?

How old are YOU exactly.

Oldest enough to know that you belong on an Ignore list instead of attempting to engage with on these forums.

ignore list = fingers in ears.

Sanders supporters freep then quote every online poll. therefore, you have nothing to show - except apparently joining DU this afternoon to continue this discussion.

You don't have the numbers you don't have anything. And remember IP addressed can be very telling...

over again is fake. Why do you suppose none of these internet sites ever publish these polls as scientific data?

I was not able to vote my estimated 60 times per hour for Clinton because we were driving back from a family visit and had to listen in the car.

So I only bothered to vote 3 times in one poll and got bored.

But do enjoy yourselves! clickety click click

As long as it tells you what you want to hear, enjoy!

I consider them worthless.

...Sanders' goal is not to get votes; he has to get votes FROM CLINTON. She's above 55% so he has to peel away a fair number from her. If you're a Clinton supporter who became disenchanted with her performance, you MIGHT decided to shift to Sanders (or maybe give him consideration) but you won't rush out after the Debate to find an online poll to vote in.

Nobody disputes that Sanders' supporters are enthusiastic. The problem is that there aren't enough of them.

Everyone (including you) knows that clickety-clickety supporters and automated scripts don't translate into a proportional number of votes.

But, in fairness, I do understand how the results of unreliable and easily manipulated online polls can be a great comfort to Bernie's fans. I feel for you, I really do. It can't be easy for anyone's supporters to remain optimistic in the face of such odds. Week after week, poll after poll, trendline after trendline, endorsement after endorsement ... ALL showing Hillary Clinton ahead ... all showing Bernie's stagnation (polls) and being behind (endorsements & delegates). Even if Bernie managed to get ALL of the undecided voters, and ALL of O'Malley's supporters, it STILL wouldn't be enough to overcome Hillary. That's got to be a bitter pill to swallow.

I'm eager to see the individual poll results (from respectable polling organizations) and the overall trends (from multiple poll results). I know that I'll be pleased, and I'll try not to gloat too much.

Increase click on a web site in order to increase advertising revenue.

Oh, and they are a colossal waste of time and effort.

know useless clickbait when they see it.

Online unscientific polling is useless. You can't include it in with scientific polls as they aren't the same.

...who remain totally untouched by polling or other means of measurement...

...how do you know if there are enough? And if they're registered? And if Sanders has a turnout mechanism to get them to the polls?

I'm sure you imagine that there will a transcendentally large political movement that makes itself known when voting starts and will fundamentally change politics in America. So did the Dean and Paul supporters.

... besides those currently committed to Hillary. These are the potential voters that Hillary will never be able to motivate to the polls (the real ones).

...in which case the polling results could be perfectly accurate.

I have no faith in any poll unless I can examine the questions, methodology, sample composition, etc.

Why do Sanders voters vote in online polls but Clinton supporters don't?

I do not think it is stuffing the ballot box alone because Clinton supporters have every option to do the same. Given there are more Clinton supporters and given we can assume they are enthusiastic they should be able to overwhelm online polls. But they don't.

I think the real thing that explains the difference is generational. Sanders attracts younger and more net savvy voters. Clinton attracts traditional and older voters. I think that explains the difference better than voting twice and thrice as oft lobbed.

...and by reality I mean the real world of turning out real voters. Clicking on internet polls accomplishes nothing and changes no minds. At best, it makes the "voter" feel good. So why bother?

(you weren't here in 2004, but there was a huge movement to vote in every internet poll after each Bush-Kerry debate. What impact did it have? None.)

As a point of reference, I'm a strong supporter of Clinton; I've maxed out to her campaign and am hosting staff at my house. And I don't vote in internet polls -- except last night when I voted for Clinton THREE times, having not seen the debate at all, to make a point about how meaningless they are.

I am pretty positive, though I have no scientific back up, that you have not converted one person to h's side.

...I convert people in the real world, not the blogosphere.

I didnt even vote online lol.

they are an image of reality.

The problem with the people who "clear cache/rinse/repeat" these polls is that they don't know how to gild a lily. They skew the data with the clumsy hands and wishful thinking skills of a preschooler. The inability to use a deft, quasi-believable touch makes the interference obvious and laughable--kind of like a North Korean election.

You keep on believing, though!

Like, not even the same class of thing. They tell you one thing: how many people were willing to click on a button at that moment. That information isn't so much "wrong" as "useless".

Scroll down, left side

http://www.wapt.com/

"Is $15 an hour a fair wage for fast-food workers?"
currently 15% yes, 85% no

Or should the results of this scientific poll be given more weight?

The poll results are not contradictory, though they may seem that way at first.

in the public mind.

Look, there is little doubt that Bernie scares the beejeebus out of these establishment pols and talking heads. I personally have little doubt there will be election tampering during the primary election too, and that the Ohio vote on mj reform was a but a convenient trial run of their capability in that regard. The establishment will pull out all the stops to defend and protect their way of life from a politician who would dare seek to end their near complete control over DC, and to restore fairness and honesty to our government.

I had a scale that told me I lost 5 pounds in 2 days. It was broken so I got rid of it. I didn't say I lost 5 pounds in 2 days even though I would have loved for that to be true.

Opt in online polls are the most accurate of polls, except for those of your friends on facebook.

When all those online polls show the Republican winning.

Self select online "polls" are worthless.

Landlines, previous primary voters, age selection criteria and on and on make the "scientific" polls just as suspect as internet polls.

We see it right here in DU, silly empty comments by posters who are essentially trolls.
You know them by the content and value of their posts and responses to the posts of others. When someone from this group responds to comments that lean strongly liberal it is generally a simple minded insult or meaningless topic moving statement.

lot of money on the accuracy of the results.

There are some internet polls that are scientific.

The issue is scientific vs. non-scientific polls.

Scientific polls provide useful information. They have a margin of error, and confidence levels, because there is scientific methodology to them, including (but not limited to) random selection of the pool of participants.

Another way to look at it is, if the methodology does not yield a margin of error figure, than in effect, the margin of error is the entire result.