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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

workinclasszero

(28,270 posts)
Wed Oct 14, 2015, 02:19 AM Oct 2015

Hillary Clinton Turns Up Heat on Bernie Sanders in a Sharp Debate

Hillary Clinton Turns Up Heat on Bernie Sanders in a Sharp Debate
By MICHAEL BARBARO and AMY CHOZICKOCT. 13, 2015

Hillary Rodham Clinton, seeking to halt the momentum of her insurgent challenger, Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont, aggressively questioned his values, positions and voting history Tuesday night in the first Democratic presidential debate, turning a showdown that had been expected to scrutinize her character into a forceful critique of his record.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/14/us/politics/hillary-clinton-turns-up-heat-on-bernie-sanders-in-a-sharp-debate.html
9 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Hillary Clinton Turns Up Heat on Bernie Sanders in a Sharp Debate (Original Post) workinclasszero Oct 2015 OP
She did NOT question his values Fearless Oct 2015 #1
You gotta remember, it's mad libs Scootaloo Oct 2015 #2
Seems that way about the posts too. Fearless Oct 2015 #3
So obvious, lol Matariki Oct 2015 #4
Well, that has a valid point Scootaloo Oct 2015 #6
It boiled down to them saying... Fearless Oct 2015 #7
Well, at the risk of carryign water... Scootaloo Oct 2015 #8
My issues with that however Fearless Oct 2015 #9
Boy, I didn't get that impression. lovemydog Oct 2015 #5

Fearless

(18,421 posts)
1. She did NOT question his values
Wed Oct 14, 2015, 02:21 AM
Oct 2015

That would be idiotic.

Nor his positions.

Nor voting history.

In fact the last two HE pressed HER on.

This is the stupidest journalism I've ever seen.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
2. You gotta remember, it's mad libs
Wed Oct 14, 2015, 02:26 AM
Oct 2015

The "CLINTON WINS!" articles were already written, with a few blank spaces left to provide for highlights.

Fearless

(18,421 posts)
3. Seems that way about the posts too.
Wed Oct 14, 2015, 02:28 AM
Oct 2015

Look at the number of times the word "scientific" has come up in bashing the overwhelming poll evidence of a Bernie win tonight.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
6. Well, that has a valid point
Wed Oct 14, 2015, 02:46 AM
Oct 2015

But...

Find me one scientific poll confirming the "OMG HILLARY WINS!" narrative.

Fearless

(18,421 posts)
7. It boiled down to them saying...
Wed Oct 14, 2015, 02:48 AM
Oct 2015

It's not scientific because it's not representative of the whole population.

To which I replied... How do you know it isn't representative of the whole population?

To which they've ignored me.

 

Scootaloo

(25,699 posts)
8. Well, at the risk of carryign water...
Wed Oct 14, 2015, 02:52 AM
Oct 2015

The problem with these online polls is that it's entirely possible to press for a specific outcome with them - remember "DU this poll"? It's not a random sampling, it's always engaged, aware people who are trying to get a particular choice to "win."

Now there is SOME value in them, especially when we're looking at the results from a major news site asking about the major event it just broadcasted - we can be sure that there are lots of supporters of all the candidates (well... three, at least) eagerly pushing buttons and passing links around. so in some regards, it's representative... of the peopel wh oare engaged enough to watch the whole debate, then stick around to click polls.

Scientific polling uses random sampling, to prevent self-selection bias.

Fearless

(18,421 posts)
9. My issues with that however
Wed Oct 14, 2015, 03:02 AM
Oct 2015

Is that the sample size is in the 10's and 100's of thousands. People really can't "DU" that poll... as all of them that I saw only permitted one vote. It's easily done by altering the cookie stored by the site on your computer or else (as in the case of Facebook) requesting you log in or else noting your IP address.

In the end, a self-selected poll still does say exactly what it means to, even if you don't at first sight realize exactly what it's telling you.

For instance... the CNN/Facebook poll will tell you the opinions of anyone who watched the debate and saw the referral over to the website to vote, and was motivated to, and had a Facebook or at least knew how to find the link. Obviously, groups such as the blind for obvious instance would be vastly under represented in an online poll. The thing is though, after a certain number of different polls from different sources, with different types of audiences ALL come to about the same conclusion... that Bernie beat Hillary approx. 80 to 17 (with the other three splitting up the rest), the group of polls does become increasingly representative of the general population.

In fact it is impossible to actually know the true representativeness of a poll in regards to the general population without actually having the entire general population tell you how they feel... You can get closer to a representative group... the more you add people to it randomly (as groups like PPP do, though in reverse, they randomly remove people until the poll is significantly "random&quot .... But you can never reach exactly the correct representation. (Hence the existence of Margin of Error). However, after a while it's a moot point.

You don't for instance need to know that it's 36 miles and 22 feet to a specific location. The simple 36 miles will do.

With the multitude of polls ALL showing uniformly the same thing and at the same time drawing from different populations of voters, it is fairly certain that the polls are representative of the population. Inversely it is also fairly certain that the absence of ANY poll showing Hillary as the winner is representative of the fact that she wasn't.

lovemydog

(11,833 posts)
5. Boy, I didn't get that impression.
Wed Oct 14, 2015, 02:37 AM
Oct 2015

My impression from watching the debate is that Sanders, Clinton and O'Malley all played to their strengths and were respectful toward each other. Sanders shook hands at one point with Webb and at another point Clinton shook hands with Sander, smiled and said 'Thank you Bernie and Sanders smiled back.

It's funny how we can all watch the same debate and have such different impressions.

Latest Discussions»Retired Forums»2016 Postmortem»Hillary Clinton Turns Up ...