I guess Bernie just won a useless online poll.

[retrowire]

The Democracy for America endorsement was awarded to him because of it.

Each voter had to give a name, email and zip code in order to vote.

He won with 88% of the vote.

That margin, and the info required before being able to vote, is a giant wave. Bernie has the majority.

Bravo Bernie!! FEEL THE BERN.

[VanillaRhapsody]

1. Not scientific...

that's the problem....there is no mechanism that prevents someone from voting multiple times...

[HerbChestnut]

4. Sure there was.

If you voted more than once only your most recent vote counted. And if you're thinking, "Well, anybody could have set up multiple email accounts," then I've got news for you. Of the people who were DFA members before the poll was conducted, 78% voted for Bernie.

[VanillaRhapsody]

5. do you know what a VPN is?

apparently you do not....I suggest you look that term up...its such an easy spoof there are whole Youtube videos to tell you how..

[HerbChestnut]

8. You had to provide...

your name, email, and something else that I don't remember. VPN or not, unless you made multiple email accounts there is no way to have rigged this poll, and I've already addressed that method.

[VanillaRhapsody]

10. do you have more than one email address?

is there anything stopping you from making multiple email accounts? You think no one does that? Script kiddies make hundreds of them...

Hell even the US army is doing this online now...

[HerbChestnut]

13. Maybe you didn't read my first response, but here it is again.

Of the people who were members of DFA *before the poll was conducted*, 78% voted for Bernie. 78...

[VanillaRhapsody]

14. Here is what you need to understand about online polling....easily spoofed

if its a webbased voting system, delete your cookie data and temp data, then refresh. if that doesn't work, google some web proxys such as hidemyass.com and get on the site via them and then try to vote again.
if its linked to a specific account, then you probably wont be able to exploit it unless you make multiple accounts.

http://www.d3scene.com/forum/wow-private-server-hacks/67059-how-can-i-vote-hack-unlimited-votes.html

Proxies...VPN's....so many hacks...

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080830163746AAVh84l

[HerbChestnut]

17. A couple things

First of all, we've already established how the voting worked. You had to provide personal information in order to vote so messing around with your IP address wouldn't have done anything.

Secondly, even if it were possible to do what you're suggesting in this poll (which it wasn't), do you really think that so many people would go out of their way to rig it? There were over 200,000 votes cast. That means that 1000 computer nerds would have had to vote 200 times a piece for Bernie to win. Get a grip VR.

Now I've got things to do so I'm not going to respond to your posts anymore. But I think it's been made pretty clear that Bernie won this poll outright, and your conspiracy theories of Bernie supporters rigging the polls are actually pretty sad. Have a good night.

Go watch Star Wars. That's what I'll be doing.

[highprincipleswork]

26. I see that "crickets" so far is the answer to this one.

[mindwalker_i]

32. This is kind of what I really don't like about conservatives

No matter what evidence you give them, they cling to their carefully crafted reality. In this case, there seems to be a deep need for "Hillary is winning," like that makes life not only bearable, but possible. So anything they say, about polls being scientific etc., is "motivated reasoning," and is completely untrustworthy.

[LynneSin]

244. BULLSHIT

Sorry, I find it insulting that just because someone doesn't agree with you that you have to label them as 'conservative' especially when they are another member here at the Democratic Underground.

NEWSFLASH

WE are all Democrats and if we do not band together after the primaries then we may end up with one of the GOP idiots as our president.

THIS is why I am still not aligning with any of the Democratic Candidates in the primaries (since Biden backed out). Because of petty bullshit like you just posted. Do you think if Bernie Sanders read that comment you just posted that he would think 'This is one of the better comments that my supporters made'. If anything Sanders has shown to be a class act that even he said he would be behind the Democratic Nominee after the primaries. And he would not call those who oppose him but who are supporters of the other candidates 'conservatives'.

I absolutely ADORE Bernie Sanders but I have a tough time dealing with his supporters when they post bullshit replies like what you just did.

And btw what that person was telling you was the absolute truth - it is just that easy to hack an online poll through VPN and IP manipulation. Bernie won a nice endorsement but anything that relies on online polling I hold suspect because they are that easy to manipulate.

[mindwalker_i]

247. I'm not speaking for Sanders, I'm speaking for myself

And the ensuing argument is bullshit! The person who made the claim that polls were hackable ignores that both sides could do it just as easily, claiming that Bernie won only because his side cheated. There is reason to believe it's not as easily hackable because names and addresses are required. How many people will spend a lot of time getting around that? How many more of Bernie's supporters than Hillary's supporters will do that? If Bernie's supporters do it more, does that mean they're more motivated? The "argument" put forth is bullshit, and no amount to other data or counter arguments make a difference to them.

That's motivated reasoning.

[LynneSin]

253. So that makes the poster a conservative and why your post was bullshit

But go ahead and keep arguing about the hacking. Shows you totally ignored what I called bullsh&t on in the first place!

[mindwalker_i]

273. I did not call the poster conservative

I pointed out a similarity between conservative ignoring evidence that run counter to their desired conclusion and what this poster did - ignored evidence or basic logic that ran counter to the conclusion that wanted. If you equate pointing out a similarity with "calling them a conservative," that's your choice and your problem.

[VanillaRhapsody]

52. I can do this and that too...

I am a woman.....we multitaak.


I have a ticket to 3d IMAX showing on Sturday night ..

And online polls are easily hacked....take that to the bank....thats why.

By the way.....I am a we programmer by trade....

[Gore1FL]

72. Sorry, I guess you can't fly-swat the endorsement away. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

83. Did I try

I am just telling the truth about online polls.

[Gore1FL]

116. The endorsement was based on that poll.

So yeah.

[VanillaRhapsody]

117. So?

Changes nothing.....

[Gore1FL]

122. It's what the thread is about.

I'm sorry. I thought you knew.

[VanillaRhapsody]

123. No its not....

This one is the validity of online polls.....and my pointing out why thay aren't

[Gore1FL]

126. The Democracy for America endorsement was awarded to Sanders.

This was based on, among other things, a vote of it's membership. If DU had a vote that resulted in an endorsement, would you complain that there were DUers with duplicate accounts? Let's take a look at the Democracy for America endorsement process using a neat little tool, I call "Google":

"The driving force behind all DFA endorsements is our membership. We gauge DFA member support in a number of different ways. For starters, supporters can publicly show their support on any candidate’s application page. We also utilize endorsement decisions of local DFA groups as a measure of local community support. "

http://www.democracyforamerica.com/about_endorsements

Now, you can make the argument that the voters are not a good population relative to the American voting public if you'd like that would be valid. But I don't think validity is your concern. Otherwise, you wouldn't be making unrelated arguments about something you haven't even bother to understand. You simply are posting to be contrary. It's a strange practice, and almost as attractive as your grave dancing.

[Live and Learn]

172. Ha, endoresements provided by people voting aren't valid but endorsements provided without

people's votes are? This place is getting stranger by the day.

[artislife]

195. If this thread were a noise

It would be the high pitch squeal of a washing machine about to explode.


LOL

[Live and Learn]

207. No kidding, the absurdity is absolutely breathtaking. nt

[Gore1FL]

263. It's actually about the DFA endorsement

You are simply unwilling to criticize their process but feel the need to instead criticize unrelated open online polls.

I don't know it is because you are clueless or that you hope others are.

[VanillaRhapsody]

239. This sub thread IS about that....

Please read from the beginning...

Beginning with the one that says...

"I guess Bernie just won a useless online poll"

[Gore1FL]

261. It was a poll. It was online. It was restricted to the membership of those conducting it.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? Or does understanding get in the way of trolling/grave dancing?

[VanillaRhapsody]

262. What part of that doesn't matter....do you not understand?

besides....DFA was behind the campaign to get EW to run...and failed. So who expected some different outcome?

Would you or would you not trust your Presidential Election vote to this method?

[Gore1FL]

264. I imagine elections will at some point allow people to vote online.

This has nothing to do with DFA's endorsement, however.

As far as "Who expected a different outcome," apparently you did. You are the one complaining that it is inaccurate. Don't you read your own posts?

[VanillaRhapsody]

266. but not now....

and why is that?

Please tell us.....tell us why you would NOT want to vote for the President this way (yet)....Whyc


Cannot wait to hear this...

[Gore1FL]

269. Who is suggesting that it shoudl be done that way?

No one.

Why are you asking stupid questions to change the subject?

A liberal organization polled it's members. They liked Sanders. No one is surprised (including you if your words are to be trusted.)

You don't know what you are talking about. You keep changing the subject to something unrelated. I provided a link tot he process that DFA used that demonstrates you either a> Don't know what you are talking about, or b> Are actively trying to obscure the actual topic.

If you spent your time actually understanding topics rather than trolling, you'd become a positive addition to the DU community.

[Plucketeer]

276. Your sparring partner has an agenda

AND a script to read from that supports it.

[Gore1FL]

287. Yeah. Talking points more than logic.

It's sad that the poster feels the need to shit everywhere despite being demonstrably off-point.

[Gore1FL]

286. The volume of the populace is too large to ensure security

It is not a small community like DFA or DU who can handle security on smaller communities.

Cannot wait for you to have a point...

[Fantastic Anarchist]

242. She doesn't.

I've been in these kinds of back and forth exchanges with her. She does the internet equivalent of nanny-nanny-boo-boo.

[A Simple Game]

80. So what do you think, Bernie paying out millions to pay people to hack online polls?

Cause I wouldn't bother for peanuts you know.

This Country can't get 60% of the population to vote and you think thousands are doing it multiple times just for kicks. Republicans share your passion for alleged voter fraud, their solution is to not let people vote, what is your answer to this despicable problem?

[VanillaRhapsody]

84. Did I say Bernie paid anyone?

You hang out here and you think nobody would do THAT?

Its not called Freeping polls for nuthing..

[A Simple Game]

92. I don't think enough people would bother to make much of a difference.

As to if people would do it, why do you think only one side would be guilty. Must be a liberal thing huh, conservatives certainly wouldn't cheat would they? I thought conspiracy theories were discouraged on DU.

[VanillaRhapsody]

96. You only need one...

One person can do this thousands of times...

Do you think DOS attacks takes millions of users to take down an entire server? No a few or even one can pull that off...

Thats why these polls are not taken seriously...

You really don't understand what your computer is capable of do you?

[A Simple Game]

101. You should get into the habit of reading your posts before you hit the "Post my reply!" button

Comparing to a DOS attack? Now you think Bernie supporters are commandeering other peoples computers to hack an online poll? Get real.

I have a degree in computers along with one in manufacturing, I do know some about computers. I know DOS attacks don't come from just one computer, yes it could be planned, setup, and triggered from one but not the attack itself. You on the other hand seem to know little about people if you think someone would take the risk of skewing an online poll in such a manner.

[VanillaRhapsody]

104. Hahahahahzbagshzgzx

OMG.....you really don't realize do you?

[A Simple Game]

106. I realize, I had you figured out a long time ago. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

107. Figured out????

The DOS....was an example for someone with little knowledge how the Internet works.....they would understanding a flood of requests would bring down a server.....not that THIS was a DOS attack....

Then you explain that THAT would take very few computers to pull off and in some cases only one.....

[A Simple Game]

113. I see, your problem isn't that you don't read what you post, it's that you don't understand what

others post.

I really don't know why you brought up the idea of DOS attacks unless you are accusing Bernie supporters of launching one, but... Hint: pay attention to the bold text.
You said in post 96 when for some reason you bring up a DOS attack:

Do you think DOS attacks takes millions of users to take down an entire server? No a few or even one can pull that off...

and then you said this:

You really don't understand what your computer is capable of do you?

What I said in response in 101:

I know DOS attacks don't come from just one computer, yes it could be planned, setup, and triggered from one but not the attack itself.

See this shows I know one user can initiate a DOS attack with one computer but not actually do the attack with just one computer.

Then you again in 107:

Then you explain that THAT would take very few computers to pull off and in some cases only one.....

When I said the exact opposite.

If you can't be bothered to read the posts you respond to this conversation is over. As for what a DOS attack is you will have to look that up with Google by yourself.

Check with the local community college about a reading comprehension course, with a little help they may even be able to show you how to do it online. There are also some nice writing courses, I took one for writing Science Fiction short stories the last time I was in school.

[VanillaRhapsody]

114. You are right...I do not......when they do not know

WtF they are talking about.....

So lets test this theory of yours... .

Should we hold the General Election as an Internet poll?

[artislife]

197. I am enjoying your posts! Thanks. nt

[A Simple Game]

227. I have to admit that sometimes it is just too easy.

It appears someone is getting a thrashing from several people because of their poorly thought out Bernie bashing.

[JDPriestly]

206. Bernie won 88% of the votes. There were, I have read, a total of 200,000 votes.

The total number of votes and the percentage by which Bernie Sanders won suggest that hacking, if any, was not decisive in getting over 66% or 2/3 of the total votes.

It's a silly idea growing most likely out of jealousy and disappointment.

Considering the gloating around here about the polls that show Hillary winning, you would think that Hillary supporters could deal with one important endorsement going Bernie's way.

Silly and childish to make such a fuss over the possibility of voting more than once in a survey of 200,000 Democrats. Really!!!

As for whether it is scientific? It scientifically measures the support among DFA members and supporters. That's what it measures.

To be exact, 271,527 votes were cast.

http://2016.democracyforamerica.com/results

[A Simple Game]

229. Comparing Democrats to freepers was the worst part. You could say that

the person was actually bashing themselves with that statement. But of course Bernie Democrats aren't really Democrats as far as some are concerned.

[Live and Learn]

176. Now you are being ridiculous. Don't you think the polling site would know if it was hit by a DOS

attack? Your post is proof that a little bit of Internet knowledge can be a dangerous thing. What next? Are they flooding the Internet tubes with ballots?

[Live and Learn]

175. I can tell you very few would bother. And I would bet those few would be Hillary supporters. nt

[A Simple Game]

271. my thoughts exactly. Probably why some are so upset that she lost by so much.

All that wasted time figuring out how to hack the poll and still lose by 70%.

[Gore1FL]

127. She has know earthly idea what she is talking about.

She is confusing online polls with the voting system DFA uses for its members. I don't know if that confusion is from ignorance or maliciousness, but I am willing to giver her the benefit of the doubt.

[VanillaRhapsody]

142. No I am not...

Damn you all do not read......I am showing how easy all of these things are to do with a simple computer....in order to show how easy it is to learn how to do this.....If I wanted to I could.....but I am nit interested in "game theory"....i am interested in other things I can do with a computer....but lots of tutorials are out there.....

So again......do YOU think we should conduct the GE by Internet poll? You know if online polls are so valid......should we do an online poll for President?

[Live and Learn]

177. Why don't you try doing it and then speak from experience? nt

[Gore1FL]

238. It'ds not the topic of the thread

You clearly came here to take a shit on this. Despite me providing a link, you clearly still don't have one clue of how the process worked. You clearly don't care.

Maybe some introspection would do you good.

[VanillaRhapsody]

241. its the topic of this one...starting with

I guess Bernie just won a useless online poll...

Maybe reading the entire thread would do YOU some good...

[Live and Learn]

174. Amazing isn't it. Just like al those "illegals" the GOP claims are voting in droves when most

Americans don't even bother.

[VanillaRhapsody]

240. It doesn't take millions of people...

that is what I have been trying to demonstrate in this thread....

A couple of script kiddies could do it easily...


Now are you suggesting you would support having Online Polling replacing the General Election?

Are you that confident in their results?

[catnhatnh]

91. You know what is funny?

Every person who has demonstrated or suggested ways to hack an online poll has been a Clinton supporter. With all that knowledge I'm shocked you don't get better results...

[VanillaRhapsody]

93. You think none of the mostly young men that support Sanders

Last edited Fri Dec 18, 2015, 09:41 AM - Edit history (1)

Knows how to find a tutorial on youtube to do it?

Do you not understand that one user on a omputer can spoof a poll thousands of times...singlehandedly...


Go ahead and do a Youtube search and see how many responses there are.

[Live and Learn]

178. Now you are being sexist too? Why would only young men that support Sanders do it? nt

[Live and Learn]

179. Do you not understand that security measures are in place to make sure that doesn't happen and

that they would know if someone did manage to do it?

[Live and Learn]

168. By your own admission, it is not easy. Setting up multiple email and using different ip addresses

is actually quite time consuming. Many times people think they are voting multiple times but their vote is only being counted once.

I really don't understand your premise at all. Are you claiming that only Bernie supporters are smart enough to 'hack' the online polls? Or are you claiming that Hillary supporters are just too lazy to do so?

[JDPriestly]

205. I am a 72-year-old woman who can't hack or program, and I voted for Bernie in the DFA

poll. There aren't very many people who would bother to do all the stuff you suggest just to rig a poll. 88% is so high that even if 20% of the voters had rigged their votes, they would still exceed the 2/3 necessary to pick Bernie.

[Plucketeer]

274. Funny

"I am a woman.....we multitaak." <- yeah, but not very well. LOL!

[Duval]

62. LOL Bernie supporters rigging polls...I think I'll follow your

suggestions...both of them!!

[VanillaRhapsody]

85. You think his fanboys wouldn't?

You think he doesnt have any script kiddies supporting him?

Do you also think hacking is a rare phenomenon too?

[Live and Learn]

181. Fanboys???? Your sexism and condescension are duly noted. nt

[beerandjesus]

243. That, right there, is why Hillary could actually lose the general.

People don't tend to like that sort of thing.

[ALBliberal]

152. thanks so much for taking on this ridiculous piece of work

Kudos to you HerbChestnut.... lost somewhere is ..... the concept of time WHY would anyone spend the TIME to rig an online poll even if they knew how??

[VanillaRhapsody]

166. For what?

Do you think we should hold the General Election by Internet poll?

Why not?

[Live and Learn]

185. Because the GE is a bit more important, maybe? And, we are using computers to vote these days.

Many of us have been complaining about it because programs can be written to skew results. That is not at all the same thing.

[l.o.o.s.e.e-2]

132. l.o.o.s.e.e-2 partner taking over on this one... "easily spoofed"?

Hi VanillaRhapsody!

l.o.o.s.e.e-2's partner taking over on this one...

So many hacks? Ok... play around with all your trick proxies/VPNs/whatever (Hidemyass.com. Really? A truly lame VPN), take screenshots and post them to this thread. Heck, I'll even make it easy for you: forget all three and just post screen caps of all your tricks - as well as truthful time spent devoted to your endeavors as well as your VPN membership fees - with the last of the three below.

https://ipleak.net/

http://ip-check.info/

http://witch.valdikss.org.ru/

Jeesh, "delete your cookie data and temp data, then refresh. if that doesn't work, google some web proxys such as hidemyass.com": you're talkin' like it's Windows XP in 2005!

[VanillaRhapsody]

133. Sigh....

Again do you trust online polling enough that you think we should just hold the General Election over it?

[l.o.o.s.e.e-2]

150. l.o.o.s.e.e-2 back now...

Partner said, roughly paraphrased, that the implications of your post(s) were nether substantive nor relevant to the OP.

We both agree - and hope you as well - that online polling is not a replacement for the "General Election" and, as well, that none of the myriad of "polls" presented throughout the "msm" as well as ubiquitously within DU has relevance to that which will occur after the turn of the year from primaries/caucuses.

p.s. We should ALL be worried about the threat to our democracy from entities such as, for example, Diebold et. al. http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017315323 (though older tech from 2006, posted just this day herein at DU and most relevant).

Problems Found in Ohio Computer Voting : NPR http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6069712


[center]

[/center]

In peace VanillaRhapsody...

[VanillaRhapsody]

154. So thats a no...

Thanks for proving my point!

[l.o.o.s.e.e-2]

158. Sorry, we don't like animated "GIFs"

[VanillaRhapsody]

160. So impressed....

P.S. the gif stays right where it is....

[VanillaRhapsody]

135. Did I say I was a script kiddy?

Did I ever say I was a hacker? Knowing something exists is not the same as participating in such activity....

I never said I wrote that......it was an example that tutorials were a snap to find.....that took 3 seconds

If I acknoweledge porn exists.....doesn't make me a porn star does it?



Please go ahead and prove you know even more about it than I do.....so you can prove my point.....

[bvf]

137. Thanks. That was getting rather annoying. n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

138. What was?

Are you going to prove you know more about hacking than I do and also prove my point?

World of Warcraft or Second Life?

[bvf]

140. *You* were, dear.

[VanillaRhapsody]

141. Of course dear...

I didnt come to massage your feet or fetch you a beer.

[bvf]

144. I have robots for that. Doubt you could do a better job.

[VanillaRhapsody]

155. Of course you do...

[bvf]

164. Ahhh......!

I was being charitable. You should stick with what you're good at.

[VanillaRhapsody]

165. I do....

[bvf]

170. You're at 60%. You're not trying.

[VanillaRhapsody]

173. Only because its bedtime....you should see me at

Midday

[bvf]

184. No thanks.

[VanillaRhapsody]

186. Your loss

[bvf]

193. Let us know when you find it, won't you?

[Live and Learn]

190. The real challenge would be anyone proving they knew less about hacking than you. nt

[Live and Learn]

188. You forgot the old standby:

How to Format a Computer

http://www.wikihow.com/Format-a-Computer

It always works.

[Fawke Em]

145. Ain't that a hoot?

Hillary supporters seem to know all about VPNs, spoofing, hacking, proxy servers when it comes to online voting.

But, when it comes to her own unsecured private server, they reduce their knowledge of how easy it would have been to hack to "Benghazi" and "emails."

[bvf]

146. It certainly is. And one gets the impression

everything they "know" was learned in the last ten minutes on Google.

[Live and Learn]

189. +10,000 Actually, I think they are saying that only Bernie supporters are smart enough to do so.

[artislife]

198. This has been something else.

I don't think I will be able to buy vanilla ice cream again for a long while...

[bvf]

204. Or listen to Gershwin or Queen. n/t

[daybranch]

224. you make a great point

But Hilary people do not want to listen. They rely heavily on cognitive dissonance to avoid painful discussions about their candidate.

[VanillaRhapsody]

231. Oh they do?

Seems the opposite is the truth...

[Fed up in NJ]

246. Was looking at drug intraction....

.... because I had a major accident in September building WTC Tower 3 where my hand was completely crushed by a hydraulic failure which require 19 hours of surgery to rebuild my fingers. One of the Meds they gave me wont allow me to take Expectorants or Albuterol for a chest cold I just acquired. The side effects of the drug was according, to DRUGS.com, •false beliefs that cannot be changed by facts•..... I was hit by that when I see that 78% of members were members BEFORE the vote has no effect in reasoning with some here. Maybe they are taking Amitriptyline as well?

[VanillaRhapsody]

275. What does that have to do with anything said here....

Again..would YOU like to have your General Election vote done over the Internet this way?

If not...please explain why not...and then Bob's your Uncle!

[Fawke Em]

65. Hillary doesn't. eom

[BeanMusical]

77. Roflmao!

[Live and Learn]

191. +10,000 nt

[Live and Learn]

159. I hate to tell you this but most Bernie supporters are far too busy actually campaigning for Bernie

to have time to set up multiple email addresses on different ip addresses to bother. In fact, the only one I have seen suggesting she voted multiple times on an internet poll (Times person of the year poll) was a Hillary supporter. Your premise is as bad as the GOP meme to restrict voting rights because "illegals" are voting (as if they had nothing better to do).

[George II]

252. Name, email address, and zip code. That's all.

[cleanhippie]

57. You make it sound as if there's some conspiracy to promote Bernie.

Sure, a few people may have voted more than once, but come on, there's not just 3 people voting hundreds of times over.

[VanillaRhapsody]

86. No....but online polling is notoriously bogus

[cui bono]

103. So really, Hillary got a lot less then since VPN and hacking and stuff.

Thanks for the info! That makes me feel even better!

!

[VanillaRhapsody]

105. Okay then....

Lets just do the General Election by Internet.....

How do you feel about THAT idea?

[cui bono]

108. Love it! Even with Hillary supporters using VPN and hacking and stuff Bernie is way ahead.

So you think electronic voting machines are safe?

!

[VanillaRhapsody]

110. WOW!!!!!!

You cannot be serious...



So you okay with the voting machines we have now?

Hate to tell you.....voting online wiuld make that exponentially worse!


How do you even have a discussion with someone who thinks THAT'S a good idea?

[cui bono]

131. Whoosh!

!

[VanillaRhapsody]

136. Uh huh....

[bvf]

148. Shame on you.

[VanillaRhapsody]

162. For what?

[bvf]

180. Whoosh!

[VanillaRhapsody]

182. Vroom!

Beep beep!

Whatevs

[bvf]

192. Yeah, "whatevs." Whoosh!

[VanillaRhapsody]

215. Uh huh.

[bvf]

219. Good one!

[VanillaRhapsody]

221. Fir sur...

[bvf]

222. Tell everyone how the internet works again.

A few people might have missed it the first time around.

[VanillaRhapsody]

223. Do you or dont you

Want the General election held by online poll?

Why not?

Probably because you have a rudimentary understanding of how the Internet works

[bvf]

226. See #153. How many times do you have to be told?

Whoosh!

[VanillaRhapsody]

228. No....answer the question you cannot think and

Answer this simple question yourself?

Should we start voting for President by Internet polling?

What say you....not someone else

By the way.....so far no one does....so you could be the first if you are bold enough to answer for yourself!

[bvf]

230. Calm down, would you?

It's getting damn near impossible to parse your responses.

Do you think maybe it's a glitch in the internet?

[VanillaRhapsody]

232. What makes you think I am not?

Did I post the jumping emoji?

Can you answer a simple question.....should we allow the Presidential be conducted as an online poll?

Why are you afraid to answer?

[bvf]

235. I just *told* you, FFS.

Last edited Fri Dec 18, 2015, 09:37 AM - Edit history (1)

More evidence (as if any were needed) of your propensity to respond to posts without reading them first.

[VanillaRhapsody]

284. So what is your answer?

why cant you answer directly? Scared? its simple ...yes or no...if no...why not?

[bvf]

293. Can you read?

[cleanhippie]

125. Agreed. But your assertion that the overwhelming votes for Sanders are repeat voters

Is even more bogus.

And deflects from the facts: Sanders is so much more popular than supporters of other candidates are willing to admit.

[VanillaRhapsody]

139. It doesnt HAVE to be the overwhelming....

Last edited Fri Dec 18, 2015, 11:50 AM - Edit history (1)

It just has to be enough....

[cleanhippie]

248. Again, your assertion that it's over-voting and not actual support is either wishful thinking

or willful ignorance.

[VanillaRhapsody]

249. No...it doesn't take many people or many computers...

It just doesn't...


a few computers or even one could pull it off.

Do you understand how even digital theft occurs? They shave fractions of a penny....millions of times....if a single computer could pull that off...

What are the chances that you would need multitudes to spoof the little DFA servers?


This is very simple to understand...or you are being willfully ignorant about the Internet...

[cleanhippie]

254. It just HAS to be fraud, right? There's no way it could be actual support for Sanders?

C'mon, man. That's wishful thinking or willful ignorance.

[VanillaRhapsody]

255. did I say that?

I am explaining WHY online polls are not valid.

Now do YOU want to see us accept online polling instead of elections for the GE?

Why not?

[cleanhippie]

256. Lol, ok, whatever you say.

[VanillaRhapsody]

257. Yeah....so answer the question...

Do you trust online polls enough...that we should use them instead of what we currently do?

Put your votes where your googly eyes are....

[cleanhippie]

258. Trust online polls enough for what?

They take the temperature of the electorate, that's all. It could be somewhat skewed high or low, but they're generally in the ballpark.

I laugh every time a poll shows support for one candidate over another, the supporters on the losing side come out in droves to disparage the poll, seemingly in an attempt to placate their own fears.

You have a nice day. Arguing over this is meaningless and futile.

[VanillaRhapsody]

259. Exactly what I said...

Are online polls...soooo rock solidly secure and free from what is known as "freeping" that you would trust your vote in the GE to them?

Put your vote where your mouth is....do you or don't you trust online polls THAT much?

[cleanhippie]

260. Do online polls effect the way I will vote in the GE?

Is THAT your question? Seriously?

[VanillaRhapsody]

265. hahahahaha...

not according to the many many many polls that show otherwise...

Perhaps it is you that deflecting from THOSE facts!

[cleanhippie]

268. Wishful thinking or willful ignorance.

Whichever one you're engaging in, it's laughable.

You have a nice day!

[AtheistCrusader]

283. Your story would be different if it rolled for the other candidate.

[AtheistCrusader]

282. So, can you provide a single unique user ID from the poll that says they didn't

actually vote in it, or a user id from the poll that does not exist in meatspace?

Thought not.

Certainly people could register fake users, or real people without their knowledge. Pony up some evidence that happened.

[Android3.14]

69. This person isn't really debating

The Swarm has to blather about nonsense. It's in the contract.

[BeanMusical]

78. +1

[George II]

250. Anyone know how many DFA members voted?

[tecelote]

19. This Bernie's supporters cheat meme is getting old.

88% - big margin of error afforded here.

Did you also hear... 2 million contributors - made history - but that's unscientific too I suppose.

The thunder is building. Bernie is going to take the country by storm.

Better duck for cover!

[Duval]

63. Don't you just love it? 88%!

[tecelote]

68. Yeah... but...

I hear the scientific "reality based" community claim 87% cheated.

Funny thing is, these 88% are going to help change America.

We're going to change our own reality.

Because of Bernie, Democracy will hold her head high once again.

Yes. I love that 88% Feel the Bern. This is how to win an election. Against all odds. Fair and square.

[VanillaRhapsody]

89. Did you read that anywhere?

Online polling is utter hogwash......too damn easy to hack....therefore none are reliable.....you know what reliable means right?

O e person with a little know how...see youtube for instructions. ...can post hundreds...nay thousands of times....from a single computer....


Do you know what a DOS attack is? Do you understand tou do not need thousands of users to pull one off? One user on a computer can do it...

[Fawke Em]

149. It's a lot harder for one person to pull off a DOS attack than it is

for one person to hack an unsecure private server that accepted direct commands from the Internet (in other words, unlike these mysterious Bernie supporters who are using VPNs, she wasn't), had at least three open ports and left the remote configuration as it came out-of-the-box - just to name a few issues.

[a2liberal]

153. You still haven't proposed a mechanism that explains

the fact that 78% of PRE-existing DFA members voted for Bernie. VPNs and creating new e-mail accounts or DOSes are completely irrelevant in that situation. Frankly, as a programmer myself I find it hard to believe your claim that you are one, as it sounds a lot more like you're just repeating terms you've heard and youtube videos with those search terms instead of actually considering how they would be applicable to your claims. There are actually a few ways to hack the vote that I can think of, but much more complex than what you've proposed and would require a lot more to be at stake than a DFA endorsement for someone to attempt. You've mentioned none of them.

And to preempt your inevitable followup, no I don't think national elections should be conducted by online poll, but if I absolutely had had to choose to do it with either an online poll of pre-registered citizens using a DFA-style methodology or traditional pollsters with their selective samples, I would definitely pick the DFA-style one.

[VanillaRhapsody]

157. That was not my point.....

U dont care about the details of this particular poll that you think proves all online polls,as valid and equal to scientifcally produced ones...

[a2liberal]

161. Huh?

Are you saying you're not arguing that this one is invalid? Because it sure didn't sound like that earlier in the thread...

[VanillaRhapsody]

163. All online polls are..

Not valid....

Or do you think its safe to hold a General Election that way?

[a2liberal]

183. See #153 (nt)

[VanillaRhapsody]

187. No thanks...

Do you want to hold the General election by online poll?

No? Why not?

[Kentonio]

216. So you didn't bother to actually read his previous reply which already answered your question?

That's just rude.

[VanillaRhapsody]

217. Answer the question

Do you or don't you want the General Election held by online poll?

And why not?

[Kentonio]

218. They answered your predictable question before you even asked it.

Which makes your repetition of it seem even more bizarre.

It was in post #153..

"And to preempt your inevitable followup, no I don't think national elections should be conducted by online poll, but if I absolutely had had to choose to do it with either an online poll of pre-registered citizens using a DFA-style methodology or traditional pollsters with their selective samples, I would definitely pick the DFA-style one."

[VanillaRhapsody]

220. Oh really

To a one.....no one I have asked seems to think an online poll is secure enough for a General Election!

THAT is how valid an online poll is...

[Kentonio]

237. False equivalence.

That's like saying 'so you'd walk on this fragile balcony but you wouldn't leap up and down on it? Clearly its not safe to even walk on!'.

The stakes in the general are so vastly higher that you have to have 100% confidence in the absolute trustworthiness of it. Even 99% isn't enough. A poll to decide a primary endorsement, not so much. That doesn't mean the methodology is automatically flawed though.

[Live and Learn]

208. +1000 nt

[JDPriestly]

211. The DFA poll was not an ordinary internet poll. Each voter had to identify him- or herself.

That's not so easy to do. The margin by which Bernie won was quite large. Who in the world would be able to think of enough believable names and e-mail addresses to make a difference?

The accusation is nonsensical.

It makes Hillary supporters look like poor losers.

[artislife]

200. It is pretty exciting!

I am very happy that it just keeps building and building!

[VanillaRhapsody]

88. No but online polls are bullshit

Last edited Fri Dec 18, 2015, 07:04 AM - Edit history (1)

Anyone with even a rudimentary understanding of how the web works knows that.....

Do you also believe the Internet is private too?

[Live and Learn]

209. Not at all and especially not for the silly reasons you have mentioned.

The only problem with online polls is that they do not usually reach a broad audience. In this case it reached the members it was suppose to reach. You are quite simply wrong.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

20. Are Hillary voters less scientific than Bernie voters?

If what you say is true, couldn't have Hillary voters figured out how to do the same thing?

[Fawke Em]

67. Here's the thing: they have craploads of time to spend writing

"Hillary will win" posts over and over again on DU, but they DON'T have the time to go vote in online polls.

I know. I know. It doesn't make a lick of sense, but that's what I keep being told.

[BeanMusical]

82. "couldn't have Hillary voters figured out how to do the same thing?"

Each time they come up with that excuse I can't help laughing.

[Ferd Berfel]

42. The Scientific Polls showing Hillary ahead usually are a scientifically skewed Demographic

Polls like this one are answered by anyone interested.

[tecelote]

56. If only the demographic was representative of all Americans.

Not owning a landline means your not part of the demographic.

This isn't your parents world anymore.

Bernie made fundraising history despite the scientific evidence supposedly showing he can't win.

He doubled Obama.

That's fact not scientific conjecture.

[VanillaRhapsody]

97. Really now

Please prove that...

[tecelote]

109. 2 million individual donations.

Proof.

[modestybl]

79. Sounds like projection from the HRC crowd...

... Sanders people don't have to be that devious...

[Lordquinton]

87. So you trust a poll done with bad science

What, barely over 300 counted, from a limited pool, done with 80% land lines, over an aggregate data collection from numerous online polls?

The only thing worse than non-scientific is bad science.

[VanillaRhapsody]

169. Do you trust open online polling to say....

The General Election?

No? Why not?

[cui bono]

102. "not scientific"

from the one who constantly brings us the proven to be full of bullshit graphs.

!

[VanillaRhapsody]

167. You mean the site that Nate Silver often quotes.?

Thise "bullshit graphs"?

[cui bono]

298. Quotes as what?

An example of pure unscientific bullshit that you like to peddle as something that actually means something?

Go look up the posts from me and countless others where we've completely proven how those graphs mean nothing. They are based on campaign promises in part ffs.



!

[Enthusiast]

233. You are only saying that because you don't like the results.

[arikara]

277. Okay

that could be true. But scientifically speaking, why would Bernie voters expend the time and energy to mess around like that but not Hillary voters?

[winter is coming]

2. I guess it wouldn't be "useless" if someone else had won it. n/t

[HerbChestnut]

6. Oh no.

It would have been claimed as a great victory and yet another sign of her inevitability.

[leftynyc]

31. If you wouldn't mind linking

to an unscientific poll that was touted by the Hillary supporters, I would love to see it. I must have missed it. But then I tend to stay away from the cesspool the GD-P forum has become.

[retrowire]

44. I'm not sure Herb can find one because Hillary never wins them. nt

[leftynyc]

98. LOL

Well, if that doesn't tell you something, nothing will. Do you honestly believe very single scientific poll is wrong and all scientific pollsters are in some grand conspiracy to deny Bernie the nomination?

[boston bean]

115. i'll answer that cause i know the answer.

The answer is YES that is exactly what they believe.

[leftynyc]

213. Oy vey

After watching the "unskewed" polls nonsense in 2012 - and seeing what bullshit it was - I would have thought people in my own party would be embarrassed to make the same exact claim. I can't wait until the primaries are over.

[jeff47]

12. It would be held up as proof that said winner is really a liberal. (nt)

[HerbChestnut]

3. Useless being the key word.

I mean, it's not like this endorsement comes with millions of dollars in campaign support along with thousands of volunteers that will be going door to door. Man, the internet is so meaningless.

[VanillaRhapsody]

7. Good luck with that....

she has a massive ground game at her disposal...Obamas!

[HerbChestnut]

9. Yeah, we know what Hillary has. Congrats.

[VanillaRhapsody]

11. then you understand how she is going to win!

[VanillaRhapsody]

171. Has what?

Dont hold back....spell it out...

[monmouth4]

15. You honestly think she has Obama's ground game? You need to catch up..LOL...n/t

[VanillaRhapsody]

30. Yes I do....

You honestly think she doesn't?

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/hillary-clintons-power-players-116874

[Tote Life]

60. Sorry, it will be Bernie that has ths ground game.

No way Clinton will have the supporters coming to vote. The Clintons GOTV efforts will be minimal. They expect to be handed the vote which she did not even earn.

[Gore1FL]

73. It worked well for her in 2008 n/t

[NorthCarolina]

111. President Sanders.

Probably should start getting used to it.

[roguevalley]

39. How about this poll? Its called the millionaire poll and it

lets independent$, dem$ and pug$ tell who they want to be prez and who they can enjoy doing it

lhttp://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/who-do-wealthy-want-president-hillary-n265541

Who Do the Wealthy Want For President? Hillary

Millionaires are sharply divided on their choice for the next President of the U.S., according to the second CNBC Millionaire Survey released today. Yet if a vote were held today, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would be the overall favorite among millionaire voters.

The survey polled 500 people with investable assets of $1 million or more, which represents the top 8 percent of American households. According to the survey—a poll evenly split between Democrats, Republicans and Independents—Hillary Clinton is the top choice for 31 percent of millionaires, including 23 percent of Independent millionaires and 5 percent of Republican millionaires.

Respondents got to choose among nine potential candidates in the survey: Clinton; Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.); Vice President Joe Biden; Governor Chris Christie (R-N.J.); Senator Ted Cruz (R-Texas); Senator Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.); former Governor Jeb Bush (R-Fla.); Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) and Governor Scott Walker (R-Wis.)

Clinton gets the support of 38 percent of women millionaires and 27 percent of male millionaires. Among male millionaires of both parties, Hillary is the top choice, with 27 percent.

Perhaps someone that is on Hillary's side can tell us all about how she appeals both to the fascists and the normal-ish people at the same time. If we're to believe there is a difference, how did she top the charts with both dems and pugs? Perhaps there is a reason why no one is burning for Hillary. She doesn't burn for us. We don't have enough money to catch her interest.

If that isn't enough how about these apes:

The dark secret among Wall Street Republicans is they would much prefer a "familiar" big government progressive to an "unknown or untrusted" constitutional conservative. In other words, for many in Wall Street if they can't have Jeb Bush, they'd much prefer Hillary.

Politico’s Ben White and Maggie Haberman report that after conducting two dozen interviews, the off the record consensus amongst Wall Street Republicans is that if Jeb Bush is not the GOP candidate in 2016, Hillary would be far more aligned with their interests than the likes of Cruz or Paul.
Two dozen interviews about the 2016 race with unaligned GOP donors, financial executives and their Washington lobbyists turned up a consistent — and unusual — consolation candidate if Bush demurs, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie doesn’t recover politically and no other establishment favorite gets nominated: Hillary Clinton.

SNIP

Though most Wall Street Republicans would not mention it aloud, the Politico piece reports that according their interests, it is either Jeb or Hillary:
The darkest secret in the big money world of the Republican coastal elite is that the most palatable alternative to a nominee such as Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas or Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky would be Clinton, a familiar face on Wall Street following her tenure as a New York senator with relatively moderate views on taxation and financial regulation.

“If it turns out to be Jeb versus Hillary we would love that and either outcome would be fine,” one top Republican-leaning Wall Street lawyer said over lunch in midtown Manhattan last week. “We could live with either one. Jeb versus Joe Biden would also be fine. It’s Rand Paul or Ted Cruz versus someone like
Elizabeth Warren that would be everybody’s worst nightmare.”

White and Haberman argue that while most Wall Street GOP donors and fundraisers would not make such a statement on the record for fear of blowback—and none are suggesting they would openly back her—the "familiar" Democrat frontrunner "fills them with less dread than some Republican 2016 hopefuls."

http://www.truthrevolt.org/news/wall-street-republicans-dark-secret-if-not-jeb-hillary-2016

[senz]

100. Thanks, roguevalley.

Interesting info, most of which I've suspected but it's nice to have it proven.

I liked this:

Perhaps there is a reason why no one is burning for Hillary. She doesn't burn for us. We don't have enough money to catch her interest.

So true.

[mythology]

16. It is a self-selected group.

It's not meaningless because it comes with fundraising and campaign support, but it's kind of like asking a person from Boston if they prefer the Red Sox or the Yankees and thinking that the answer can be extrapolated to the rest of the country.

[retrowire]

18. well that's the thing, this poll was accessible

by the entire online country. everyone with an internet connection could participate.

[jwirr]

21. And if I am not mistaken each voter had to varify their

information through emails.

[retrowire]

23. yep! confirmation emails and everything. nt

[emsimon33]

214. Yes

[chervilant]

280. Yes, we did.

Clearly, the DFA poll targeted members of DFA, a vast majority of whom prefer Bernie.

AND I think it's rather poignant that Hillary's supporters are so cavalier in dismissing the results of THIS poll, while insisting that all the M$M polls showing HRC ahead are sacrosanct. So, so pitiable.

[Maedhros]

22. I'm starting to believe that the political polling process in America is completely subjective.

There is too much discrepancy between reality and poll numbers.

[retrowire]

24. it is a bit mind bending isn't it? nt

[Maedhros]

33. We know that electronic voting machines are routinely compromised.

Is it too much of a stretch to consider that polling companies are paid to provide tailored results? A filter here, some massaged data there...poof! Everyone loves Hillary!

Is there any reason to think that polling companies are NOT completely compromised? I mean, DU regularly (and with certainty) states that Rasmussen is in the tank for Republicans. Why wouldn't other companies be likewise in the tank for Hillary?

[retrowire]

41. It is only natural of the human mind to make connections.

When I make the same connections as you've just stated, I'm only using my brain.

I don't see why your theory would be wrong. Honestly.

[Lorien]

199. Exit polls will be CRITICAL

during the primaries, now more than ever!

[Sheepshank]

25. Because Bernie Supporters know, rally and press one another

in all sorts of on line polls, and because most Clinton supporters I know can't be bothered with on line polls and rarely participate, I find any part of most on line polls to be bunk.

In the case of this group...they expressly told members to vote and Bernie finally got another endorsement!!! good for him...has he broken double digits yet?

[retrowire]

27. and yet this poll would've granted Hillary

an incredible league of door to door volunteers and millions in campaign aide.

but Hillary supporters either...

A. don't put forth as much effort

or

B. Aren't the majority the media keeps telling them they are.

[MeNMyVolt]

43. You should edit or self-delete this.

Personal insults are not the way to go here, and there's a good chance you'll get a hide with this.

[orpupilofnature57]

29. If people knew the truth MSM would be running for the hills, Bernie is the only candidate telling us

How he will and why he'll do it .

[LiberalArkie]

34. I guess since no polling is accurate, then I guess the only subjective measurement there

is by judging how many attend the candidates gathering.

[NCTraveler]

40. We would be saying President Paul right now if that were a solid metric. Nt

[dorkzilla]

35. If this was such an unimportant/unscientific poll why did Hillary send THIS email?

If it wasn’t a meaningful poll, she would not have bothered sending this along with Howard Dean’s endorsement.
----------------
FROM: Hillary Clinton
SUBJECT: Your vote

Dorkzilla,

I want to thank you for your involvement in Democracy for America, and for taking the time to be thoughtful and engaged in our democracy. I'm excited for all that we're going to accomplish together during the course of this campaign, and I'm really looking forward to all the good we can do if I'm elected president.

I've said before that I'm a progressive who likes to get things done. So I want to talk to you about the things I'd like to accomplish in the White House.

First, I'll work to make sure all Americans are treated fairly -- no matter what you look like, where you live, or who you love. I'm going to fight hard for racial justice in this country: The first speech of my campaign was about ending mass incarceration, and I want to require body cameras for every police force in America. I support a pathway to citizenship for immigrants. I want to make sure everyone earns equal pay -- an issue that disproportionately affects women of color. And I'll work to make sure LGBT Americans finally have equal protection under the law, especially trans Americans, whose needs are too often ignored.

I'm going to raise wages for the middle class. I believe this is the defining challenge of our time. I'm the only Democrat in this race who's pledged not to raise taxes on families making less than $250,000 per year, and I have a comprehensive plan to grow small businesses, make health care and college more affordable, and give employees a chance to share in their companies' profits just like shareholders do.

If you agree that we need to strengthen the middle class, stand with me: Ask DFA to endorse me by casting your vote in their 2016 Presidential Endorsement Poll now.

I'll also work to bring the best of American values -- equality, justice, and innovation -- to tackle our biggest global challenges, whether that's climate change or the Syrian refugee crisis. When I was Secretary of State, I brought leaders to the table on issues like girls' education and LGBT rights in countries where those issues had previously been non-starters -- that's how you make progress. I hope to continue that work as president.

Finally, I want to make sure that my term in office would ensure a strong progressive legacy for decades to come. That means appointing the right judges to the Supreme Court and the federal bench, and it means protecting voting rights and overhauling campaign finance law to ensure that people -- not corporations -- are choosing our leaders. I'm going to get corporate money out of our electoral system, even if that means a Constitutional amendment to overturn Citizens United.

We all know I'm not afraid to go after Republicans when I need to, but I'm also not afraid to roll up my sleeves and do the hard work of getting unlikely allies to join coalitions. I did that as first lady when I fought for the Children's Health Insurance Program (which still covers 8 million kids today), as a senator when I got health care for 9/11 first responders, and as Secretary of State when I convened a global coalition to bring sanctions against Iran.

I take a backseat to no one when you look at my record in standing up and fighting for progressive values. The plans I've outlined above aren't rhetoric; they're a concrete outline of what I will do everything in my power to accomplish if I'm elected president.

If you support the bold vision I've outlined above and you're ready for DFA to join Team Hillary, please cast your vote for me in DFA's Presidential Endorsement Poll today.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to earn your support. I promise that if I'm elected, I'll keep working for it every single day I'm in office.

With deep appreciation,

- Hillary

[Punkingal]

59. Ha!

She didn't get it!

[stillwaiting]

236. "I'm the only Democrat in this race who's pledged not to raise taxes on families making less than

$250,000 per year."

I can not STAND it when Republicans are disingenuous with things like this, and I hate it even more when a so-called Democrat does this. It's so fucking gross.

She protects those making over $100,000 per year by lumping them in with those that are making $12,000 per year. And, I have no doubt that she is referring to raising the cap on Social Security taxes which would TREMENDOUSLY help those in need. But she tries to be deceptive and uses language to PURPOSEFULLY mislead those that are struggling to make ends meet.

I really dislike her. She is shady af.

[Gamecock Lefty]

36. Didn't . . .

the Nutty Professor also win the TIME magazine Person of the Year online poll? How'd that work out?

[onenote]

37. Not useless. But why did only 25% of DFA members participate?

DFA claims to have over a million members. Yet only 271,000+ voted in this poll. As a Bernie supporter, it concerns me that 3/4 of DFA's membership didn't take the time to vote.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm happy with the result.
But I wouldn't be honest if I said getting 25 percent of the DFA members to participate wasn't disappointing.

[PowerToThePeople]

45. Dfa are Dean fans from 2004

Some members could have passed away.

I joined DFA and DU approximately the same time, both for the same reasons.

How many members vs active members does DU have?

[Blue_Adept]

46. Because more often than not

Take your pick:

Most people just don't care about the primary process.

They'll let the diehard activists figure it out.

They already know who they're voting for and don't bother with this.

Many signed up years ago and just have it go to their spam folder.

The bulk of those "members" are long-dead accounts; either fully inactive of people signed up again under a new email after awhile and they voted. So they may have two or three accounts (but only voted once). I know I have maybe three or four different Amazon accounts over the years but use only one these days.

[onenote]

58. Thanks for the info.

[Ed Suspicious]

95. You think a dataset of nearly 271,000 isn't large enough to make quality projection? What about

the 300 person polls Hill's people promote? Hill's people love those polls! Hill's people share those polls like every single day.

[onenote]

151. That's not what I said.

I said I was disappointed that more people didn't participate.

[NCTraveler]

38. Nope. That's a pretty useful one. Nt

[SoapBox]

47. The Sanderstorm continues...

And now adding 700,000 Berners from the CWA.

Excellent.

[brooklynite]

48. And DFA will now do.....what?

Besides asking the 271,000 voters to make contributions to DFA?

[retrowire]

49. This.

Now, driven by the relentless energy of DFA members, we’ll immediately start organizing on behalf of Bernie in key primary states, from Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Nevada to nearly a dozen states voting on Super Tuesday. We’ll also be building -- as Bernie has called for -- a political revolution ready to elect populist progressive candidates nationwide to local school boards, city councils, and state legislatures, and all the way up to the U.S. Senate.

DFA has a long history of backing progressive candidates in contested primaries -- and when we give our endorsement, it's more than just talk. In every election cycle since Howard Dean founded DFA in 2004, not only have DFA members supported progressive candidates with their donations -- DFA members have also been the invaluable "boots on the ground" candidates need to get them over the top in close races.

We know how to build progressive power -- and that's exactly what we’ll do in Iowa, New Hampshire and beyond, by recruiting and training volunteers, fundraising for the campaign, and uplifting the issues that matter in this election.

Over the coming days and weeks, we will be working with the Sanders campaign to maximize our impact, add value, and help drive the campaign to victory.

That.

[Duval]

66. Thanks so much, retrowire! nt

[tazkcmo]

94. Not the answer

they were looking for!

[postatomic]

129. Or, maybe this....

Since its founding it has spent relatively little on TV ads and advertising. It raised nearly $7.2 million in the two-year 2010 election cycle, but reported spending a paltry $21,193 in independent expenditures — all of it opposing Republican Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa, who crushed his Democratic opponent by nearly a 2-1 ratio anyway.

If you get a chance wander over to FEC and check out them out.

Happy Holidays!!!

[Uncle Joe]

50. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, retrowire.

[retrowire]

51. Thanks for the KnR Uncle Joe. :) n/t

[Uncle Joe]

54. It was cosmic, 50th post on this thread and 50th rec.

[NotHardly]

53. You would do well to know a bit of history about media/poll winning, here let me help you with that.

https://www.math.upenn.edu/~deturck/m170/wk4/lecture/case1.html Case Study I: The 1936 Literary Digest Poll


http://blog.constitutioncenter.org/2012/10/five-biggest-political-polling-mistakes-in-u-s-history/ Five biggest political polling mistakes in U.S. history

So, as the real political season actually begins, as opposed to all this pre-hype and gnashing of teeth, let us recall that unless one is privy to how a poll was taken, we might find and always believe that 4 out of 5 dentists recommend XXXX but that only 5 were asked. Or that a 100% increase in the number of homicides in Tudlidoo, Ohio means this year they had 2 instead of 1. Just saying.

[WillyT]

55. HUGE K & R !!! - THANK YOU !!!

[Duval]

61. Yeah, I guess DFA is some obscure

organization with absolutely NO impact because they have so little members! LOL Thanks, retrowire!

[AzDar]

64. Revolution Calling!! *Runs off to listen to Queensryche*

[George II]

70. Right. All one has to do is give a name (real or not), email address (real or not) and zip code....

....(real or not) in order to vote. I voted twice today for Emily Cain, a current applicant from Maine, just to test it out.

So people who are not necessarily Americans, not necessarily old enough to vote, or even registered to vote was able to vote, or who are members or supporters of Democracy for America were able to vote.

Pretty shoddy way of determining who to endorse, considering they're an organization of more than one million members.

[cwydro]

71. I know, lots of people have more than one email.

I have three addys. One used only for work; one I never use anymore, but sentimentally attached to it lol, and my main one.

Hell, my ROOSTER has an email addy. He had to have one to have a FB page!

[George II]

74. Like you, I have two that are pretty active (one I use to respond to spam) and........

......one that I don't use anymore. In fact, since I've changed ISPs several times over the years, if I wanted to look into it I probably have a lot more than that.

[cwydro]

120. Yeah, you know that's true.

I think I have at least two others I made and then promptly forgot about.

[retrowire]

75. no haha, you just proved you're lying orr

you don't understand the polling process.

emails have to be real, because they send a confirmation email for the vote. you can't make emails up and vote willy nilly.

[artislife]

203. They also proved h supporters have multiple email accounts and she still lost. nt

[thereismore]

76. Bernie had a huge majority in this actual bona fide vote, no doubt about it.

The disconnect between this result and national polls in which he is 20% behind Hillary is jarring. What is going on?

[retrowire]

81. exactly. nt

[Eric J in MN]

99. This was a poll of members of liberal organization. They follow politics closely.

In a typical poll of "likely Democratic primary voters," the people phoned may-or-may-not be familiar with Bernie Sanders.

[Historic NY]

112. Yawn...

good thing Dr. Howard Dean is supporting Hillary. If you think people look up online polls before they vote in a primary, well Christie might be selling that bridge in Jersey.

[AgingAmerican]

118. But clickitty click and stuff?!?!!

lol

[in_cog_ni_to]

119. kick! n/t

[in_cog_ni_to]

121. kick! n/t

[PosterChild]

124. This was not a poll...

..... it was a vote of the members of a very liberal, activist organization. It's a self selected population not a random sample. It's great that a liberal activist organization's members suport bernie - but it isn't a poll and it doesn't represent the general population.

[merrily]

128. It was a DFA membership poll. Words have meanings. They don't change meanings when Bernie

does better than Hillary.

[PosterChild]

292. They didn't call it a poll....

..... they called it a vote. Whatever the term, it's deceptive to claim that a membership organization's endorsement process is representative of nation as a whole.

It's great that bernie got their endorsement. It's a large and important organization that speaks for a significant segment of the Amercan people. That's good news, and it's good enough news that it doesn't have to be exaggerated or puffed up into something it isn't .

[merrily]

294. Who claimed that an organization's endorsement represents the nation as a whole?

[PosterChild]

295. In my reading, the OP did...

.... there has been an ongoing discussion on DU about the validity of self selecting on line polls that has often focused on the ability of participants to respond multiple times. The OP claims that the authentication measures taken in this membership vote address that concern and because of that we can conclude that the 88% "margin" "is a giant wave" and that "Bernie has the majority".

While it's true that multiple responses is a problem with online polls , the more serious problem is the self selecting, unrepresentive sample. Viewed as a poll, this is an egregious example of that.

[merrily]

296. Maybe read it again?

[PosterChild]

297. I did...

....and my conclusion is unchanged. My opinion is that the poster actually belives that this is a valid opinion survey that accurately demonstrates sander's overwhelming popularity with the general public, or at least the general Democratic electorate.

This sort of hopeful ignorance has been going on for some time on DU. And it is deliberately encouraged by the campaign partisans who produce the "polls" and the news releases that accompany them. This is a deliberate attempt to manipulate people who are hopeful and enthusiastic but who are uninformed about the scientific and statistical bases for valid opinion polling. It is unethical and a detriment to civil society.

[ronnykmarshall]

130. Another one???

I just saw an online poll on hillaryclintonbuttsmellslikepoop.com that Bernie won EVERY state and parts of Canada and Mexico to be elected president of THE WORLD by 540804 % ! I seen it.

[MrMickeysMom]

134. Bouncy!

K&R

[RoccoR5955]

143. But it wasn't "scientific!"

Dontcha know that only SCIENTIFIC polls are valid?

[Lorien]

201. If it were "scientific" they would have only polled 400 DNC Dems

over the age of 50, probably with land lines.

[RoccoR5955]

225. I am glad that I am not the only one

who knows the dog whistle of a "scientific poll" simply means a very biased poll.

[SandersDem]

147. Well in order to game that particular poll, I guess

almost every person voting would have needed a bit less than 8 or 9 bogus email accounts since she only got about 10% of that vote total.

In denial much HRC fans?

Anybody want to wager on an Elizabeth Warren endorsement 2 weeks before the Iowa Caucuses?

[artislife]

156. It is so funny to scroll through and see who is pearl clutching!

The more they protest, the funnier it gets.

[bvf]

194. Yep, one of the most amusing in quite a while. n/t

[Autumn]

196. I think that

this has the DNC terrified, and I'm good with that.

[Lorien]

202. Terrified enough to start the dirty tricks:

http://www.buzzfeed.com/evanmcsan/bernie-sanders-campaign-accessed-confidential-clinton-data?fb_comment_id=974241255956190_974275749286074&comment_id=974265459287103&reply_comment_id=974275749286074#.thYJmDrxN

[Live and Learn]

210. Hmm, so the DNC vendor screws up and Bernie's campaign reports the screw up and they suspend

the Bernie campaigns access? That makes a hell of a lot of no sense.

[Autumn]

251. It makes a lot of sense when you realize the DNC released this at this time so

they can spin this for Hillary's benefit. This is a non issue but boy can they play with this.

[bvf]

212. +1.

[Enthusiast]

234. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations!

Get with it!

[book_worm]

245. Pretty much.

[jmowreader]

267. Thing is, they wouldn't have NEEDED to hack it

Since I'm not in the Bernard Sanders Cool Kids Club, I don't have a list of online hangouts for Sanders supporters. I know there are a bunch, and I also know DFA's membership breaks pretty heavily toward Sanders. When DFA put their poll up, I have to assume people jumped into the Sanders-fan chatrooms and Sanders-fan mailing lists to tell people, "go vote for Bernie in the DFA poll RIGHT NOW!!!" (Such as http://www.democraticunderground.com/128082052) So yeah, it is a useless internet poll. The real shocker is if a poll of Sanders supporters by Sanders supporters would have shown less than...oh, say 75 percent support for him.

[retrowire]

278. your entire post basically says

Hillary supporters are incapable of doing the same thing.

[jmowreader]

281. Either that, or Hillary supporters don't care about online polls

There are two polls that matter, and neither is online.

[retrowire]

289. The Hillary supporters "all think and do alike" defense doesn't work

When there were a paltry 20,000 or so that did vote for Hillary in that poll.

[PowerToThePeople]

270. K&R.

Team hrc/dws had to try to minimize it with faux scandal today.

[yawnmaster]

272. I don't see any randomness in the sampling method, which throws up statistical red flags. eom

[etherealtruth]

279. I like Bernie, but I don't think you understand polling

[Sanders_Activitism]

285. Polls

I love this! We all use cell phones and they poll landlines. Ageee with the haha validity of your position on polls. This is leaving out an extremely large portion of Americans' population. I like the idea of cold calling of cell phones.

[retrowire]

290. And even then, most people don't answer their cell phones for strange numbers....

Welcome to DU!

[LanternWaste]

288. Is that better or worse than a useless online post?

Is that better or worse than a useless online post?

Feel the derp!

[retrowire]

291. It's better.

Logic isn't hard.