MYSTERY: Why don't Hillary's supporters vote in internet polls???

[reformist2]

It appears they don't visit any of the websites I do. Did they even know there was a debate last night??? Do they even have access to the internet at all?

Or, maybe, just maybe, there aren't as many Hillary supporters out there as we are led to believe???

[hrmjustin]

1. Because they are meaningless so we don't bother.

[Cosmic Kitten]

7. Is that why her rallies are thin also?

IS it because showing up to rally
support for your candidate is
meaningless that she hasn't
had at least 10k show up at least once?

Camp Weather vane is keeping their
powder dry till election day?

And then and only then they will
unleash a torrent of feverish Hillionaires
to sweep her into office?

Is that what's happening.
Just laying low until in means something?

[hrmjustin]

10. No we don't get easily dazzled like others by huge rallies and we don't need to go to them

to be told what to think.

You?

[Cosmic Kitten]

15. So rallies are dazzling mind numbing spectacles?

No.
I think it's because Hillary's 'supporters'
can't be bothered to attend a populist
event like a public rally.

Hillionaires don't do rallies.
They do salons.

[hrmjustin]

18. You dazzling interlect is a shining example to us all.

By the way most of us don't have a pot to piss in so...

[Cosmic Kitten]

31. My interlect? I haz an interlect?

Cool, what is it?
Never mind, this isn't personal
so you don't worry about my interlect, K.

[hrmjustin]

33. .

[redstateblues]

83. I want one too!!

[hrmjustin]

94. Says you.

[sabrina 1]

149. And that's the problem. After decades of status quo, establishment candidates getting themselves

elected with promises to DO something about the millions of Americans who don't have a 'pot to piss in', the people are realizing that continuing to elect the same establishment politicians, most of THEM millionaires themselves, they will still not have a pot to piss in.

Hillary has had more opportunity to do something about this issue than most people will ever have. So why is the problem even worse after decades of the same people being elected with the same promises each time they are running for something?

Supporting the Welfare Reform Bill eg, how did work for people who were already struggling? We know how it worked and we know that those who warned against it were correct. Now even more people are even more in need.

[hrmjustin]

150. Vote for Sanders then.

[sabrina 1]

159. So no discussion, no commet. I don't need to be told who to vote for, I know who will work

the people.

[hrmjustin]

163. You don't want Hillary, I do. You want Sanders, I don't.

You see the worst in her, I don't.


There really is nothing to discuss. Everytime you say anything to me you give me a lecture about how horrible hillary is and I don't want to hear it.

Tell it to someone else.

[frylock]

170. Dazzling retort!

[hrmjustin]

171. It's a talent.

[sibelian]

197. This is not like you.

I hope you're not going the way of the rest of them.

[George II]

157. Clinton was in the Senate for 8 years, Sanders in Congress/Senate for 25 years.

"Hillary has had more opportunity to do something about this issue than most people will ever have."

What has Sanders done?

[sabrina 1]

162. Yes, she was. What did she accomplish? Her record is unimpressive, didn't get much done. Sanders

has one the best records for getting done of anyone in this race. Excellent record. And he has the support of many of those for whom he used his time as an elected official, in Congress and the Senate, to prove it!

We'll have a hard time replacing him when he wins the election. That's only downside to him winning.

[George II]

165. Sorry, she accomplished more in her 8 years than Sanders did in his 25 years.

"Sanders has one the best records for getting done of anyone in this race". Please elaborate, thanks.

[m-lekktor]

37. "Hillionaires don't do rallies, they do salons."

that was good. lol

[George II]

118. It was sexist and offensive.

[senz]

121. Do you even know what a salon is?

[George II]

124. Do you know what a "Hillionaire" is?

[artislife]

127. Well Staten Island who posts here

has informed us on who they are, why they donate to their candidate and what they bother themselves with.

So yeah, I think anyone who has read here for awhile as had an up close relationship with a Hillionaire. I am sure a certain pundit is hoping to join the club.

Oh...very interested in the Canadian election. I posted an OP in the GD. There are just so many easy ways to vote and the fact that you are in prison serving on a felonious crime doesn't deter your ability to vote is frankly, awesome.

Can't wait to see if Harper is indeed out.

[senz]

133. What a non sequitur.

Rise above the name-calling level, George II. I offered you a chance to learn about salons. There is nothing "sexist" about the term as used by the commenter; she obviously was not referring to hair salons. Salons are gatherings of intellectually gifted (or wannabe) individuals in fine homes for stimulating conversation. They were instrumental to the beginnings of the French Revolution.

What's so exciting to you about the silly phrase, "Hillionaire?" Hmm...was it you who alerted on Cosmic Kitten for that triviality?

[George II]

158. "Rise above the name-calling level, George II"?

This is what I said in the post you're responding to:

Do you know what a "Hillionaire" is?

Where's the "name-calling" you're referring to? If you're upset with "name-calling" I suggest you address m-lekktor, not me.

[AgingAmerican]

203. Her bankster backers?

Her corporate backers?

[JackInGreen]

227. Lookin at one Georgie

Lookin at one

[progressoid]

219. How is it sexist?

[Adrahil]

82. Oddest. Post. Ever.

I now want a "Hillionaire" bumper sticker.

I haven't attended a rally since I was in High School.

[frylock]

172. Do you even bedazzle, bro?

[uponit7771]

21. Sigh, The smart thing would be to focus on delegates and not....................................size

[Cosmic Kitten]

36. Yeah delegates...K, how much do they cost?

I guess they cost a lot and that's
why Hillary needs so much money
to convince people to vote for her

[uponit7771]

38. Yeah, evil Hillary is buying everyone in DC et al because everyone except Sanders is corrupt

... even though Sanders said Hillary was no corrupt but working in the system she has.

[Cosmic Kitten]

79. Proximity to power

Who wants to be on a Clinton 'enemies list'

[George II]

129. "Proximity to power"? Sanders has been in Washington since 1989, Clinton didn't get there...

...until 1993 and hasn't been there for four years.

Who's the "insider"?

[AgingAmerican]

210. So a first lady/SOS isn't an insider?

But a guy who has been an independent for almost 50 years is an insider?

[George II]

212. Once again, Sanders was elected in 1988 and has been serving in Congress/Senate since 1989...

...participating directly in votes for/against legislation for 25 years.

Clinton didn't arrive in Washington until three years after him and then for eight years as an "observer" (First Lady), and wasn't an active participant as an elected official (equal to Sanders) until nine years later, 2001.

Legislatively speaking, Sanders got a 12 year head start on her on being a Congressional insider.

[AgingAmerican]

214. Sanders is a political outsider

And always has been. Clinton is the consummate insider.

Your 'definition' of what a political insider is only exists in your head.

[George II]

217. Sanders has partipated in the Democratic Caucus (in each house) for 25 years, Clinton for...

...a mere 8 years. That's the way it is.

Thanks.

[AgingAmerican]

220. So the consumate outsider is an insider, cuz he was in Washington more calendar days?

You obviously have no clue what a 'political insider' is.

More twisting and turning in the wind.

[senz]

141. Yes. The Clintons scare their fellow political types.

Those who have experienced their famous vindictiveness are particularly wary.

[George II]

182. You should do some reading about Sanders in Vermont if you want to see "vindictiveness".

[reformist2]

42. Especially those superdelegates, who don't even have to campaign to go to the convention!

[reformist2]

57. I love that Hillary supporters are claiming they don't "do" rallies. LOL!

[cprise]

66. Its rich

Like they expect a serving of democracy with their burgers and fries.

[frylock]

173. It's utterly beneath them..

have you even seen some of the people that attend these events? I wouldn't let one of them anywhere near my Bentley.

[AgingAmerican]

204. They don't do rallies or online polls lol

[workinclasszero]

65. Massive Colorado Rally for Romney/Ryan!

Yup rallies really count, ask President Rmoney, his rallies dwarf Bernies.


Oh wait....

[JTFrog]

98. How juvenile.

Neener neener boo boo.

The continuous use of grade school name calling speaks volumes about you, not the candidates or their supporters.

[Cosmic Kitten]

99. Personal attack?

Talk about juvenile

[JTFrog]

102. Oh please.

Pointing out that the continuous use of name calling is juvenile is a personal attack?

If that's your thinking, it's no wonder you post the way you do. You go up and down the threads name calling and making shitty comments about a Democratic candidate and their supporters and you want to talk about personal attacks?

I guess Bizzaro world has indeed officially become DU's norm.

[George II]

131. Except for her announcement "rally" she hasn't really had a full-blown rally. She's been....

...spending her time speaking to people (not AT them) trying to find out how they feel about the issues.

She doesn't fly into a city, get whisked to an arena and talk at 10,000 people, sneak out the back door and do it in another city a few hours later.

Where was Sanders at the union rally on Monday?

[Cosmic Kitten]

168. No rally because no turnout. it's that simple

She can't even pack a town hall.

[George II]

181. How many rallies have been called off because of no turnout?

[Cosmic Kitten]

184. With 200 advisers I'm sure they didn't count chicken before they hatched

Her campaign is phony as can be.
They no they have no real enthusiasm.

Why would they embarrass themselves...
like they did at her campaign kickoff lol

[AgingAmerican]

205. That's because she can't get enough people to attend

[George II]

207. I don't think that's the case at all. She had no problem attracting crowds in 2008, but this still.

....is very early in the campaign.

Wait until January when the crunch starts.

[AgingAmerican]

208. Her support has been ebbing since May

She has no momentum. That's why she cannot draw a crowd IMHO. Back in June they were bragging about her 'record breaking' rally crowds. Now they claim rallies are 'talking at' people.

[George II]

215. Both she and her opponents (except for Biden) have had no momentum, only minimal....

....change in polls. But, her numbers have been slightly higher in many and Sanders' have been slightly lower.

I don't recall seeing anyone bragging about record breaking crowds.

[AgingAmerican]

218. She was at 80% in May

You don't recall because you didn't click the link.

[George II]

166. She doesn't conduct her rallies "online". "Online" is the point of this OP, not rallies.

[Bread and Circus]

135. So says the person posting on the internet.

[hrmjustin]

140. Well if you actually read my post I never said the internet is meaningless.

[Bread and Circus]

151. You can't have it both ways.

[hrmjustin]

153. Let us try this again.

I don't think internet polls are good because almost all of them are not scientific. That does not mran I think thd internet is meaningless.

[Bread and Circus]

154. yes let's try this again... I call Bullshit

You can't honestly or logically say the internet polls are meaningless. They do mean something. Do they mean Bernie won the debate (as if that's a measureable thing in this case)? Absolutely not. But they do have some meaning even if all it means is that those who watched the debate on the internet most likely overwhelmingly liked Bernie's showing at the debate. That may not statistically translate to those who only watch it on TV but it is still something to take pause.

There is a huge gap here and unless the system was hacked or there was widespread multiple voting then a whole lot of internet dwellers reallly liked Bernie.

Where you and other Hillary Hacks are hypocritical here o on DU an internet forum board is to act as if somehow the internet is this meaningless thing that for some reason you can't seem to stop posting on.

[hrmjustin]

155. I am a Hillary Hack?

[George II]

156. Yes, internet polls do "mean something". They mean the entity conducting them is getting paid...

....and the more clicks they get the more they get paid.

Beyond that? Little or no meaning whatsoever.

[aspirant]

169. OH,

and the lame phone pollsters get paid by the corrupt MSM.

[AgingAmerican]

216. If she was ahead in them you would be gloating

[oasis]

164. I guess we'll all find out how meaningless they are on 3/2

Super Tuesday+ 1.

[AgingAmerican]

211. Except when it disagrees with you

But then this is the internet, so your own opinion is moot according to you. Cuz, you know, Hillary! and stuff.

[hrmjustin]

238. That did not make any sense so...

[AgingAmerican]

209. They feverishly vote as many times as possible

But try as they might, Sanders has all the momentum.

[Cosmic Kitten]

2. Non-entities don't vote

And it's not as easy to buy
online poll votes as it is to buy
'Likes' and tweeter followers.

[Adrahil]

86. Ask Mittens how all his online "poll" victories helped him.

Self-select online "polls" are fucking meaningless.

[Cosmic Kitten]

90. So Bernie is now Mittens?

Actually, Hillary reeks more of
an entitled 1%er than Bernie.

You know, it's her turn, 'cause
she's an 'outsider', what's more
'outsider' than a multi-millionaire girl
who's' been part of the Establishment for
over 20 years

[Adrahil]

106. Nope. But online "polls" are JUST as useless now as they were then

That has nothing to do with 1%er status, or whatever.

[Hortensis]

148. Exactly. "...online "polls" are JUST as useless now as they were then."

[frylock]

177. As opposed to opinions from pundits that the vast majority of Clinton supporters despised..

up until last night?

[frylock]

175. How many online "poll" victories did Romney have?

[artislife]

128. Myanmar re(pre)sents that post. nt

[George II]

242. Obviously Sanders' organizers weren't concerned about buying votes, but they were concerned about...

....doing this:

[justiceischeap]

3. Maybe they're busy working to get her elected? nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

12. Busy after watching a debate?

To busy to click teh interwebz
while sitting around watching teevee
and facebooking?

Or is that called 'campaiging' over
in Camp Weather Vane?

[Le Taz Hot]

27. Really?

I've been to and held at least a dozen event for Sanders in all different kinds of venues and you know what I haven't seen? Hillary supporters tabling, flyers, or registering voters. Not one time. The first Bernie event was held on July 29 and it's now the middle of October, almost 3 months later. If there were so many "busy working to get her elected" then where the hell are they?

[madokie]

44. All I hear in this part of the country is,

I don't trust Hillary and won't vote for her no matter what.

I hear that a lot

our Bought and Paid for Press wants Hillary to win and if that wasn't obvious before last night it sure is now.

[Le Taz Hot]

48. They're sitting on national poll numbers,

front-loaded super delegates, a Democratic Party Machine 100% behind her, and piles and piles of corporate money. They still think she's a lock and that they don't have to do any campaigning, just wait for the nomination to be handed to her. The Kerry campaign did EXACTLY the same thing and the sucker managed to lose to the worst. president. ever. This time we have a candidate that CAN win the nomination but only with overwhelming support and feet on the ground. And that's exactly what's happening.

[madokie]

55. Yes

and my feet are firmly planted.
Bernie will be our next President
It will be because of what he says that does it too, not how much money he raised, rather how many people he turns out. The thing is the people who will vote for Bernie aren't going to vote for a 'CON congress critter either.
A political revolution is in the works, we're living it right now. Last night showed us all we need to see on that front.

[AgingAmerican]

213. Note: where are teh 'scientific polls' that we keep hearing about?

Why are they not releasing them?

If they keep this charade up it will become like Watergate and make the Democratic brand look stupid.

But, hey, Hillary! and all.

[Fumesucker]

4. Only Bernie supporters are wealthy enough to afford an internet connection

[sufrommich]

5. Because they're meaningless and dumb.

Ask any Ron Paul supporter how based in reality they are.

[darkangel218]

9. Can I quote you next time

When someone says that Hillary is winning in the "polls"??

Pretty please?

[sufrommich]

11. If it's an online click bait poll,feel free to quote me

all you want.

[Cosmic Kitten]

17. As opposed to a poll of 500 people...

lonely enough to respond to a telephone survey

[sufrommich]

24. Science is hard. nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

28. Not as hard as the heads of "true believers"

[mythology]

59. How are you any different than the Romney people on unskewthepolls.com?

Just because you don't like science doesn't mean it's not true. I'm sorry if you don't like that, but it makes you look really silly.

[Cosmic Kitten]

87. I don't like science? NO, just don't care for twisted statistics

[darkangel218]

30. Apparently so

Lmao!!

[darkangel218]

26. +1!

Go Bernie!!!

[darkangel218]

23. "Click bait" polls

[tammywammy]

70. Do you not understand the difference between

Online polls and statistical based polling?

[darkangel218]

73. Oh, I understand it plenty.

Sorry you are not happy with the results

[tammywammy]

80. Have you ever taken a statistics class?

I don't give a hoot about who's winning unscientific meaningless internet polls. I'm neither happy or upset with the results, because the results are meaningless. If the political process was won on Internet polling we'd have had President Ron Paul.

[darkangel218]

88. It's fine if you don't care, many others do.

Have a great day!

[tammywammy]

92. Anyone that puts a lot of stock into online polling

Other than a passing amusement is chasing fools gold. These self-selecting online polls are meaningless.

[aspirant]

176. Prove your phone polls

bring us a list of respondents names and contact #'s so we can verify and replicate their polls. We want to insure a respondent isn't counted multiple times. If you can't and come back with a "trust us" response then these phone polls are equally meaningless.

I'm waiting

[Bread and Circus]

137. but posting on DU isn't?

Give me a break.

[frylock]

178. Is the 2 million in donations to Sanders since last night also meaningless and dumb?

[AgingAmerican]

222. They don't count because 'teh interwebs'.

nt

[AgingAmerican]

221. If she was ahead in them, you would be bragging about it

But because he slaughters her in them, they are 'meaningless and dumb'. See how that works?

[darkangel218]

6. Bwahahahahahahahahaha!

I go with the latter!

[Nye Bevan]

8. I absolutely concede that Hillary is a huge underdog

in the portion of the population that is enthusiastic about voting in internet polls.

[frylock]

225. or the portion of the population that is going to rallies, or making donations.

[Etraker]

13. A very good question.

In this day and age thinking people go to the internet to see what others thought of something like the debate because they can not count on the corporate media to present an accurate account of what happened. While I am convinced that Bernie supporters are the most mentally astute, I feel that there are a lot of Clinton supporters who do know how to use a computer, so yes it is a good question.

[OilemFirchen]

100. Wow, that sucks.

In my "day and age" thinking people made up their own minds, independent of the opinions of strangers.

I bow to the "astute" Sanders supporters for this unfortunate paradigm shift.

[frylock]

180. Tell that to your ever-evolving candidate.

[OilemFirchen]

186. I am on record as utterly disinterested in the individual candidates.

Granted, I came to that decision on my own, so I guess I'm just not thinking.

Sorry to disappoint.

[frylock]

188. I was programmed by Communists to love Bernie Sanders.

[OilemFirchen]

189. That's so hip!

I was programmed by my parents to enjoy kugel.

[DCBob]

14. Vast majority of interpoll participants are young white male..

Bernie's best demographic.

[elehhhhna]

45. Lol no.

[madokie]

61. Exactly

I'm an old bastid and I love the man. His message is why that's so. Its not because of all the money coming in but rather its where what little that does comes from.
Its a big plus to me that the Press isn't carrying any water for him either. He's genuine, solid as a rock and as sensible as an old person can be.

President Sanders has a good sound to it too.

[AgingAmerican]

230. The excuses become more and more ludacris

It's fascinating to watch. It seems every Hillary supporter has a different excuse as to why she is getting her ass handed to her in every poll.

"We don't vote in those kinds of polls" is a pretty laughable excuse. Everyone knows they would vote in them a hundred times if they could.

[Fred Sanders]

16. Hillary supporters are not scientists, but they understand statistical science.

So for them there is no mystery, it is just science, or lack of.

Debate judges would have to give this one to Clinton in a walkover.

[Cosmic Kitten]

25. Really? Do tell us of this vast knowledge of statistics

THey comprehend MoE, probabilities,
statistical significance, sampling,
refusal rates, poll construction etc etc etc...

If they did they wouldn't use any
political poll as evidence of anything
meaningful unless the sample size
was in the 10's of thousands, not 1000 people.

[Fred Sanders]

34. Statistical science and random sampling have a long history of development....google it!

What do scientists say about Internet surveys and "polling"?

But are you not entertained?

[Cosmic Kitten]

72. You realize phone surveys are not random samples?

Simple random sampling is the basic sampling technique where we select a group of subjects (a sample) for study from a larger group (a population). Each individual is chosen entirely by chance and each member of the population has an equal chance of being included in the sample.

The chance of being selected versus
the probability of participation makes this
less random and more a hybrid of random
and self-selected sampling

In statistics, self-selection bias arises in any situation in which individuals select themselves into a group, causing a biased sample with nonprobability sampling.

Only those predisposed to complete
will participate which inevitably injects
a self-selection bias.

In other words phone based polling represents
a tiny fraction of voters who are lonely enough
or zealous enough to tell an anonymous pollster
their opinions.

Lastly the refusal rates underscore the bias
represented in the self-selection factor

The refusal rate is the proportion of all potentially eligible sample cases that declined the request to be interviewed. Before calculating the refusal rate, researchers must make some decisions about how to handle the types of nonresponse in the calculation.

Currently, the refusal rates are roughly 9:1 to 10:1...
9 out of 10 people refusing to participate
hurt the argument that it's not a self-selected
sample drawn from a narrow 'random" sample
of registered or likely voters.

So the 'random sample' of 1000 voters
is drawn from roughly 9000 to 10,000 people.

But of course, Hillionairs already know this...
being savvy to statistic methods and all

[Godhumor]

60. Sure, I actually am a statistical analyst and you're dead wrong

And clearly need a class on statistics to explain meaningful sample sizes, how to set up population parameters, what kind of biases to avoid and interpretation of data.

Actually, maybe we can just start with the difference between an online poll and a real poll and work our way forward from that basic level.

[Cosmic Kitten]

74. Enlighten us, why don't Hillionairs participate online?

[Godhumor]

89. You're asking the wrong question

The right question is does it matter at all if someone participated or not. The answer is no.

[Cosmic Kitten]

91. The OP askes why Hillionairs don't participate online

That is THE question.

[Godhumor]

95. Good for the OP. I'm addressing the lack of statistical understanding in your subthread

And the answer is still, it doesn't matter who participates.

[Cosmic Kitten]

97. OK, lay the truth on us professor

[Godhumor]

104. There is a massive difference between an online click to vote poll

Last edited Wed Oct 14, 2015, 11:33 AM - Edit history (1)

And it has everything to do with scientific rigor. It is the reason that online polls like at Time put in the disclaimer that the poll is unscientific. It is the reason that online polls don't have a margin of error, because there is no population to measure it against.

All an online poll does is show how the people who decided to vote in an online poll voted. It is literally impossible to make any conclusions beyond that.

[jeff47]

112. And that last paragraph doesn't apply to phone polls because....?

All an online poll does is show how the people who decided to vote in an online poll voted. It is literally impossible to make any conclusions beyond that.

And a telephone poll shows how the people who decided to vote in a telephone poll voted.

Additionally, we recently "crossed the line" where a majority of households no longer have a landline. Which means you can't robo-dial a majority of households. Legally, the pollster has to type in the number by hand, greatly slowing down polling.

So we're now getting things like a recent PPP poll that was 80% landline, 20% online. That landine part is no longer representative of the overall population. And the landline part still has a self-selection bias - caller ID means lots of people no longer bother picking up for numbers they do not recognize.

Long story short, we're going to have to change how we do polling, because the results are going to get less and less accurate as time goes on.

[Godhumor]

122. Because of the way sampling and populations work

Randomized sampling is combined with parameters of the population being tested to produce results that are within a margin of error for that population.

Online polling is literally a widget anyone can click that is not tied to any population at all. Real polling involves pollsters randomizing the sample via contacting potential respondents. Online polling involved respondents going to a site on their own and responding.

There are no controls, no attempts to make meaningful conclusions, no attempts to establish the population being vetted and no true randomization. At all. It is why there is no MoE that can be calculated.

Pollsters are adjusting to the difference in communication modes of today, but their work is still miles, hell light years, beyond anything that can be gleaned from an online poll.

[jeff47]

123. You are no longer including the majority of the population.

Polls that bother with cell phones are relatively uncommon, for example. And for those who still have a landline, not answering numbers you don't recognize on caller ID means pollsters miss a lot of landline customers.

Online polling is literally a widget anyone can click

Nope. Some online polling is. Some online polling is done via emails sent by "real" pollsters, in an attempt to get some of the population they can no longer reach via telephone.

Polling is going to have to radically change to be useful, and we're still figuring out how to do that.

[Godhumor]

125. Most real polls get up to about 40% cellphone these days

And I didn't think I needed to differentiate between the online polls we're talking about today and the internet polls used by polling companies.

[jeff47]

126. The vast majority get well below 40%.

The PPP poll that was posted over and over again last week was 80% landline, 20% online, 0% cell phone.

[Cosmic Kitten]

113. Scientific rigor is meaningless in the face of BIAS

Refusal rates, demographics,
time of day calling, zipcodes,
etc etc etc all inject bias.

Poll results don't include that information
so how can anyone consider a poll
scientifically rigorous if fundamental information
about the sample is withheld?

Oh, science is sometimes FRAUDULENT!

http://nymag.com/scienceofus/2015/05/how-a-grad-student-uncovered-a-huge-fraud.html

Last week, Broockman, along with his friend and fellow UC Berkeley graduate student Josh Kalla and Yale University political scientist Peter Aronow, released an explosive 27-page report recounting many “irregularities” in LaCour and Green’s paper. “Irregularities” is diplomatic phrasing; what the trio found was that there’s no evidence LaCour ever actually collaborated with uSamp, the survey firm he claimed to have worked with to produce his data, and that he most likely didn’t commission any surveys whatsoever. Instead, he took a preexisting dataset, pawned it off as his own, and faked the persuasion “effects” of the canvassing. It’s the sort of brazen data fraud you just don’t see that often, especially in a journal like Science. Green quickly fired off an email to the journal asking for a retraction; Science granted that wish yesterday, albeit without LaCour’s consent. And while there’s no word out of central New Jersey just yet, there’s a good chance, once the legal dust settles, that Princeton University will figure out a way to rescind the job offer it extended to LaCour, who was supposed to start in July. (Princeton offered no comment other than an emailed statement: “We will review all available information and determine the next steps.”) LaCour, for his part, has lawyered up and isn’t talking to the media, although he was caught attempting to cover up faked elements of his curriculum vitae earlier this week. His website claims that he will “supply a definitive response” by the end of the day today.

But even before Broockman, Kalla, and Aronow published their report, LaCour’s results were so impressive that, on their face, they didn’t make sense. Jon Krosnick, a Stanford social psychologist who focuses on attitude change and also works on issues of scientific transparency, says that he hadn’t heard about the study until he was contacted by a "This American Life" producer who described the results to him over the phone. “Gee,” he replied, “that's very surprising and doesn't fit with a huge literature of evidence. It doesn't sound plausible to me.” A few clicks later, Krosnick had pulled up the paper on his computer. “Ah,” he told the producer, “I see Don Green is an author. I trust him completely, so I'm no longer doubtful.” (Some people I spoke to about this case argued that Green, whose name is, after all, on the paper, had failed in his supervisory role. I emailed him to ask whether he thought this was a fair assessment. “Entirely fair,” he responded. “I am deeply embarrassed that I did not suspect and discover the fabrication of the survey data and grateful to the team of researchers who brought it to my attention.” He declined to comment further for this story.)

Krosnick is no outlier. Over and over again, throughout the scientific community and the media, LaCour’s impossible-seeming results were treated as truth, in part because of the weight Green’s name carried, and in part, frankly, because people — researchers, journalists, activists — wanted to believe them. There was a snowball effect here: The more the study’s impact and influence grew, the greater the incentive to buy into the excitement.

http://stanford.edu/~dbroock/broockman_kalla_aronow_lg_irregularities.pdf

[Godhumor]

119. There is a lack of understanding on how polling works

And how samples are used to derive conclusions for the projected population.

Suffice to say, polls can be wrong but that means they can be right. Online polls can't be either. And that is the heart of the difference.

[AgingAmerican]

226. Please explain why he wins in EVERY one?

Most by 3x, 4x, 5x her numbers?

I would say we are seeing a trend here, no?

[senz]

108. Results of your Jury Service

On Wed Oct 14, 2015, 07:32 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

The OP askes why Hillionairs don't participate online
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=678834

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

The OP says nothing about "Hillionairs". Enough with this name calling. Leave that to Trump.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Oct 14, 2015, 07:39 AM, and the Jury voted 2-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Why was this alerted on?
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: We shouldn't be insulting people simply because they support a different Democratic candidate for president.
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #4 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: I voted to leave it alone.
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Hillionairs, Bernistas, who cares? Nothing personal, nothing hurtful or disruptive in that.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

[Cosmic Kitten]

114. I haz bin alert stalked!

Enough with the alert stalkz!!!

Thanks for the results,
sincerely, a Bernista

[senz]

120. LOL!

But do be careful; they are relentless.

[JTFrog]

105. Why are you all about the name calling and ridiculous attacks?

On Wed Oct 14, 2015, 07:19 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Enlighten us, why don't Hillionairs participate online?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1251&pid=678730

REASON FOR ALERT

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate.

ALERTER'S COMMENTS

"Hillonairs"? Enough with the childish insults. Does this person really believe only millionaires support Clinton? After watching the debate, I'm proud to see our candidates make a mockery of the other side. This kind of name calling is Trumpish.

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Wed Oct 14, 2015, 07:27 AM, and the Jury voted 3-4 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: Yes this post is childish, but let other DUers take it on - they can make a much better argument against childish insults than by hiding this.
Juror #2 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: No explanation given
Juror #3 voted to HIDE IT
Explanation: Just stop with the name calling of Democratic candidate and their supporters... Can't wait for general election season when this sort of nonsense will get you banned.
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: If this does get hidden hopefully Cosmic Kitten will take the time to learn about polling, sampling, size, etc. instead of hurling sophomoric insults.
Juror #7 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE
Explanation: No explanation given

[OilemFirchen]

109. Discussing "real" vs. "online" is akin to arguing evolution vs. "Intelligent Design".

Both conversations are, of course, meaningless as they would presume that both "sides" have equal merit.

It begs the question: Why do creationists dominate the Internet, while evolutionists sit on their asses and refuse to participate?

[leftynyc]

68. Aren't you embarrassed in the slightest

to be using the same ridiculous argument Romney and that unskewed polls imbecile used in 2012 - especially when those "skewed" polls - for the most part - turned out to be the most reliable? Polls are either scientific or they aren't. Internet polls aren't. Any poll you can vote more than one time on is worthless.

[Cosmic Kitten]

76. Scientific doesn't equal acurate

[leftynyc]

84. Are you claiming

that internet polls, where you can vote more than once by merely deleting cookies, are accurate? And I asked you a question - Romney and fox used that unskewed polls guy to claim all the polls are worthless, oversampled Democrats, etc. And they got their teeth kicked in. And here you are using the same arguments yet you aren't embarrassed by that. I would be.

[Cosmic Kitten]

96. Nice straw man you got there

I don't favor ANY polling
other than VOTES.

This horse racing, polling, is bullchip.

Polling serves as a tool to manipulate
public perception, THE END.

Having worked in polling I know
it's all about satisfying the client...
making sure they have results to campaign on.

[leftynyc]

195. No strawman at all

We ALL watched that unskewed polls imbecile get laughed off DU but now you want to use the same argument he did. I would be embarrassed. That you're not is entirely your problem.

[AgingAmerican]

232. Every poll says the same thing

Everyone of them. The trend is undeniable. Do the math.

[leftynyc]

235. No - maybe internet polls

are saying the same thing. So are all the SCIENTIFIC polls that show Hillary with mostly double digit leads nationally. Feel free to believe the polls that you can vote dozens of times on. Matters not to me at all.

[AgingAmerican]

228. Every internet poll has him slaughtering her

Every single one. EVERY one.

So you see no pattern here? Every poll is 'worthless'? If she was ahead in them, would you still call them 'worthless'? I think not.

[leftynyc]

234. All INTERNET polls are worthless

You know how I know that? John Kerry wasn't elected President. And yes, I don't care who was ahead in a worthless internet poll, they would still be useless, worthless polls. I couldn't care less if you believe that or not. You believe in internet polls so you must already have a very rich fantasy life.

[AgingAmerican]

223. If she was ahead in these polls, you would be shouting from the rooftops

But because he slaughters her in every one of them, you feel you must marginalize them.

[JaneyVee]

19. Internet polls!

[Marr]

20. They do, of course. They just aren't as numerous as the media claimed. /nt

[portlander23]

22. Vast left-wing conspiracy against her

[riversedge]

29. ha ha. You need to admit those push Internet polls are meaningless. But

you can live in your bubble if you want.

[reformist2]

52. But how come she never wins ANY internet poll? Is the enthusiasm gap THAT bad???

[darkangel218]

32. It's still early,

They are probably busy trading stocks. Let's wait till the stock market closes

[redstateblues]

35. I voted for Kerry on every internet poll I could find

he won all of them if I remember correctly. It didn't matter. It doesn't matter now

[madokie]

50. Actually Kerry

won, just the machines and 'CONs didn't recognize that

[Florencenj2point0]

39. because we have better things to do that freep polls all night long

we are adults with lives and responsibilities. We know those polls are meaningless. We also know there are many more of us than you and have no need to prove it. So, there you have it. See you are Hillary's inauguration, I'll bring the smelling salts for when you get the vapors.

[Zorra]

47. lol

[frylock]

187. Very Serious People doing Very Serious things.

Sorry to take up your valuable time, but how many online polls could you have participated in during the time it took you to explain to all of us slackers that you lead a very important life?

[Zorra]

40. I think you may be on to something. nt

[ismnotwasm]

41. Maybe

It will remain a mystery to you until it, well, until it isn't.
Why?--out of curiosity..

[OKNancy]

43. I don't vote in them because they are stupid

and unscientific. I also see all over the net a big push by Sanders supporters to vote in them. So I think, "why bother".

So, if you think online polls are important or a predictor of support, go for it.
And if you think, as I read here, that Sanders is winning in all 50 states then go ahead and believe it just as you believe online polling.

[reformist2]

46. So Hillary supporters just naturally resist the urge to click?? Whereas Bernie supporters can't help

themselves??

It really is a strange phenomenon. I mean, I get there's an enthusiasm gap, but not even feeling enthusiastic enough to click? Wow.

[OKNancy]

51. That isn't the meaning of my post at all

I saw on twitter a massive push for Sanders supporters to vote in those polls. I didn't see the same effort from the Hillary crowd. So, obviously Hillary people know it's ridiculous and meaningless.

[cprise]

62. I can just see them po-faced near their screens, Resisting... Urge...

To... Click...

But they're right: Its not scientific, because:

1. Hillary's supporters likely get most of their news from TV and don't care much for augmenting that with Internet sources (hence, no poll pages handy)

2. Hillary's supporters are sleepwalking and barely aware that debates are happening at all.

The downside is her supporters are less informed, and less likely to GOTV in the general election. We saw what establishment-friendly candidates did to Congress in 2014 -- they Republican-ized it.

[leftynyc]

75. What a ridiculous bunch of crap

So because we wont waste our time on bullshit internet polls (which Kerry won every single time), that means WE'RE less informed? That means we didn't watch the debates? Is that how you're comforting yourself? I still remember making fun of that unskewed polls imbecile that Romney and fox news was relying on and here are Democrats - those who laughed right along with me - trying the same bullshit argument. Personally, I'd be embarrassed but whatever.

[cprise]

107. Who is "we"? What makes you so different?

There is some difference, and I think I came much closer to describing it than any of the Clintonistas have.

I wouldn't be so adamant if the effect wasn't corroborated by search and social media metrics

...and focus groups

...and the parallels to Obama 2008

...and the way Fiorina's Internet surge translated into higher polls


The corporate culture bubble has departed from reality to such a degree that it can only coo in admiration when their anointed candidate spouts lies. They crave a convincing liar. The mega-media wonks say Clinton scored "because she said this and looked great" and tosses the idea out the window that the public is detecting an abusive bullshit artist. "Well she answered the weathervane question, didn't she??" The corporate wonks respond positively to her style of duplicity because that's what passes for merit in their environment. And I find it immensely satisfying that I'm arguing this point with a Clinton supporter; It demonstrates the oligarch-apologist mindset.

[leftynyc]

194. The "we" would be those

who watched that imbecile unskewed polls dude get laughed off DU and anywhere else that said the polls weren't REALLY scientific and weren't REALLY telling everyone the truth. Now we have people right here trying to say the same stupid thing. As soon as you started in on the corporate culture bubble, I stopped reading and rolled my eyes. Hillary is winning every single national poll and you still want to claim that Bernie is beating her....and he is in states like IA or NH but really, take a reality pill. How many delegates or electoral votes are in either of those states? I will vote for whoever has the D after their name because the alternative is reprehensible but this unmitigated bullshit that the polls are skewed is such unbelievable nonsense, proven in 2012, I'm surprised you aren't embarrassed to use it.

[cprise]

198. Sorry, neither the self-selecting nor the freeping arguments

go very far. One would have to ask why Bernie supporters aren't freeping polls on other politicians or issues. There is spontaneous link sharing out of enthusiasm, yes. But no sign as yet that progressives have amassed teams to systematically skew polls.

I'll even concede that website polls are the least accurate form of polling. But given the circumstances this time, I think they support the overall trend.

Most importantly, this crop of web polls does not exist in a vacuum because there are other kinds of data points that demonstrate the relatively high level of interest in Bernie Sanders.

You want "scientific" polling. But its well known that calling people has become problematic, with a heavy bias towards land lines and a response rate that has dropped from 80% in the 1970s to 8% in 2014. That's not credible.

Furthermore, you want the polling to be done by a non-Republican. So would I and I'm sure we'll see some after future debates, but I also recognize that would probably not gain much for Hillary. The best that she can hope for is a poll done after most people have been exposed to all the headlines from establishment journalists.

[leftynyc]

200. What circumstances

and what overall trend do you see internet polls being accurate on? Do you have any evidence for that? Scientific polls from as recently as 2014 were VERY accurate so I have no idea why you think they've fallen out of favor - especially if you follow a Nate Silver or any of those that average many polls. I think internet polls are nothing but complete bullshit but I look forward to your evidence that I'm wrong.

[cprise]

201. You're entitled to obsess over Internet polls and ignore the other indicators. eom

[leftynyc]

202. And those indicators would be

what? Retweets? I'm not the one pretending and posting the results of internet polls as if they mean anything so it's hardly me that's obsessing.

[AgingAmerican]

233. So every poll is being gamed for Sanders?

Every one? lol

[leftynyc]

236. How many times are

you going to ask me the same stupid question? You make no distinction between internet polls - where people can vote dozens of time and scientific polls where methodology is always given. To me, that's fucking insane but feel free to believe whatever you wish. It doesn't matter to me at all. I'm sure you can cry on the shoulder of the unskewed polls guy who was sure Romney was going to win. The best I can do is promise not to laugh at you the way I laughed at him.

[AgingAmerican]

237. And every focus group too

The trend is pretty obvious, though I don't expect much admission of such from her supporters.

[leftynyc]

239. LOL

Let me know when focus groups are considered scientific. Until then, enjoy your rich fantasy life. I'm leaving for a 2 week vacation.

[Bobbie Jo]

56. The keyboard warriors were out in full force

I understand that much of it was coordinated.

Just like when they descended upon BLM en masse.

[Cosmic Kitten]

115. Keyboard warriors, lol

Coordinated like those from
the "other site" coordinate

[haikugal]

241. Descended on BLM in coordinated attacks?!

OMG....

[AgingAmerican]

224. She can't win an internet poll

It's that simple. And it isn't because her supporters 'don't bother' clicking on them. It's because all the excitement and momentum is behind Sanders.

[riversedge]

49. We already know that Hillary won.....

@MarkHalperin grades last night's Dem debate

[Capt. Obvious]

53. Because they've been chased off and banned from the internet

[Zing Zing Zingbah]

54. I think a lot of people don't have time to hunt down every internet poll out there.

I would participate in one if it was on a page I was already looking at, but not going to go out of my way to find them. It might be true that they don't visit the same websites you do. There are also people out there that don't spend much time at all on the internet.

[Reter]

58. Ron Paul always won every internet poll too

He had a loyal group of supporters, but didn't do that well in the primaries.

[Freddie Stubbs]

63. 'Long Shot' Kucinich Buries Democratic Rivals in Nationwide Poll Among Independent Voters

WASHINGTON, Dec. 21 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- Democratic Presidential
Candidate Dennis Kucinich, who has been the runaway winner in polls of the
Party's progressive, grassroots base in recent weeks, scored another huge
win yesterday by capturing almost 77% of the vote in a nationwide poll
sponsored by a coalition of Independent voting groups across the country.

Of the more than 80,000 votes cast for Democratic candidates at
http://www.independentprimary.com by self-described independent voters, the
Ohio Congressman received 61,477, burying second place finisher, former
Senator John Edwards, who received only 7,614 votes, or 9.5 percent.

Nationally, more than 40 percent of voters are not aligned with any
political party, and, in 29 states, including New Hampshire, "Independents"
have the option to select either the Republican or the Democratic ballot in
a Presidential primary. In Iowa, only Democrats can vote in the Jan. 3
Democratic caucuses, and the total turnout there is expected to be less
than 10% of the eligible voters statewide (Washington Post).

This is the latest in a string of exceptionally strong finishes by
Kucinich in national on-line polls. Last month, he topped all other
candidates in 47 of 50 states in a poll sponsored by Democracy for America
(DFA), in which he received almost 32% of the 150,000-plus votes cast --
more than Edwards and Senator Barack Obama combined. In that poll, Kucinich
won both Iowa and New Hampshire. In a survey by the 90,000-member
Progressive Democrats of America, Kucinich took 41% of the vote nationwide.
And, in a poll conducted by the progressive The Nation magazine, he won
with 35% of the vote. Obama came in second with 24%, and Edwards was third
with 13%.

more: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/long-shot-kucinich-buries-democratic-rivals-in-nationwide-poll-among-independent-voters-58856037.html

[redstateblues]

81. Dennis who?

Great post

[workinclasszero]

192. Those internet polls worked out good for

President Kucinich eh?

[Adrahil]

64. Because they are fucking useless. A waste of time, IMO.

I can point to tons of so-called "online polls" that showed Mitt Romney winning in a landslide.

[redstateblues]

69. You don't suppose the freepers vote for Bernie

en masse

[Adrahil]

78. Maybe, but that wasn't my point.

I think Sanders is an insurgent candidate very popular with activists. I think his supporters are very enthusiastic. The Hillary supporters I know tend not to be the "hair on fire" types. Not that I don't admire a little hair on fire. It's just not me, really.

[leftynyc]

67. OR

maybe we don't waste our time with internet, non-scientific polls. Why bother?

[workinclasszero]

71. Its sooo easy to surf the internet and click a button

a hundred times for your favorite politician, movie star, singer, band, etc. People do it all the time.

Its a little harder to attend a political rally but its fun to gather with a group of people that all want the same thing.

However...

Its a real drag to get up at the crack of dawn before work, which you cannot miss of course, to stand in line for a very long time in many places to vote. Or to get off work, drained by the day,then have to pick up kids/take them somewhere/go to the grocery store/prepare a meal, etc...and then go down to stand in a long line to vote.

And that is the only poll that counts.

And many of the people that have no problems punching a button on a internet poll or going to a rally will never take their butt down to a precinct voting booth to do the one thing that actually counts.

Most people in this country have never in their life voted for real, but they all get on the internet and vote LOL

[reformist2]

103. So Hillary's supporters are busy working, whereas Bernie's surf the internet all day? LOL

[AgingAmerican]

231. Unless you support Hillary

In which case it's impossible to vote in a poll. Cuz her supporters are experts in statistics and such, so they just resist, even though they are legion!

[tammywammy]

77. Online polls are meaningless

I'm undecided. I rarely vote in online polls, including ones that aren't political based. They're unscientific meaningless crap.

[dsc]

85. I can't answer for everyone

but the debate ended at 11pm. I wake up at 5am and am 47 you do the math.

[workinclasszero]

101. I love internet BS polls for the opposition

Its makes the people voting hundreds of times for their candidate way overconfident that they are winning.

And then on election day they come up with excuses to not go down to the precinct and vote the only time that really counts because we are sooo far ahead, my vote don't matter. Ill just kick back on the couch and vote 100 times for Bernie! Yeah that's the ticket!

So keep on inflating those bogus internet polls Bernie fans!

[senz]

110. I don't think Hillary supporters identify with "the masses."

Neither does Hillary, so it makes sense.

[demwing]

138. but the "people" are revolting!

[senz]

142. lol, thanks, I love it!

[lunamagica]

111. Because it is a waste of time.

ETA:

I remember when I was a teenager how much I cared for these polls (they were about music and things like that).

Looking back, I see how meaningless and man, WHAT. A. WASTE. OF TIME

[Cosmic Kitten]

117. As much a waste of time as typing "it's a waste of time"???

[lunamagica]

146. See reply 145

[demwing]

132. As opposed to arguing politics in an online forum?

[lunamagica]

145. I'm glad my reply was so funny to you. Arguing in an online forum is not a waste of time to me,

because I enjoy it and I want to do it.

Online polls...yawn

[brooklynite]

116. I'm a Hillary supporter; I know the internet exists; I don't vote in online "polls"

But if it makes you happy, knock yourself out.

[artislife]

130. It is strange

The sample voting we have here on DU by the H supporters show that they are very willing to rec (which is just like clicking on a poll question) on the internet on this site. Why is this site so special?

[NobodyHere]

134. As a Bernie supporter

I am embarrassed by the replies in this thread.

[demwing]

139. As a Bernie supporter

...wait, I'm not sure whom you're referring to. Whom are you referring to?

[NobodyHere]

143. I'm referring to the people who think online polls are on par with scientific polls

Not to mention anyone who has to insult someone because they like a certain candidate.

[demwing]

144. Then as a Bernie supporter

your concern is noted

[LexVegas]

136. Many of us minorities just don't do that. Most of us like Hillary, though. nt

[Beacool]

147. Because we don't particularly give a hoot about internet polls.

We watched the debate, knew already that Hillary would do well because she's always been a good debater and we'll work hard to get her elected. The rest is just background noise.

[kelliekat44]

152. We vote when it really counts. nt

[aspirant]

185. Like in 2014 mid terms?

[WillyT]

161. They Believe That The Internet Is A Series Of Tubes ???

What do I win ?

[Blus4u]

240. No Willy - you lost

You would have won, if you stayed out of this one.


Peace

[Metric System]

167. I honestly haven't voted in one online poll since the debate last night and I am an enthusiastic and

engaged Hillary supporter. Why? I have better things to do. I know these polls are meaningless. I used to obsessively vote and worry about online polls related to one of my favorite singers, until one day I realized how ridiculous it is. People can vote multiple times from countries all over the world.

[Motown_Johnny]

174. Maybe they are afraid the NSA is watching their online responses. n/t

[JoePhilly]

179. To confuse you.

[workinclasszero]

183. I'd tell you but...

(its a conspiracy!!@1!!)

[BainsBane]

190. Perhaps because they are out registering voters

rather than sitting online pretending the election is won or lost by clicks and complaining that the DNC isn't doing the organizing for their campaign?

I didn't vote in a single internet poll, but I will vote. I can guarantee you that.

By all means, if it makes you happy, click away to your hearts content. Win the internet if that's what you care about.

[onehandle]

191. Ah. A panic thread.

Nice.

[workinclasszero]

206. Bernie fans are in a panic all over this board

since Hillary won the debate, crushed their dreams of Joe entering the race to split voters between the two so Bernie might have a realistic shot at the nomination.

Plus all the real scientific polls that show Hillary still ahead of Bernie, far ahead in the south, must be driving them off the deep end.

[Babel_17]

193. Broad support, but how solid?

Who else besides President Obama have rank and file Democrats had to look to for the last ten years? John Edwards till he flamed out ... but nobody else readily comes to mind. Biden was trimmed early from the field last time and is only now getting traction.

So who the heck does a solid Democratic voter have as a reliable go to choice when asked? Ummm, Clinton? For many that might be their answer because Sanders (or O'Malley) has spent diddly on ads over the last decade. Only now is his name getting recognized and people who answer a poll hopefully want to know a lot about someone before choosing them as their Presidential pick.

Giuliani was nearly a lock at one time, due in part to his near universal name recognition.

[AgingAmerican]

196. They do

nt

[Sunlei]

199. Because internet polls are easy to GAME

They are a waste of time for more realistic persons.

[Tarc]

229. I never take part in polls

I don't really see them as terribly important.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

243. Hillary supporters usually flood online polls

[NurseJackie]

244. I never see any. Perhaps I'm just not paying attention. Or …

… I'm not visiting the right websites. Or, my ad-blocker thinks its an ad and it's never displayed. Or, none of my other Hillary supporting friends send me email alerts with links to the latest online poll.

Personally, I think that Hillary's supporters are confident enough (and sophisticated enough) that we don't need the false assurances of online polls. Other than for sheer entertainment value, I don't get why people take them so seriously.

[winter is coming]

245. Jitterbug doesn't have a smart phone? n/t