I know the DU is only a petri dish in the big picture but

[retrowire]

Last edited Tue Dec 15, 2015, 11:03 PM - Edit history (3)

if Hillary has so many supporters, where the hell are they?

I know that everyone says online polling is "unscientific" but its much more accessible than phone polls and Bernie always wins those. Where are the Hillary votes?

I know that everyone seems to think that rallies mean nothing when it comes to voters but... If Hillary is so inevitable, where are her rally numbers?

I'm just saying, all these polls would lead one to believe that the passion for Hillary is in landslide mode.

But everywhere I look, there are only blips. Poll results here and there. The few groups of volunteers.

I just don't see it. It really fits the narrative of information and media control in her favor. Because the media is the only thing telling me that she's winning.

Just about every other source I look into is for Bernie.

*shrugs*

UPDATE: Just wanted to add that I expected a few Hillary supporters to say that they're too busy to do online polls and such. It's 2015, we can multitask. we can volunteer for our candidates and be bothered to vote online.

And I bet Bernie will get that important DfA endorsement this Tuesday.

And another thing!! Why does Republican online activity match their pundit polls, while our online activity does not? Something is fishy. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251901232

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. hahahahaha....a Clinton Supporter Nontroversy!

Landlines!!!!

[Hortensis]

99. Sure. After all, mainstream voters typically chat with friends

and acquaintance around them. Most don't need to go on line to find people who agree with them.

[UglyGreed]

2. They are too busy

to bother, on the other hand all Bernie has is clickity clickers

[Cal33]

5. I think soon after the elections are over, you pro-Hillary guys won't be seen on DU again

for a long time -- maybe until the next election? In the meantime, you are trying to create
as much trouble as you can. And you're not succeeding too well.

[jeff47]

9. There are an awful lot of accounts that were idle between 2008 and now. (nt)

[upaloopa]

11. What election is that?

It you mean the primary you can bet your ass we will be here.

[UglyGreed]

44. Good to hear!!!

Enough of the third way new democrats!!! Maybe the Pro-Hillary crowd will change their minds and support liberal progressives like Bernie for a change. Thirty years of leaning right of center must come to an end.

[Bubzer]

46. +1

[40RatRod]

62. Childish

[peacebird]

152. +1

[reformist2]

115. Yes, too busy not putting on bumper stickers, not Tweeting, not talking on Facebook...

...the enthusiasm for Hillary is underwhelming!

I for one question the integrity of a lot of these polling outfits, especially the ones who have Hillary up by 25 nationally.

[UglyGreed]

126. Maybe her greatness

just makes them swoon and unable to function......

[senz]

128. Think about it: what is there to be enthusiastic about?

What does she stand for? What is there about her that makes her in any way wonderful? She comes across smug and entitled with a huge power hunger and evidences very little concern for anyone else.

How could anyone get excited about that?

Her connections with others are based on money, power, and favors.

Not terribly inspiring.

[retrowire]

147. it doesnt match up!

it matches for everyone else BUT HILLARY.

I really don't get it.

[sufrommich]

3. The vast,vast majority of voters don't do any

of those things and it's a lopsided primary that most Hillary supporters believe she's going to win without much effort from them.

[upaloopa]

15. Here is your "not much effort"

Hillary for America
Headquarters: 1 Pierrepont Plaza in Brooklyn Heights, NY, occupying two floors of the building.


(page updated December 12, 2015)


FIELD | POLITICAL | POLICY | COMMUNICATIONS | RESEARCH | DIGITAL | ANALYTICS | PAID MEDIA | SCHED. & ADVANCE | FINANCE | MARKETING | CAO, COO and CFO | COMPLIANCE | COUNSEL | MORE IN THE STATES: IA | NH | NV | SC | MORE



OVERVIEW: Although Hillary Clinton announced on April 12, work at assembling the campaign team had been going on quietly in the background for months under the leadership of Robby Mook. Thus the campaign started off as a very sizable operation, exceeding staff of all the Republican campaigns and pre-campaigns combined. ..

[sufrommich]

20. I think most Hillary voters think she'll win the primary.

The awesome campaign team she's put together will pivot to the General sometime after New Hampshire,in my opinion.

[VanillaRhapsody]

114. Of fucking course they do....as anyone

With common sense can plainly see.....that Sanders HAS to wrestle away Hillary's support.....and she is doing a fine job of not letting him do that...

Who is left that hasnt made up their minds? Certainly not nearly enough to save Sanders....Which is WHY she has 94% odds now.

Do you always bet on the football team with less than a 6% chance of winning....

If the Doctor says you have 6% chance of surviving this Cancer.....do you blow him off or do you get your affairs in order?

[wilsonbooks]

130. Paid operatives.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/01/politics/hillary-clinton-campaign-money-burn-rate/

[peacebird]

153. Exactly. She has WallStreet, Bernie has Main street. There arr more voters than bankers!

[RoccoR5955]

155. Certainly that copy and paste wasn't much effort at all! n/t

[upaloopa]

158. It was no effort at all

You have a problem with us trying to defeat the repubs?

[RoccoR5955]

159. Clinton cannot defeat the RepubliCONs

Too many independent and Conservative voters will NEVER EVER vote for her.
Independents are nearly one third of the electorate.
Independents do not like people who have changed views. They want consistency. A lot of Clinton's proposals are opposite what she wa for in the past. Not so for Bernie.
So if you REALLY want to defeat the RepubliCONs, you want Bernie.

[upaloopa]

160. It is pretty presumptuous of you to think you can speak

for all independents.

[RoccoR5955]

161. I know and work with MANY of them.

I am one of two registered Democrats in my office of 100 people. I think I know a few of them.

[upaloopa]

162. I am married to one.

[HassleCat]

4. Why that is

Sanders supporters tip toward the more zealous end of things. We (Sandernistas) tend to be people who have been involved in politics for a long time, or have observed politics with intense interest. Those characteristics are shared by Clinton supporters who appear here on DU, but probably don't reach into the general Clinton ranks the same way we see among Sanders voters. In other words, Clinton has more people who will vote for her without knowing much about her, while Sanders relies on a closer familiarity with his supporters. So the polls and the corporate media are probably correct when they designate Clinton as the inevitable Democratic nominee.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

6. Polls are always to be taken with a grain of salt,

or maybe a barrel of it. I do recall that in the last presidential election the GOPers insisted the polls were all strongly in their favor until election night, when poor, sad Karl Rove couldn't believe that Mittens just got his ass handed to him. The media flog the polls over and over, leading people to believe something is happening that might not be. If the polls all seem to be in favor of one candidate, that candidate's supporters might be inclined to relax and assume it's in the bag - when it really isn't. Maybe because the polls aren't polling the people with no landlines, or who didn't vote in the last election, or whatever. Best to just ignore the polls and the media and work our butts off for Bernie. That's how elections are won.

[demmiblue]

7. Grass roots types like Senator Sanders. They view him as the real deal.

They are more passionate and excited by the hope for change. Hence, they are more outspoken.

Establishment types (as well as older, low-info voters*) like Secretary Clinton. Deep in their hearts, they know that she isn't all that, so they are less enthused.

* Please note, there are exceptions to this rule.

[upaloopa]

8. I don't get the love of on line polls by

Bernie folks. They are meaningless because they are not a statistical sample of the population. If you know that you don't bother with them.

Hillary has a different campaign strategy then Bernie. She doesn't do mass rallies and her strategy is paying off.

You want to base reality on anecdotes.

It seems to me that you may be suffering from cognitive dissonance.

[sufrommich]

16. I suspect Bernie's mass rallies have stopped because

they know their ability to attract large numbers of people has ebbed considerably.

[retrowire]

38. it's actually because he's stopped hosting them

notice he's been doing town halls lately?

[sufrommich]

41. Why did he stop hosting them? nt

[Kentonio]

56. Because no matter how popular you are, you can't pull crowds that size non-stop

He'll start them up again before the primaries and his supporters will be fresh and energized to attend. It's called conserving your energy for when you need it most.

[Ned_Devine]

60. Bingo!

[retrowire]

59. it's believed to be apart of his budget strategy. nt

[Fawke Em]

19. They aren't meaningless.

They show momentum and enthusiasm. Most people under the age of 45 get their news online far more often than their older counterparts.

[tecelote]

52. Agreed.

Even compared to eight years ago, the online community was not close to what it is today.

Hillary takes landlines.
Bernie takes the internet.

Bernie will win.

Americans will win.

[Bubzer]

40. The difference between online polls and statistical sample is this:

Statistical sampling is an educated guess with a margin of error.
Online polls are a concrete snapshot result of those participating.

The first is intended to be a projection of the country... but is easily manipulated to provide desirable results.
Also, they rely on an interpreter, or middle man, to provide that result.

The second only represents those who're participating... but is significantly harder to fabricate.
Results are tabulated in real time and require no intermediary.

Online polls are relevant because they specifically poll those who're actively interested in the topic.
So when the overwhelming majority of viewers for a democratic debate say Bernie won, those are likely voters saying that. That is why online polls are meaningful.

[hack89]

61. Online polls are very easy to manipulate

with social media how hard is it to get a bunch of people to vote? If one side does it and the other side does not, how does that tell you anything meaningful?

[Bubzer]

64. Well, if one side votes and the otherside does not, it non-voters as not being energized.

That translates directly to probable votes.

[hack89]

68. No

many are like me. I am active in local politics and I am an enthusiastic HRC supporter. But I have no yard signs or bumper stickers, nor do I do online polls. By your logic, I am not a likely voter yet I live and die politics and vote religiously.

[Bubzer]

71. Your argument is a non sequiter...I didn't say that all likly voters participated in the online vote

I did say all participants are likely voters

[hack89]

73. But not voting in on line polls says nothing about voter enthusiasm either. nt

[Bubzer]

75. You're wrong about that. Enthusiasm breeds participation. There's a VERY strong connection there.

[hack89]

79. You would have to provide some studies on that

I know for a fact that old voters (a group I work a lot with) are enthusiastic voters with a very high voting rate. They are also a group that is hard to reach via the internet and social media - it is not how they view politics.


Here is a report from Pew Research Center on social media demographics.

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/the-demographics-of-social-media-users/

[Bubzer]

119. You still seem to be operating under your non sequiter... Try this;

Think of the last time you went and saw a really good movie/sports game event/etc.
Why did you go? I can guarantee it wasn't because you just hated it or that you were bored with that movie/game/etc.
You were likely excited about it on some level, and that increased your desire to want to go.

Bear in mind, I'm still talking about those who were involved with the online polls... not necessarily inclusive or exclusive of older voters.

I don't think I need a study to prove those who're involving themselves in online polls are likely to vote.

[hack89]

123. It is your conclusions about those that do not participate in online polls I question

you seem to think that the fact that Bernie gets more support on such polls is politically significant. I don't.

[Bubzer]

127. I understand. I disagree.

When even the older generation (65+) uses facebook by almost 50% and all other age group usage is dramatically higher from there? I think then, you can consider an online poll, such as the facebook poll for the first debate, to be significant.
Thanks for that link by the way. Its a good one.

Fully 72% of online American adults use Facebook

http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/08/19/the-demographics-of-social-media-users/

[upaloopa]

81. You have never studied statistics

A scientific poll is not an educated guess.

Online polls are bull shit because they are not a statistical sample.

But then that would burst your bubble if you ever admitted it.

You should research the polls in 2012 and what the repubs were saying. You'll find you are not original in your thinking.

[Bubzer]

106. Yes a scientific poll is an educated guess. Anyone claiming otherwise is selling somthing.

I didn't say online polls were a statistical sample. I did say they were made up of likely voters.
You really like putting words in my mouth for some reason. Stop it. I can speak for myself. Been doing it all my life, and I've gotten pretty good at it.

"You should research the polls in 2012 and what the repubs were saying" - I really don't care what the repubs thought back then. It may surprise you, but we're in 2015 now... not 2012.

[upaloopa]

107. I use to tutor statistics

You haven't clue

[Bubzer]

112. Bully for you! Statistical theory is a great field of study. But, your still wrong.

Lies, damned lies and statistics. That quote exists for a reason... and it's spot on.

Also, I don't buy your "My polls right and yours isn't" garbage.

[senz]

132. You "use" to?

Hope you never tutored English.

[Bubzer]

134. I wasn't going to say anything.

[senz]

138. I normally don't either

but the arrogance begged for it.

I will confess to reading these threads and working up a head of steam over the superciliousness and condescension of some. Generally speaking, these traits are not often found in Bernie supporters.

[Bubzer]

139. May it stay that way!

[RoccoR5955]

157. I was taught this in statistics class a long time ago.

There are lies, damn lies, and statistics.

[senz]

129. You don't know what people have and have not studied.

[passiveporcupine]

51. About those land-line polls

They are meaningless because they are not a statistical sample of the population.

This is what you guys don't get. Times are a changin'...more people are connecting via texting, cell phones, and on-line social groups. Fewer people are using land lines. You are stuck in the past and think what you are seeing is reality. It isn't.

[Phlem]

78. Give me a freaking break.

Hillary supporters use them all the time. This comment isn't even intellectually honest.

[redstateblues]

109. I clicked online for Kerry over a thousand times

Secretary Kerry

[RoccoR5955]

156. Not statistical samples...

I hope you know the old adage: There are lies, damn lies, and statistics!

[jeff47]

10. Stop with the critical thinking, citizen! She is winning and it is your duty to vote for her! (nt)

[hack89]

12. So the polling companies don't know what they are doing

and are unable to accurately assess the race because this year is off the charts different from any election ever seen before?

[Fawke Em]

21. Yes - since you asked.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/21/opinion/sunday/whats-the-matter-with-polling.html?_r=0

Election polling is in near crisis, and we pollsters know. Two trends are driving the increasing unreliability of election and other polling in the United States: the growth of cellphones and the decline in people willing to answer surveys. Coupled, they have made high-quality research much more expensive to do, so there is less of it. This has opened the door for less scientifically based, less well-tested techniques. To top it off, a perennial election polling problem, how to identify “likely voters,” has become even thornier.

In terms of speed, the growth of cellphones is like few innovations in our history. About 10 years ago, opinion researchers began taking seriously the threat that the advent of cellphones posed to our established practice of polling people by calling landline phone numbers generated at random. At that time, the National Health Interview Survey, a high-quality government survey conducted through in-home interviews, estimated that about 6 percent of the public used only cellphones. The N.H.I.S. estimate for the first half of 2014 found that this had grown to 43 percent, with another 17 percent “mostly” using cellphones. In other words, a landline-only sample conducted for the 2014 elections would miss about three-fifths of the American public, almost three times as many as it would have missed in 2008.

[hack89]

22. We will see

I suspect that they will figure it out - too much money involved.

[corkhead]

26. wow, I think that information is out of date.

I can't think of a single person I know that still uses their land line as their primary phone. The only reasons I still even have one is because it is required for me to get internet service and also as a telemarketer honeypot. I have an answering machine on it but I have the ringer turned off.

[JDPriestly]

67. We have a landline, but it is really Skype. And we screen calls automatically so that if the

caller does not identify himself by name, the phone hangs up after a couple of rings. If we didn't do that, we would have cruise offers ringing all the time -- or some other kind of offer of something we don't want.

[JDPriestly]

63. We screen all of our calls. If we don't know someone, the phone probably will not even ring

three times. That's because we are seniors and we get an incredible number of nuisance, scam calls.

So the phone polling may not be reaching a lot of people, the more technologically savvy (although I am hardly one of those, but my husband is a bit) people.

The technologically savvy people are answering internet polls and don't take calls from strangers.

That is why I think the polls are skewed. But I don't know.

[reformist2]

116. Given that the poll results vary by 10-15 points, I *would* say that a lot of them must be wrong!

If all these polls are claiming errors of +/-4%, but one has Hillary up by 24 and another has Hillary up by 8, someone's got to be wrong! I think supporters on both sides would have to agree.

[hack89]

125. That's why I go to 528 to get the lowdown on what polls are good ones. Nt

[firebrand80]

13. Her rallies were small compared to Obama's

of course she lost, but it turned out that had roughly an equal number of supporters. Obama had larger rallies because his campaign thrived off a different type of voter and a different type of energy. Bernie has tapped into some of that.

[wildeyed]

65. Obama ALSO had better poll numbers than Sanders.

And a diverse base of supporters.

[MineralMan]

14. Supporters of an underdog always have to be more active than

those for the leader. Most Hillary supporters will simply vote for her and that's it. They're not going to rallies or voting in online polls. They don't see the need to do that, nor do most of them have the time.

Most U.S. voters are in no way activists. They just show up and vote on election day. They don't have bumper stickers or yard signs, either. They just go to their polling place and cast their votes.

They sure as hell don't show up at precinct caucuses in Minnesota, but in Presidential election years, over 60% of them show up at their precinct's polling place.

DU is simply not representative in any way of voters in general. Not even close. DU is Confirmation-bias Central, really. The entire active membership of DU doesn't add up to 0.1% of Democratic voters. The entire active Democratic Internet discussion audience probably doesn't hit 3% of Democratic voters.

Voters are vastly misunderstood and underestimated. They'll decide for themselves, regardless of what hair-on-fire activists do. Most of them don't even know that such activists exist, frankly.

[Hekate]

17. Oh stop, you're talking reality and sense again.

[MineralMan]

18. I just can't help myself, for some reason.

I tried lighting my hair on fire, but it appears to be self-extinguishing.

Speaking of hair, I must go to the barber tomorrow. It's been four months, and we're visiting my parents over the holidays. They're 91, and the shock might be their end if they saw my beard and hair as it is today.

My barber will say, as he always does when I walk in the door, "I'm gonna charge you double this time." That's OK, because my tip ends up making what I give him double his usual rate anyhow.

[Nay]

28. Four months! You must look like a wild man!

[MineralMan]

32. On another website which I will not mention,

I am known as the Minnesota Moses. After my visit to the barber, I'll just look like an old hippy again. My parents are used to that look. In reality, in the early 70s, though, I had hair halfway down my back and a beard that reached my chest. I've tamed down since then somewhat.

[Chitown Kev]

25. Thank you, MM

[retrowire]

37. this is a good answer thank you. nt

[Number23]

53. "DU is Confirmation-bias Central"

Ain't that the truth. That's been obvious to me for years but the shrieking and screaming in joy when Cornell West joined the Sanders campaign really brought that home. Most of the black posters here were like "have you people that think this is a good thing lost your minds??" but as usual, we were shouted down.

DU is simply not representative in any way of voters in general. Not even close. DU is Confirmation-bias Central, really. The entire active membership of DU doesn't add up to 0.1% of Democratic voters. The entire active Democratic Internet discussion audience probably doesn't hit 3% of Democratic voters.

Great post.

[MineralMan]

54. Thanks very much for your comment!

[angrychair]

111. Your in the ballpark

But your post insinuates that people vote and that vote is actually representative of the people. When clearly most people don't vote and most people don't care.
Take my county for instance in the last election this past November:
Only 72% of the county population that are 18+ are registered voters

Only 36% of registered voters actually voted.

Meaning 22% of the total county population was the only voice for the county on some very serious issues that will impact their lives for several years to come.
As a side note, for the whole state, the numbers were almost the same: 73%, 38% and 22% respectively.
I would suspect that my county and state are not to many points of deviation from the norm.
Yes, this was an non-presidential election year but the things that impact a person's daily life are decided in off year elections.
Voters vote. No one else matters.
Not many people matter because most don't vote.

[MineralMan]

120. People vote or they do not.

Whose fault is it that some people don't vote? It is the fault of those people. They have given up their choice. Mobilize them!

[angrychair]

121. If only MM

I've been door knocking and phonebanking for almost 12 years as well as talking to co-workers, friends and family and even strangers in restaurants every now and then and most people just don't care, their vision stops at the end of their driveway, meaning I hear from people that know me, "I know it's your thing, your 'hobby', but I just don't care that much, they always figure it out, as long as I got a job tomorrow and a place to live, I don't sweat the small stuff." always boils down to something to that effect.

Over the years I've started to talk to people less and less about voting and politics. They just don't get it and don't care and nothing anyone says will make them.

Even if I don't agree with you at least I know you care and are tuned in and voting.
Cannot be any more plain, "if you don't vote, as far as a politician is concerned, you don't matter."

[MineralMan]

122. I still manage to register some new voters in

My precinct and convince a few others who said they wouldn't vote to go and vote. A few. I generally am at the polling place a lot on election day, and have seen some of them show up. However, for those who will not vote or don't care, I have only pity or contempt, depending on their reasons.

If someone can't be bothered to vote, I am not interested in their opinions about politics in any way.

GOTV! It makes a difference.

[angrychair]

124. I agree

Don't get me wrong I will still talk to people every now and then and I have talked people into registering to vote but since less than 40% of registered voters actually vote, on average, I have my doubts on their follow through.

Washington doesn't have polling stations so it's a little harder than it was in VA.

I'll keep trying and hope for the best. Good talk MM

[corkhead]

23. on my ignore list

Just kidding, sort of. I only use one during primary season (last in 2007-8) for the more lecherous sycophants. I release them all once the season is over and the funny thing is I never usually hear from or see them again until the next season starts again, hopefully in 7 or 8 years from now.

[Agschmid]

24. Rally #'s show a Bernie peak.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251887638

[Kentonio]

57. That only makes any sense if he was holding rallies and not filling them..

[NCTraveler]

27. I'm right here.

The two Clinton supporters in very close proximity to me wouldn't even think of blogging or doing anything interactive online like this. They do donate and coordinate online.

It is such a strange thought to me that some think if they aren't clicking facebook polls, or posting on a discussion board, then they don't exist. My nephew is just becoming politically active, is a Clinton supporter, and doesn't post politically on facebook or blog. Could be why he has time to do so many other activities.

[brooklynite]

29. I'd say your analogy is flawed...

...you can learn something from a petri dish.

[brooklynite]

30. Against, nobody has said "inevitable" or "landslide"

As for "where are her supporters"? Maybe the answer is, they're out doing campaigning, having learned that online polls and light displays and rally crowds are meaningless indicators that the majority of voters (including Bernie's) don't participate in.

[retrowire]

36. Hillary supporters can't multitask?

this is probably my favorite excuse. We're BUSY. yeah, we can volunteer and participate online simultaneously though. its 2015, so this excuse is bunk.

[brooklynite]

39. No, more the "this is a waste of time" idea...

[retrowire]

43. yep

because 0.8 seconds to select your candidate in a nationally viewed online poll takes forever.

Bernie is definitely getting the DfA endorsement this Thursday.

[brooklynite]

47. I see - "do something pointless; it'll only take a minute"

I think you'd agree that I'm enthusiastic about Clinton. I don't vote in online polls, and I don't have a sign in my yard.

[JaneyVee]

31. Working. Like I am right now.

[retrowire]

35. so Hillary supporters cant multitask?

because I'm at work too. and voting in online polls is a screen tap away.

this is probably my favorite excuse. We're BUSY. yeah, we can volunteer and participate online simultaneously though. its 2015, so this excuse is bunk.

[NanceGreggs]

133. HRC supporters NOT bothering with on-line polls ...

... is not a matter of "can't" - it's a matter of "why bother"?

I don't know why not bothering with a useless endeavour - which on-line polls are - is seen as some kind of inability to multi-task, or an incapacity to do so. Why should anyone need "an excuse" not to participate in something they find pointless?

Hundreds of thousands of people participate in on-line discussions about their favourite TV shows - MILLIONS of viewers of those same shows don't. It has nothing to do with interest or enthusiasm - it is simply a matter of not feeling any need to participate in on-line conversations about it.

It's rather silly, IMHO, to conclude that any "excuse" is needed to explain why one does not spend even a second of their time engaging in on-line activities that are utterly useless. And on-line political polls are as useless as it gets.

[MoonRiver]

33. Well time will tell won't it?

I'm not worried

[SCantiGOP]

34. Here's one

And I'm in the early primary state of SC (where Clinton has a 3:1 lead) and I will be a delegate to the State convention and possibly the national convention.

[wildeyed]

42. Confirmation bias?

The polls say she is winning. The endorsements say she is winning. Yes, the media too. What other sources are you looking at? You were here for Kerry, right? When we all said polls were wrong and landlines and youth vote and media bias? How did that work out for us? I learned from that.

I got tired of screamy Sanders supporters here a while back. I just stopped coming for months and months, even to lurk. Why argue, y'all know everything already? Doesn't mean I am not a strong supporter, just that I have a life. I don't particularly hate Sanders either, all though some of his True Believers wear on my nerves. To me primaries are not zero/sum.

[MineralMan]

48. DU is fun.

That is all. It's also enough to attract many people who want to talk about politics. It doesn't make much difference, but neither do we, really. We can chat about stuff here, though. That's fun.

[Gothmog]

49. DU does not reflect the Democratic Party or the real world

If DU reflected the real world demographically, then Dennis Kucinich and Howard Dean would have been the party's nominees

[Gothmog]

50. I just got off a lawyers for Hillary call

I am not sure why but somehow I was invited to a young lawyers call even though I am already signed up for the Victory Counsel program and have updated one memorandum for this group. They are recruiting lawyers and others to go to Iowa and New Hampshire.

A major part of the call was on the Hilraiser program which is very interesting. I have been to a bundler event and it was fun. There is a special program to help people raise money for the Hillary Clinton campaign and I know now why it was important for my contribution to go through the bundler's weblink.

It sounds like they are recruiting a number of people for Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina.

[brooklynite]

74. But that was a call with real people, actually engaged with the campaign

How could that possibly compare to an anonymous online poll?

[Gothmog]

76. I have already been working with people on the legal team

They are real and exist. I am tempted to go to Iowa on a trip that will be mainly lawyers. I went to Florida in 2004 for Kerry Edwards voter protection and we had over 100 out of state lawyers at one hotel. It was actually fun being around lawyers who were committed to protecting the vote.

[brooklynite]

80. My annoyance with things like this is that they usually insist that you BE a lawyer...

...even though if you're not a State resident, you have no rights to be in a voting site or challenge event; i.e. you're no better that a volunteer. I'm able to read Election Law (and served on the Kerry voting rights team in FL), but some campaigns want to be able to say "we sent 500 lawyers to XXXXX to protect voting".

[Gothmog]

82. Actually, I love non-lawyers and others to be poll watchers

In 2012 we had a ton of issues with the True the Vote assholes and I had forty or so poll watchers out keeping an eye on the True the Vote people. None of these poll watchers were lawyers. We had a couple True the Vote people get mad at my poll watchers and storm out when they were not allowed to try to intimidate voters. In case you missed it, I do not like the True the Vote idiots

I was in Florida for Kerry Edwards and while it was fun, it was not an efficient use of the time of these lawyers. I was not allowed into the polling site and had to communicate with the poll watcher who was inside of the polling place for my voting location.

There were some great people at this event and I have been asked to go back to Florida a couple times by the Florida lawyers who ran the program but I have decided that I can do more by running my county and regional voter protection efforts.

[giftedgirl77]

55. I have no desire to login with my facebook, twitter, or email

to do any silly ass online poll. I don't want to then get spammed by the asses conducting the polls after I provide them with that info. If they don't require any identifying information to take the poll then it's bullshit anyways because ppl can just take it over & over thus making it pointless anyways.

[Prism]

58. Everyone I know is a Sanders supporter

Granted, I live in the Bay Area, and it tends to be more liberal than most areas. But even my parents (retired working class union Dems) are all about Bernie.

And I don't proselytize. In person, politics rates somewhere around colonoscopy on the list of things I want to discuss. But everyone around me is all about Sanders and wants to talk about him.

And yet, these poll numbers . . .

There's just a mass of people out there who are only tangentially informed and engaged. Hillary Clinton is HILLARY CLINTON, and the 6 o'clock news only talks about her. I was glancing at a newscast just yesterday, and the theme was Hillary vs the Republicans. Bernie who? He may as well not exist. He does not exist in the mainstream media. This has an effect.

The media is very, very good about shaping American opinion.

The media wants Hillary. They know her. And I mean, they know her. They hobknob with her and go to the same parties and chill out together in Washington. They love talking about her, good or bad. She's it for the Democrats as far as they're concerned.

We don't live in a democracy strictly. We live in a Republic whose government is determined by whether or not the media gives a damn. Trump isn't at 41% on his own. He's at 41% because every fucking morning at the gym, this asshole's face is on four of the eight tv screens.

And then we all bewail, "Whhhhhhhhhy?" Why? Because we never hold the media accountable ever. That's why.

[redstateblues]

113. see post #110

[Prism]

117. No, I know

That's why I said, regardless of my personal experience, the polls are where they are. I'm not one of those who thinks the polls are wrong. I think they're more or less correct. And that's why I find my experiences baffling. But I understand the precedent, and the likelihood of things.

[MisterP]

66. they're saying the Sandersonians are too mean so they're all leaving DU

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1107

[stupidicus]

69. I've thought and argued that the 3rdway types

are the minority here and perhaps in the wider arena since the 2012 election at least.

WHat's particularly amusing, and has already been pointed out as well, is that at least in terms of DU the 3rdwayers have already conceded all that, but I have yet to read an explanation for it.

You'd think outta all places, this place should be under their firm control...

[Duval]

70. I hope he does get DFA's endorsement.

He got my vote.

[rtracey]

72. Here

I support Hillary, and I will support Bernie if he is nominated, unlike many in reverse order.....yes you know who you are. If you ask me why I support Hillary, I will not tell, simply because I was banned from a Bernie Sanders group/whatever/ because I expressed my opinions, but you asked where the supporters are and I am one here.

Polls are just very VERY small snippets of truth.

Trumps poll numbers are not true numbers... I will predict that many of the voters asked about Trump will not vote, but wanted to be part of the show.

I don't do polls simply because I do not believe them, especially exit polls. They are the worst crock of shit, I have seen.

The only numbers that count are the amount of voters getting out to vote and the final counted ballots.....

[taught_me_patience]

77. The Sanders progressive purity patrol

became pretty intolerable.

[senz]

135. Just like the Hillary moderate purity patrol.

Intolerable, indeed.

[Starry Messenger]

83. I work two jobs.

Teacher and union organizer. Keeps me busy. I donate monthly to my candidate, but the CA primary isn't until June.

[NCTraveler]

84. "But it's more accessible than phone polls."

Think about that for a moment.

[retrowire]

85. easy.

more people have access to the internet than those who are called by phone polls.

[NCTraveler]

86. A little deeper.

Numbers in the hundreds of millions is more than enough to draw statistical analysis.

[retrowire]

87. nope, that's as deep as it gets.

more people are able to vote in an online poll than there are people who are asked over a phone.

[Cali_Democrat]

89. LOL.....so that means what exactly?

[retrowire]

92. it means what it says LOL.

the internet is more accessible than landing on a call list and receiving a phone call.

-alternative sentence-

people are more capable of voting online then they are of receiving a phone call from a pollster.

LOOOOOLLLLL

[Cali_Democrat]

95. "the internet is more accessible than landing on a call list and receiving a phone call"

So what's your point?

[retrowire]

97. whooshed over your head apparently. nt

[Cali_Democrat]

98. You fail to understand the significance of a random sample.

That's your problem.

You seem to think that people voting in online polls, where it's possible to vote 100 times, is more statistically significant than a random sample.

[retrowire]

101. really?

Facebook polls require new email accounts.

the DfA requires your name, zip and email.

there are online polls that only take one vote per IP address

ANND

what's keeping Hillary supporters from doing the same thing Bernie supporters are capable of?

hmmmmmm....

[NCTraveler]

94. Then the problem seems to be your understanding of statistics.

I mean no offense by that. When the pool consists of a hundred plus million land lines and millions of cell phones it is beyond good enough.

Your pool consists of people around the world, people who can easily vote multiple times, people not only politically active, but politically active online, Sid Dithers, etc.

[retrowire]

96. annnd Hillary isn't getting the same kind of support because???

seriously. why not?

[NCTraveler]

100. Because many of her supporters aren't as...

Politically aggressive. I thought that was pretty obvious. Who do you think the occupy crew who actually camped out are overwhelmingly voting for? I can pretty confidently tell you it's Sanders. Clinton supporters were more likely the ones to show up with a sign for a day. I think those are general but fair statements.

Don't mistake that for enthusiasm. Though I would argue that Sanders supporters are more enthusiastic. It's often a staple of supporters of an under dog.

[retrowire]

102. this is true.

but what about the margins? Hillary isn't just passed in most online polls, she's left quite behind.

[NCTraveler]

103. See post 94. Nt

[retrowire]

104. See post 101. nt

[PowerToThePeople]

88. I suspect DFA will not release the numbers.

[retrowire]

90. well they'll still endorse the majority leader. nt

[PowerToThePeople]

91. Maybe.

And, only if a super-majority.

So they claim.

[retrowire]

93. yeah i noticed that. nt

[Attorney in Texas]

105. Clinton suffers from a huge enthusiasm gap. This might bite her in the ass in Iowa.

[retrowire]

108. I have warned Hillary supporters of complacency

But they told me they're far from complacent.

And then when I ask why they can't put forth the same effort as Bernie supporters in online polls that we ALL have access to, you know what they tell me?

That they're too complacent, and feel that online polls don't matter.

They may not matter. But I will always wonder, why can't you be as enthused for your candidate as we are for ours?

[redstateblues]

110. Crazy! Everyone I knew at the time enthusiastically voted for McGovern

and Nixon still won in a landslide-how was that possible?

[Attorney in Texas]

118. So the Democrats should have nominated Maggie Thatcher to run against Nixon?

[in_cog_ni_to]

131. It's nothing but

Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2015, 08:37 AM - Edit history (1)

A HILLARY FACADE! She's NOT ahead in the polls. The CORPORATE OWNED POLLS are bogus. The pollsters work for a CORPORATION. Corporations HATE BERNIE, but LOVE their Corporate Owned candidate and make damn sure THEIR POLLS keep their candidate in the lead. It's all bullshit.


Look at what CNN did after the first debate. Obviously, Bernie won, but they made sure their Corporate Owners saw them shilling for HRH. REMEMBER David Brock bought the PPP poll that had HRH ahead after debate #2. POLLS ARE BOGUS.

Not only do the Corporate Owners dictate poll outcomes, but we know, and pollsters admit, they cannot accurately poll because the MAJORITY in the country do NOT own/use landline phones.

Also, Hillary voters DO vote in online polls, but NO ONE SUPPORTS HER. That's why she NEVER WINS ONLINE POLLS.

HRH is NOT winning. It's all a huge facade for the masses, created by the CORRUPT CORPORATE OWNED MSM.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[retrowire]

137. And, I just noticed something huge....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251901232

Why do Republicans online voting activity match their pundit polls, but ours doesn't?

[senz]

136. The buzz all over the internet, Facebook, and Twitter is for Bernie, not Hillary.

Claims that this phenomenon is meaningless are simply not credible.

[retrowire]

140. And when Republican online polls match their pundit polls...

But ours DOESN'T.....

Doesn't that seem fishy?

[in_cog_ni_to]

142. Exactly. Bernie owns the Internet, SO

internet polls match that reality. Not scientific, my arse. HRH just doesn't have the support Bernie has and nowhere makes that more obvious than the internet and RALLIES.

PEACE
LOVE
BERNIE

[TIME TO PANIC]

141. K & R !

You must live in the real world.

[NurseJackie]

143. The similarities are because ...

... the republicans and Bernie are both underdogs. They need to be electronically active to rally support. Hillary's supporters and fans don't need to do that because the support is already present (as indicated by the professional and experienced and reputable pollsters.)

Bernie's fans are trying to catch up to what Hillary's fans have already achieved.

[retrowire]

144. but clearly republicans arent the underdogs

because their pundit polls reflect their online activity just fine.

trump is an outlier and yet he gets both pundit polls and online polls.

your comparison is bunk.

[NurseJackie]

145. Actually, the Republicans *are* the underdogs. Clearly.

but clearly republicans arent the underdogs

Hoo boy! They're the party NOT in the White House, and the strength of Hillary's campaign is one that's equivalent to being the incumbent.

Both they and Bernie are doing their best to rally and catch-up.

because their pundit polls reflect their online activity just fine.

Seriously?

trump is an outlier and yet he gets both pundit polls and online polls.

He gets what? (He has no chance against Hillary.)

your comparison is bunk.

As is your "rebuttal".

[retrowire]

146. oh boy

Trump is the outlier, so is Bernie.

Trump's online numbers reflect the pundit polls, Bernie's doesn't. That's fishy.

Bernie does better against Republicans than Hillary does. so I'm not sure where you got that confidence from regarding Hillary.

annnnnd 80% of our country thinks Obama is handling Isis incorrectly and think we should go to war. (not me)

you don't think the fear mongering, pro war war war Republicans have a chance? lol ok.

I'd be careful with that over confidence. it leads to complacency. Hillary is not sitting pretty.

after all, her online activity is the ONLY online activity that doesn't match up with pundit polls. hmmmm...

guess buying twitter followers doesn't really do the same as people who vote for you online.

[NurseJackie]

148. They're both longshot underdogs. Neither one will become president.

Bernie does better against Republicans than Hillary does. so I'm not sure where you got that confidence from regarding Hillary.

If he's not strong enough to win in the primary, then he's not strong enough to win the presidency. End of story.

I'd be careful with that over confidence. it leads to complacency.

"Thanks for your concern." (I think that's the appropriate response. )

My personal level of confidence has nothing to do with how Hillary and her staff runs her campaign. That probably explains why she's doing so well.

Hillary is not sitting pretty.

Hoo-boy!

Well, it's easy to understand why someone who puts so much value in online polls (and tweets and DU-likes, etc) would feel that way. After all, what else have they got? I can't blame them for trying to make the best of a dismal situation.

However, from a more thoughtful, unemotional, level-headed and realistic perspective, she's looking very strong to me.

[retrowire]

149. it explains why she's doing so well in pundit polls

but no where else.

[NurseJackie]

150. I guess you haven't seen all her union endorsements ...

... and political endorsements and this list is interesting too.

Oh yeah, that's right ... I forgot ... in Bernie land, endorsements aren't important and legitimate polls aren't important. Only Facebook "likes" and tweets and multi-click online polls (where even Canadians can participate) are the ones that matter.

Whatever helps ya make it through the day! I get it. Hang on to hope and all that jazz.

but no where else.

[retrowire]

151. endorsements aren't votes

and they aren't always pure either.

[NurseJackie]

154. Neither are online polls.

[MadDAsHell]

163. Because

Last edited Wed Dec 16, 2015, 06:20 PM - Edit history (1)

It's embarrassing that as a community we're actively and enthusiastically trying to make an unscientific poll more unscientific.

And they're not just unscientific, they're ridiculously wrong because they're so unrepresentative. Online polls told me not only would Kerry win in 2004, he would win in an absolutel landslide.

Post-debate polls are especially bad. There are far more of us sitting in Starbucks somewhere ready to vote after these debates than there are the aging demographic of the other side.

People's ability to click a button is MEANINGLESS. It's getting your ass in a voting booth that counts.

Note: I say this as a Bernie supporter.

edited for spelling

[retrowire]

164. it's not embarrassing

for an online community to GOTV. its exactly what we should do.

and really this op isn't about whether or not it's scientific, its about the odd discrepancy of the online republican activity matching their pundit data, while ours suspiciously enough, doesn't.

something doesn't correlate.

[bigwillq]

165. I know very few supporters of any of the DEM candidates, IRL

I know my IRL is even smaller of a petri dish than DU, but I know very few who are behind one candidate. Most are on the fence.

Most in my circle don't really like Hillary.
Most still haven't even heard of Bernie Sanders. They know "him" more from Larry David's portrayal on SNL.
And O'Malley? One friend who used to live in Baltimore knows about him. The rest have no idea.

My immediate circle of friends is not really politically active. They vote, but that's about it.
They think that politicians are all the same. I can't really say I disagree. They feel like regardless of who is the nominee or who becomes prez, that not much is going to change with our government. Again, can't say I disagree.

My immediate family (Mom, Dad, Sis) is leaning towards voting for Bernie. They've had enough of Hillary.

Most of other family seems to be voting for whatever REPUB wins. They said at Thanksgiving that they are sick of liberals and sick of Democrats. Interesting dinner. Thanks goodness I ate quick and had to go back to work.

From my experience, folks in my circles are sick of how the government is operating right now. They are sick of both parties but blame DEMs more since a DEM control the White House.

Cool stories, huh, bro?