Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

2016 Postmortem

HooptieWagon

(17,064 posts)

31. You mean all those Facebook likes from Bangladesh that Clinton bought are worthless?

Reply to tgards79 (Original post)

Thu Oct 15, 2015, 05:23 PM

Oct 2015

Glad to see she wasted her campaign dough, again.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

35 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Threads that Say "Polls Say Bernie Won theDebate" Are Misleading...Facebook Polls are NOT Scientific [View all] tgards79 Oct 2015 OP

Not necessarily. immoderate Oct 2015 #1

Compared to scientific polls mythology Oct 2015 #3

Hyperbole aside, how can you 'scientifically' decide the winner of a debate? immoderate Oct 2015 #11

Science is not a style...it's a process brooklynite Oct 2015 #25

The "scientific poll" doesn't determine the winner of the debate. immoderate Oct 2015 #32

Polls would show the % of people who THOUGHT one person won over another randys1 Oct 2015 #29

Compared to actual elections, I suppose, which are themselves unscientific error-ridden polls. (nt) stone space Oct 2015 #7

Nor are the instant pronouncements of MSM pundits. They are experts at ass kissing, but little else leveymg Oct 2015 #2

You are correct JackInGreen Oct 2015 #4

well, a definite maybe Doubledee Oct 2015 #5

Pundits aren't scientific. HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #6

But...but...but 72DejaVu Oct 2015 #8

Well, that certainly explains NorthCarolina Oct 2015 #12

Yes, I quite sure the many, many, many polls showing Bernie ahead by A LOT NorthCarolina Oct 2015 #9

So Hillary won the debate *because* she lost all the online polls and focus groups? lumberjack_jeff Oct 2015 #10

There were other valid methods of his success, though. Fawke Em Oct 2015 #13

Google searches are biased too. Focus groups are a joke. Counting pundits is also a joke. tgards79 Oct 2015 #14

Nice self-promotion there buddy! TM99 Oct 2015 #27

Do you feel pundits are "scientific" or simply "bought"? NorthCarolina Oct 2015 #15

When did who won a debate became the province of science? TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #16

Why don't we all wait and see how the polls will be reflected after the debate WI_DEM Oct 2015 #17

Not sure of this...that "we all think our preferred candidate won"... tgards79 Oct 2015 #19

They either don't understand or don't care about the difference between scientific and click polls. Metric System Oct 2015 #18

Then since nobody has any science to support their subjective opinion then Clinton supporters TheKentuckian Oct 2015 #22

Yes, but for whatever reason, Sanders supporters need that illusion. procon Oct 2015 #20

Opinions of pundits aren't scientific either. frylock Oct 2015 #21

Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2015 #23

i think you'll find that most Sanders supporters are pointing to other metrics.. frylock Oct 2015 #24

Your opinion is not scientific. What is your point? Fearless Oct 2015 #26

This horse is thoroughly beaten TM99 Oct 2015 #28

Just how "scientific" is the opinion or judgment of a pundit, or even a whole news network? highprincipleswork Oct 2015 #30

You mean all those Facebook likes from Bangladesh that Clinton bought are worthless? HooptieWagon Oct 2015 #31

And pundits are scientific? Your OP is misleading. Motown_Johnny Oct 2015 #33

Message auto-removed Name removed Oct 2015 #34

Fail... an unscientific poll -can- be correct. HereSince1628 Oct 2015 #35