So, Bernie Sanders paid 6 figures for the top trending Twitter topic during the debate

[moobu2]

Last edited Fri Oct 16, 2015, 10:13 AM - Edit history (1)

so his campaign could solicit donations and direct his followers to internet web polls so they could try to manipulate the public into thinking he won the debate and at the same time claim he spontaneously raised a bunch of cash.

Nice scheming.

[JaneyVee]

1. And yesterday he held a fundraiser at a wealthy Hollywood home.

And his Bernie-mobile is a $110,000 Tesla.

[virtualobserver]

6. 650,000 unique domors and only 270 total have maxed out

270 can max out and utilize the valet parking in just one fundraiser for Hillary.

[Reter]

106. That's an amazing avatar

I wish Bernie would use it to mock Hillary's, which points to the right.

[marym625]

12. it's not his Tesla

I hope you're joking and not actually trying to say having a fund raiser at the private home of someone that is wealthy is bad or somehow illegitimate.

It's wonderful that someone wants to drive such an awesome car around with Bernie all over it.

[AgingAmerican]

141. Projection

[R B Garr]

201. WOW, didn't know that! I figured he was just a bait

and switch monger. He just wanted to reel people in and get them hooked and then do what everyone else has to do. I'm surprised the extent people are suckered by his ploys. Ugh.

[Eric J in MN]

2. I get Hillary Clinton sponsored posts

...in my Facebook timeline.

I guess that's scheming, too.

[moobu2]

4. No. There's nothing wrong with it or what Bernie Sanders did

it's just the phony acting like it was all spontaneous, when it was a well thought out scheme to manipulate perception from Bernie Sanders.

The Bernie Sanders campaign put a lot of thought and effort into it and then acted like it was all "oh look at the polls and how much money we raised" ....He's a phony.

[marble falls]

7. Weak tea.

[marym625]

9. so how many times do you give money because you saw a hash tag?

[moobu2]

11. That isnt the point

The Bernie Sanders campaign put a lot of work into manipulating his followers then his followers were bragging about how spontaneous all of it was.

[HooptieWagon]

20. Manipulated into donating?

What, is he a Nigerian Prince or something?

[marym625]

24. you have to be joking

You do know that's exactly what Obama did, right?

You cannot manipulate the figures of people donating or the amount donated. And since the debate he's been raking in the donations.

Buying a hashtag so clicking on it won't bring in other ads, spam, etc, was a brilliant move. It didn't cause people to vote in online polls. It didn't cause people to not listen to the debate and judge what was being said.

Sorry but people don't give money because of a hashtag,

I have had more promoted Hillary ads in my Twitter feed than I could possibly count. She bought followers on both Facebook and Twitter. And she paid at least 3x what Bernie did for a hashtag And still, Bernie out did her.

Talk about sour grapes

[virtualobserver]

16. It was an ad. Money doesn't grow on Oligarchic trees for Bernie at private catered gatherings.....

as it does for Hillary.

Hillary spends millions on ads. Does that make her a phony?

[moobu2]

23. But it wasn't spontaneous like his propagandists

were claiming. It was a well-orchestrated scheme like everything else Bernie Sanders does.

[Dawgs]

52. LOL!! You should just stop. n/t

[daleanime]

181. Definitely! Always remember the first rule of holes.....

when you find yourself in one, stop digging.

[workinclasszero]

64. Looks like Saint Bernie

got a little dirt on himself.

I guess he's human like everybody else, how about that.

Couldn't see that coming...

[napi21]

204. I'm GLAD Bernie is using technology to further his casmpaign and get more donations.

He has finally been convinced that these are the things he HAS TO DO to have a shot at winning. It wasn't deception, and it wasn't manipulating anyone. It's ADVERTISIING! If a campaign doesn't do that, they die!

[moobu2]

207. Bernie Sanders buying the top trending topic for so much money wasn't the problem

It was his campaign using the topic to direct his followers to online polls and his followers voting over and over and over and over again tilting the polls towards Bernie Sanders and then coming here and trying to pass the polls off as Bernie Sanders winning the debate when it was all manipulation.

Bernie Sanders asked for money then his followers acted like it was spontaneous.

Hillary won the debate and she's the Democratic front-runner.

Bernie Sanders isnt even a Democrat.

[Tom Rinaldo]

17. Fine to piont out that he engaged in politics - but phoney? Pleeeease...

Bernie is a professional, and he hires professional to work for him. His craft involves getting elected as a prerequisite, same as anyone else holding elected office. Bernie keeps his pledges. He said no Super PAC money and he has no Super PAC. He says he wants an issue based campaign and he blasts the so called Hillary email "scandal" as a distraction from what really matters rather than pile onto her over it.

He never said he wasn't in this to win or that he wouldn't use legitimate tools to do so. Again, it's fine to poke at some who think Bernie walks on water and it too pure to legitimately seek political advantages consistent with his goals, but calling him a phony? Fail. You undercut your otherwise valid point by going there.

[MuseRider]

70. Best answer, thanks.

Bernie bought an ad? Oh what shall we ever do?

Politician. Politician.

[Samantha]

164. And he didn't just hire ANY professionals

He hired the same team President Obama used to get himself elected. Those people are brilliant.

Sam

[PatrickforO]

183. Yeah, I had the privilege of volunteering for both Obama's presidential campaigns

and that machine was like nothing I've ever seen. It was truly, brilliantly amazing.

[Luminous Animal]

27. You do realize that twitter ads are clearly marked, don't you?

[cprise]

157. Would Clinton mention her Facebook ads? Not even Sanders supporters care

that she bought them. She still trended lower there.

Its a case of 'all other things being equal'... Bernie still piqued the Internet more.

[pipoman]

3. Rocks and glass houses.....again....

[KittyWampus]

21. haven't seen many Hillary supporters pretending she figuratively craps rainbows….

unlike the bulk of the Sanders supporters on DU who can't stand the slightest criticism.

Heck, they can't even stand to have anyone call him a Socialist.

[moobu2]

39. Exactly.

The only thing wrong with what Bernie Sanders did was pretend it was all spontaneous and unplanned.

[uponit7771]

213. +1, one literally told me Sanders can throw stones

[HooptieWagon]

5. He bought an ad?

Oh, the horror!

[moobu2]

8. No. He paid 6 figures for the trending topic on Twitter during the debate

and solicited donations and directed his followers to websites to distort online poll results then his followers post all that phony stuff all over the internet.

[HooptieWagon]

13. That's buying an ad.

Online ads have links to websites/home pages. Candidates solicit donations. Apparently this is all news to you, or are you feigning outrage?

[moobu2]

15. You know that isn't the point.

are you feigning ignorance or is it authentic?

[virtualobserver]

30. what kind of reaction does #DebatewithBernie create in humans?

Is it some magical secret code?

Or is it trying to get people to watch the debate?

[moobu2]

42. No. It was a scheme to manipulate his followers

and using the hashtag to direct them to online polls and to donate more money so they could act like it was all spontaneous. You know.

[virtualobserver]

58. Bernie's emails ask me for money, just like the six emails a day I get from Team Hillary

#DebatewithBernie is just a hashtag that takes you to twitter just like all other hashtags

[jeff47]

127. The tag again! Must...donate...ANOTHER...$20.... (nt)

[TM99]

89. You obviously don't know the first thing about Twitter.

You obviously don't know shit about psychology either.

You are really looking foolish in this thread.

Go educate yourself.

[Luminous Animal]

114. It didn't direct anyone to any polls. It directed people to this page

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/653992135088205824/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

This thread is thick with ignorance and lies.

[AgingAmerican]

144. Ooooh another conspiracy!

lol

[jeff47]

122. The tag! Must....donate....another....$20.... (nt)

[virtualobserver]

131. so sorry.....we were told to be careful with it at the secret meeting

[aidbo]

156. #DebatewithBernie

[jeff47]

159. ....must....donate....again.....(nt)

[uponit7771]

214. That's FUD, what's all over DUP daily

[Luminous Animal]

36. That is so full of lies. #1. He bought a clearly marked ad on Twitter.

#2. It was a hashtag that said #DebatewithBernie which led to other Twitter posts that said #DebatewithBernie. It didn't direct his followers to do anything else.

[procon]

81. Not exactly, he paid to move his brand to the top of the heap.

It wasn't just a regular ad, he paid for the ad placement so that it always showed him on top all the time. It was the internet version of putting his thumb on the scale. It was a deception that led twitter users and various websites to believe that Sanders was actually winning. It was deceitful because it tricked potential voters into believing a falsehood, and a deceitful way of tricking them into parting with their money because they thought they were supporting a real winner.

[TM99]

90. Except that isn't reality.

Go research Twitter a bit more before you peddle such bullshit disinformation.

Jesus the stupid in this thread is astounding!

[procon]

103. Afraid to follow your own advice?

Yes, please do your own research and you'll discover that twitter ad buyers can buy their way to the top of the list of trending topics and pay to have it stay on top of the list all day.

Twitter has also acknowledged this so nothing is served by continued denials'; it happened.

"Ahead of the Democratic debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders became the first 2016 presidential candidate on Tuesday to pay six-figures to take over Twitter’s top trending topic.

Twitter users watching the debate via their smart phones will see the hashtag #DebatewithBernie at the top of the
national trending topics — above the hashtag for the debate and other popular items for the day.

A spokesman for Twitter confirmed the Sanders campaign purchased the top trending hashtag..."

http://iadweek.me/2015/10/14/bernie-sanders-makes-big-twitter-purchase/

[TM99]

104. Nice attempt to deflect and spin it back.

You are claiming unethical abuse and manipulation. That is not what a Twitter ad buys.

Jesus, the willfulness of the distortions is sickening!

[CentralMass]

205. If it is as you say, it was a brilliant move.

[Luminous Animal]

111. So did Obama. And it is not a deception because it is clearly marked as advertisement.

It didn't lead to anywhere but to an embedded tweet of Bernie's.

For instance, there is a Farmers Insurance ad at the top of this page. If I click on it, it sends me to another window showing Farmers Insurance agents in my area.

The hashtag #debatewithbernie was clearly marked underneath "Promoted". Clearly, something promoted by Bernie's own campaign is going to send someone to a tweet or a page affiliated with Bernie.

Yesterdays ad was for promoted by Google Photos. It said those words right under the hashtag (can't remember what it was right now).

So, tell me, what do you think would happen if I clicked on a hashtag created by Google Photos? Yep, it sends me to this page:

https://twitter.com/search?q=google%20photos%20%40googlephotos&src=tyah

[ucrdem]

10. Phony berniemania?

Say it ain't so

[cprise]

154. It would be phony IF rich people paid for it. n/t

[ucrdem]

165. How do we know they didn't?

Do we have data on whose contribution paid for that particular ad buy?

[cprise]

219. It was bought by a lot of small contributions

Are you not aware that Sanders rejects PAC money?

[ucrdem]

220. You mean like "Billionaires for Bernie"?

Washington Post, July 15, 2015:

A cornerstone of Bernie Sanders’s presidential campaign is extracting billionaire influence from politics.

So imagine our surprise when a Sanders supporter seemed to miss that point and filed with the Federal Election Commission on Wednesday a super PAC called “Billionaires for Bernie.”

link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2015/07/15/theres-a-new-super-pac-for-bernie-sanders-it-wants-billionaire-donors/

So do we know who bought the hashtag?

[cprise]

221. The Sanders campaign bought it. n/t

[Romulox]

14. Supporters of the Big Money candidate "concerned" about Bernie's campaign spending! nt

[peacebird]

33. And upset that he bought a clearly marked ad on twitter! The horror!

[winter is coming]

51. But it was a mind control ad!

If you check your decoder ring, you'll see it's telling you to vote in online polls!

[Historic NY]

117. And someone claimed Hillary bought her likes....

Want to help Bernie Sanders make even more of an impact tonight at the first Democratic Debate? Make sure every tweet you send has #DebateWithBernie in it.

Example: In the Tweet below, @eddie included the hashtag #FF. Users created this as shorthand for “Follow Friday,” a weekly tradition where users recommend people that others should follow on Twitter. You’ll see this on Fridays.

http://thebernreport.com/the-two-debates-hashtags-you-should-use-to-help-bernie-tonight/

[Arugula Latte]

99. He's so, like, CORPORATE, ya know?

He's got Big Granola in his back pocket!

[DisgustipatedinCA]

18. The problem with your hypothesis is that you're trying to sell it to thinking people.

[hill2016]

19. sorry

care to elaborate?

[DCBob]

22. Not a bad scheme if the point is to manipulate public perception.

Seems a bit unethical to me.

[virtualobserver]

26. buying an ad which says #DebatewithBernie is unethical?

Bernie wanted people to watch the debate.

This line of attack on Bernie is more pathetic than usual.

[DCBob]

38. The unethical part was fraudulently manipulating online polls to sway public opinion.

That just seems like low sleazy tactic.. not Bernie-like.

[virtualobserver]

41. how does #DebatewithBernie manipulate online polls?

[DCBob]

46. I believe his campaign used that to instruct followers to go to all the online polls..

and click, click, click for Bernie. Seems manipulative to me.

[virtualobserver]

56. you "believe" that, do you?

[TM99]

92. Proof or just lies?

Your call.

[Luminous Animal]

112. WHAT!? #debatewithbernie is secret code?

Here is what happened when people clicked on #debatewithbernie

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/653992135088205824/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc^tfw

[Scootaloo]

100. It's a mind control conspiracy when a Jewish candidate buys an ad, you see

[Luminous Animal]

28. Really. Buying an ad on twitter that is clearly marked as advertising is unethical?

Did you think the same when Obama did it?

[virtualobserver]

34. The secret is out...now everyone knows the power of the #DebatewithBernie hashtag

[DCBob]

40. See my post above.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251688878#post38

[Luminous Animal]

47. So. When you are watching TV and an ad comes on for Hillary, you find that

unethical.

[DCBob]

48. No.. not the point at all and I am sure you know that.

[Luminous Animal]

61. It is an ad that is clearly marked as an ad. Any twitter user younger than 84

knows it is an ad. Every single day there are twitter ads clearly marked as advertising.

[ucrdem]

63. No indication that it's an ad that I can see:

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/653992135088205824/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[Luminous Animal]

68. That is not a twitter hashtag, grandpa.

[ucrdem]

74. It's not marked as an ad, either. nt

[TM99]

93. Because what you posted is called a Tweet.

The ad is now gone. It was a time sensitive paid for ad. You do know how those work right?

[ucrdem]

135. Nice try. nt

[TM99]

136. There is no cure for ignorance.

Sorry to say.

The trending hashtag was posted elsewhere in this thread. That was the Tweet on the page it was being directed to.

Try again.

[ucrdem]

138. LOL, right. Truth? I've had Bernie's number since 1992. nt

[TM99]

143. And that has what to do with

the actual ways you have been wrong in this thread?

Oh, yes, right, nothing at all.

Had his number? How ominous. But I guess I have had the Clinton's number even a bit longer since their Arkansas days.

[ucrdem]

162. Same baloney, different social medium. nt

[AgingAmerican]

145. Isn't that the point of ads?

[ucrdem]

25. WSJ, Oct 13: "Bernie Sanders Makes Big Twitter Purchase"

Last edited Fri Oct 23, 2015, 11:21 PM - Edit history (2)

9:10 pm ET - Oct 13, 2015 2016

Ahead of the Democratic debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders became the first 2016 presidential candidate on Tuesday to pay six-figures to take over Twitter’s top trending topic.

Twitter users watching the debate via their smart phones will see the hashtag #DebatewithBernie at the top of the national trending topics – above the hashtag for the debate and other popular items for the day.

A spokesman for Twitter confirmed the Sanders campaign purchased the top trending hashtag, but declined to say the exact cost. In the past, Twitter has charged $200,000 for similar campaigns.

The promoted hashtag is one of Twitter’s most expensive ad options. It allows the campaign to choose which links users see when they click on the hashtag – in order to avoid spam or unsavory tweets “taking over” the hashtag. In this case, the Sanders campaign chose a tweet from Mr. Sanders’ account that asks users to sign up to say good luck to the candidate.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/13/bernie-sanders-makes-big-twitter-purchase/

Imagine that.

--------

accidentally edited -- oops

[fredamae]

29. MSM Ignores and diminishes

his rise.
So, Bernies campaign finds another means to make him visible...And Pays the going fee for the service...he's a Schemer?
hahahahahaha

[workinclasszero]

35. Paying cold hard cash moneyz

For internet votes. Uh huh. Yeah.

Nothing to see here folks, lets move along.

[fredamae]

43. You're correct...

From the "Hit Enter" to right now..Nothing to see.

And, just curious...what real significance does a Twitter Vote have in the end game and Why are "some people in such a twitter" about that?

[workinclasszero]

44. Ask Bernie

He paid out 6 figures of your money to do it

[fredamae]

49. No Corpo $ And I'm am Proud....

But if we're gonna talk scheming lets talk about this.

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-10-16/insurrection-erupts-at-the-democratic-national-committee

[cprise]

155. Considering the donors who paid for it...not a big deal.

From YOUR candidate, it really would be phony.

Also, it was smart for his campaign to put the money in Twitter's pockets instead of corporate media who are trying to ignore him in favor of wealthy celebrities.

[alarimer]

171. As opposed to corporations buying Hilary herself

I know which I prefer.

[Jeroen]

31. It's not scheming but smart use of social media

Buying a trending topic does not force people into giving donations or taking part in polls.
I agree, to certain extend, that it is a form of manipulation, after all it is advertising.
So what do you expect from a campaign? This whole election is about changing peoples mind and getting people involved.

The overwhelming response on the Internet came as a surprise, so are the donations.
Bernie's performance is the reason for it, not the fact that his campaign bought trending topic on Twitter.

[workinclasszero]

32. Oh my...how embarrassing

That explains all the BS internet polls for Bernie.

Wow!!

[Sheepshank]

37. I agree it was scheme

I see many here going into defensive mode. There's nothing wrong with scheming per se, but I do think it was a dishonest manipulation of the grass roots meme. Likely many people thinking they were joining a team that realy isn't what it represents itself to be. Kinda like what the baggers thought was grassroots but really was Koch funded and refused to acknowledge that there was nothing spontaneous about their movement.

[moobu2]

50. Yep, I couldn't have said it better

[Dawgs]

57. WTF! Are you people for real? n/t

[haikugal]

129. Sadly yes..this is what passes for political discourse with this group. nt

[ucrdem]

45. This headline was at the top of LBN for days:

Bernie Sanders cleaned up on the social media service, rapidly outpacing the other four candidates when it came to adding new followers.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/10/13/bernie-sanders-clearly-won-the-debate-on-twitter/

Just another miracle of social media I guess . . .

p.s. I never clicked it so I'm not sure the link is the same.

--------
Update: I just checked the LBN post and it's the same Forbes headline and link.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141233247

[winter is coming]

62. Yet another DUer who doesn't understand Twitter.

The Sanders campaign bought an ad, not fake followers.

[ucrdem]

65. There's no indication that it's an ad:

https://twitter.com/BernieSanders/status/653992135088205824/photo/1?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

[winter is coming]

73. That's just an image.

During the time #DebateWithBernie was being promoted, it would have been clearly marked as "promoted". It's Twitter policy.

https://business.twitter.com/help/how-twitter-ads-work

[ucrdem]

77. You can see what was posted at the WSJ link I posted above. Here it is again:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/13/bernie-sanders-makes-big-twitter-purchase/

Scroll down.

[winter is coming]

79. An image on the WSJ doesn't change the way Twitter does business.

Promoted tweets and trends are labeled as such.

[ucrdem]

80. It's not an image, it's an embedded tweet. And there's no indication that it's sponsored. nt

[winter is coming]

82. You're right; it's an embedded tweet... that's no longer being promoted.

Or did you think the Sanders campaign would pay for that ad indefinitely? I note that the WSJ didn't attribute any nefarious intentions to Sanders' ad buy, so it's rather interesting that DUers are assuming something underhanded happened.

[winter is coming]

86. Here's another article about it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sanders-raises-1-3-million-off-debate-performance/

Here's what it means to buy the top trending topic on Twitter. On every user's page is the "Trends" column on the left side of the page. What Sanders purchased was the the top spot in that feed for #DebateWithBernie - marked with a "promoted" icon - for a 24-hour window.

If you go to the article, they even show an example of what the promoted icon looks like.

[Luminous Animal]

110. OMG! It is no different when you click on any ad... it, you know, sends you to something that is

relevant to the ad.

For instance, there is a Farmers Insurance ad at the top of this page. If I click on it, it sends me to another window showing Farmers Insurance agents in my area.

The hashtag #debatewithbernie was clearly marked "Promoted". Clearly, something promoted by Bernie's own campaign is going to send someone to a tweet or a page affiliated with Bernie.

Yesterdays ad was for promoted by Google Photos. It said those words right under the hashtag (can't remember what it was right now).

So, tell me, what do you think would happen if I clicked on a hashtag created by Google Photos? Yep, it sends me to this page:

https://twitter.com/search?q=google%20photos%20%40googlephotos&src=tyah

I cannot believe I have to explain this to you.

[kath]

78. Yeah, how many hundreds of thousands of fake followers did HRC buy?

or was it millions?

[procon]

83. Do you understand paid brand placement?

We aren't talking about just regular advertising here, yeah? Sanders paid for premium brand placement to get his name on the top and keep it there to influence the outcome of social media opinions and generate money. He bought his "win".

[winter is coming]

84. Oh, bullshit. What he did was no different from airing a national TV commercial,

except it was cheaper.

[procon]

94. No. Ads don't run continuously on your TV screen.

This only happens on the internet. Most social media users have no idea that they are being tricked into thinking that the name of the candidate they see at the top of their screen actually earned that position, and they have no idea that the candidate bought the first place slot.

[TM99]

98. They are not tricked.

Obviously those who know dick about social media want to try and convince those of us who do that they are right, but y'all are just wrong.

Educate yourself!

https://biz.twitter.com/products/promoted-trends

https://blog.twitter.com/2013/study-the-value-of-promoted-trends

[procon]

105. I just said that.

What are you arguing about?

[TM99]

108. Here is what you said.

Most social media users have no idea that they are being tricked into thinking that the name of the candidate they see at the top of their screen actually earned that position, and they have no idea that the candidate bought the first place slot.

Yes, you said they have no idea they are being tricked.

They are not. The trending hashtag clearly states it is promoted. This has been going on long enough that users of Twitter know exactly what a promoted hashtag. Therefore, they are NOT tricked into thinking that the name of the candidate they see at the top of their screen earned that position. Yes, they do know that if it is a promoted hashtag then yes, the candidate or campaign or business or whatever did buy that positioning.

[procon]

116. That's a different argument and I can't agree with your assertions.

Does the average twitter users stop to read the small print, disclaimers or do they even associate the marketing concept of a promoted ad with a paid placement? No, likely not, and that's intentional because the buyers purchase that ad product because it is designed to flow seamlessly into the mix and create the perception of a popular victory.

[TM99]

118. You are wrong.

You keep moving goal posts in attempt to make this a 'bad thing'.

Yes, anyone who uses Twitter for even a short time learns how the system works including the use of promoted hashtags, trending hashtags, etc.

There is no 'small print' to read. It is a visible icon next to the hashtag. Period.

You assume a level of ignorance on the part of those who actually use social networking like Twitter that you hope will bolster your argument. It does not.

[winter is coming]

102. LOL. During election season, they're more or less continuous.

And given how little you seem to understand about Twitter, I'm not sure you're the best judge of what "most social media users" do and don't understand. Something that's always in the top position for 24 hours, with an icon and the word "promoted"... it's pretty obvious that's an ad, even without the content, which sounds like someone promoting themselves.

[Luminous Animal]

115. Dude(tte). It clearly states that it is an ad. People who use twitter know that it is an ad because

it states that it is an ad.

[ucrdem]

134. Except that it doesn't, per the links I've posted. Anywhere. nt

[Luminous Animal]

149. What you posted is a tweet that you see after clicking on the ad.

You have not posted the ad itself. Here is an example of what it would have looked like on a mobile device:



See the word "promoted" and the arrow? Now if you click on the hashtag, it takes you to the Google Photos Twitter page.

Similarly, clicking on #debatewithbernie (which also included the word "promoted" and an arrow) would direct a person to a Bernie tweet.

From the WSJ article: The promoted hashtag is one of Twitter’s most expensive ad options. It allows the campaign to choose which links users see when they click on the hashtag – in order to avoid spam or unsavory tweets “taking over” the hashtag. In this case, the Sanders campaign chose a tweet from Mr. Sanders’ account that asks users to sign up to say good luck to the candidate.

Let me walk you through this.

1) The Sanders campaign creates a twitter ad. That being #debatewithbernie. The ad states that it is a promoted hashtag and has an arrow next to it.
2) The twitterverse knows that it is an ad because that is how promoted hashtag advertising works on twitter.
3) If someone using twitter clicks on the ad they will be directed to Bernie's tweet... the one published in the WSJ and the one you posted here.

[workinclasszero]

85. "Just another miracle of social media I guess . . ."

And six figures of filthy lucre LOL

Oh how the mighty(and holier than thou too)have fallen!

[ucrdem]

142. For a socialist he's pretty good at capitalism.

[workinclasszero]

146. He sure is!

Send more $$$ Bernie fans, twitter is hungry!

[cantbeserious]

53. Sounds Like Sour Grapes Sniping To These Ears

eom

[riderinthestorm]

54. Quelle horreur!1! The Sanders campaign bought an ad!11!!

Ads which are by their very nature designed to persuade and manipulate...

What a shock!

Are you equally as shocked when Hillary buys ads? Or when Obama did it?



This is getting pretty funny...

[artislife]

55. You understand it is a form of advertizing, don't you?

We already schooled a whole bunch of you on this a couple days ago. REPEAT thread and fake outrage.

[Capt. Obvious]

59. Advertising?

That sounds unethical.

[ucrdem]

60. It's not marked as an ad.

It's not really marked as anything. Big though.

[artislife]

66. Maybe be I am younger

and have seen things like this a lot, it is an ad. We know we are advertized everywhere. The pop up on our videos, the side banners along with the top.

We know we are being advertized to. There is no way at least 80% didn't think this wasn't an ad but a public announcement wishing Bernie good luck...ha ha ha ha ha


Really, what else could it be? Minority Report came out years ago.

[ucrdem]

67. It's generally considered a deceptive practice to misrepresent sponsored online content. nt

[artislife]

69. Deceptive? I guess if you don't understand the online experience.

[ucrdem]

72. Oh we understand it. That's the point. nt

[Luminous Animal]

126. What is misrepresented? The hashtag was clearly marked as "promoted". People on twitter

know that a promoted hashtag is advertisement.

"It's generally considered a deceptive practice to misrepresent sponsored online content." This sentence of yours is more representative of your comments than of Bernie's clearly marked advertisement.

[ucrdem]

133. There is no such indication and saying there is doesn't make it true. End of story. nt

[TM99]

137. No, sorry, you are continuing to be wrong.

https://www.hashtags.org/platforms/twitter/twitter-101-understanding-trends-and-promoted-tweets/

That shows you exactly what a promoted trending Hashtag looks like and what a promoted Tweet looks like.

[ucrdem]

147. Keep digging. nt

[TM99]

148. You are simply incapable of admitting you are wrong.

Disgusting really.

Ah, well.....

[TM99]

95. Jesus dude!

Stop.

You are wrong.

You have linked to a Tweet. That Tweet contains the hast tag. This was paid for as a trending hash tag.

The hast tag itself, during the promotion, was clearly labelled as an advertisement as well as being featured in the Twitter feed where all ads are featured. Anyone who knows and uses Twitter would understand that.

It was not fraudulent. It was not deceptive. It was not manipulative...well any more so that any ad is. The hash tag was never used to jury rig polls.

Sanders paid for a hash tag. It cost him $200,000. Clinton pays for TV ads. They cost her millions. She receives PAC money. She uses said PAC money to buy spots as well as having those PAC's buy spots in her name. There is nothing grassroots about that.

Sanders on the other hand only accepts individual donations. He does not accept PAC money. He will not allow PAC's to run ads, and if they do, he will disavow it. Social media, for now, is still grassroots. This is completely congruent with his campaign and the movement he is leading.

This is a Rovian attack. It is deceptive. It is dishonest. It is specious.

[Autumn]

71. Money well spent, advertising is always good. How much has Hillary spent on ads?

Nice fail.

[cosmicone]

75. No wonder a bunch of obsessed people

started clicking on online polls when the debate wasn't even half over!!

Bernie paid $300,000 to win 18 internet polls hahahahahahahahahaha

[procon]

76. He cheated? He paid for the top position on twitter and then claimed he "won"?

If his campaign bought up the top twitter placement, did he also do the same thing with other social media? Maybe it's not exactly illegal -- but it's not very ethical either given his campaign theme of honesty and integrity -- but when he has to use these cheats to declare he "won", it makes me suspicious of everything else he says.

Bernie Sanders Makes Big Twitter Purchase

Ahead of the Democratic debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders became the first 2016 presidential candidate on Tuesday to pay six-figures to take over Twitter’s top trending topic.

Twitter users watching the debate via their smart phones will see the hashtag #DebatewithBernie at the top of the national trending topics – above the hashtag for the debate and other popular items for the day.

A spokesman for Twitter confirmed the Sanders campaign purchased the top trending hashtag, but declined to say the exact cost. In the past, Twitter has charged $200,000 for similar campaigns.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/13/bernie-sanders-makes-big-twitter-purchase/

Seeing how much money he raked in following the debate, I'd say the payoff in his advertising dollars were well spent, plus his supporters got the feel good opportunity to pretend he was the "winner".

[winter is coming]

88. Since when is buying an ad "cheating"?

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/sanders-raises-1-3-million-off-debate-performance/

Here's what it means to buy the top trending topic on Twitter. On every user's page is the "Trends" column on the left side of the page. What Sanders purchased was the the top spot in that feed for #DebateWithBernie - marked with a "promoted" icon - for a 24-hour window.

[procon]

109. It wasn't just a ordinary ad, was it?

Read your own citation. It was all about location. Buying that number one spot made people think that he was winning because he was always at the top of the trends. Not because he had actually earned the top rank, but because he bought it.

[riderinthestorm]

113. It's an ordinary Twitter ad

you know, you're making yourself look foolish here. You still have time to delete.

Bernie paid for the equivalent of a full page ad on the back page of a major newspaper. An ad that also gives out a web address for more info or that exhorts people to vote for them. For those people who pay attention to ads in newspapers, it makes it appear that the candidate is big, important, has lots of money, and there may even be the hint that the newspaper is tacitly supporting that candidate by the ads placement. It's not deceptive, nor is it unethical.

It's just an ad.

He simply beat Hillary at the social media advertising game. This time. I'd bet big money she gets in and does it next time.

[procon]

121. What's with name calling?

Disagree on merit and argue your position as best you can, but don't resort to an uncalled for personal attack to strengthen your position.


Regular ads are one thing, but I disagree with claims that paying for the top placement is synonymous with a legitimate win. Yes, all the candidates can resort to buying similar top brand placements across the whole social media spectrum to make themselves look better. But does that help voters who are trying to make an informed decision or does it trick them into believing the "winner" has already been chosen?

[riderinthestorm]

124. Name calling?? Lol!

Good luck with that.

You've demonstrated over and over that you don't understand how Twitter ads work, even as many folks have tried to educate you.

It was helpful advice.

But feel free to ignore it.

[winter is coming]

119. That's no different from ad banners on the top of webpages.

[procon]

123. And they cost much more than other ads because that premium placement is more effective.

[winter is coming]

125. And TV ads cost more during the Superbowl.

That doesn't make them deceptive or unfair.

[TM99]

120. No it did not.

Stop pushing a lie.

https://www.hashtags.org/analytics/debatewithbernie/

He did not gain any sort of 'ranking' with regards to the debate. He advertised using a legitimate method such that those who were on Twitter during the debates would be linked to his Twitter profile and then to his website for donations.

No one was manipulated to follow him. No one was manipulated to donate for him. This is becoming silly!

[procon]

128. His hashtag was the number one trend.

I've never argued that paid trend ads were not legitimate and you're wrong to try to make that unfounded assertion in an effort to bolster your case. I've also never said that Sanders had "manipulated " anyone, so if you're going to debate me, then please be courteous enough not to misquote me.

Now, how did that top paid placement NOT benefit Sanders ranking? It certainly allowed him to create a lot more buzz than an ordinary ad would have. By paying the more expensive premium for the top place he also enhanced his ability to attract new followers and lots more money than he would have with just an ordinary ad that would see his brandname fluctuate as most trends do.

[TM99]

132. Ah, yes, yes, you did.

You suggested he did this on multiple social media sites without a citation, merely creative speculation.

It wasn't just a regular ad, he paid for the ad placement so that it always showed him on top all the time. It was the internet version of putting his thumb on the scale. It was a deception that led twitter users and various websites to believe that Sanders was actually winning. It was deceitful because it tricked potential voters into believing a falsehood, and a deceitful way of tricking them into parting with their money because they thought they were supporting a real winner.

Manipulation is another word for what you just described in this quoted passage.

Here is another example of you describing manipulation.

This only happens on the internet. Most social media users have no idea that they are being tricked into thinking that the name of the candidate they see at the top of their screen actually earned that position, and they have no idea that the candidate bought the first place slot.

Legitimate? You mean like not illegal but unethical? You mean like what you said here?

If his campaign bought up the top twitter placement, did he also do the same thing with other social media? Maybe it's not exactly illegal -- but it's not very ethical either given his campaign theme of honesty and integrity -- but when he has to use these cheats to declare he "won", it makes me suspicious of everything else he says.

If you can not even be honest about what you have written yourself, then there is no sense in debating you.

[procon]

158. Don't try to redefine my statement to suit your position.

My opinion on the use of prioritization​ ads remains unchanged. That may contradict your narrative, and I'm fine with that. It seems to have upset you enough that you had to spend so much effort with c&p and trying to imagine what I might be "suggesting" between the lines instead of just allowing that I actually wrote what I meant to say even if it doesn't fit into your list of acceptable definitions.

In all honesty, given the number of insults and ad homs you've tossed about, there's no illusion that a civil debate ever materialized here, yeah?

[TM99]

161. You are hilarious.

You attempted to lie, distort, spin, and then bullshit. I simply called you out on it without letting up.

Civil debating was not an option from the start from your very first post on the topic.

[Luminous Animal]

153. And all of that is a smart thing to do. Just like is was smart for Obama when he did the same thing.

[uponit7771]

215. +1, they know this

[TM99]

97. See, here is more of that Rovian bullshit.

So did he buy others?

No, he did not. But thanks for implying he did. Maybe the shit will stick and others will pass it on as a truthism.

Illegal? Nope. Unethical? Not at all. It is a trending hash tag. Daily small and large businesses purchase such trending tags. Hell, I have done so for my music promotion.

What pisses y'all the fuck off is that he was schooled by his campaign advisors and was smart enough to use the medium available to him at the price he could afford to do what candidates do...advertise themselves.

The balls y'all have to accuse him of unethical behavior given Clinton's track record of unethical behavior (email servers anyone!?) is just beyond understanding. Clinton accepts millions through CU, but Sanders is unethical because his campaign bought a trending hashtag.

Jesus fucking christ on a pogo stick!!!

[TheFarS1de]

217. You deserve this...

For taking the time to try to explain reality and how an ad works

[Luminous Animal]

151. No. He purchased advertising to place an ad over trending topics.

And when people clicked on the ad, they were directed to one of Bernie Sanders tweets which asked supporters to wish him good luck. It had nothing to do with super secret coded directives to vote in online polls.

Here is an example.

[Bjornsdotter]

87. Just another thing Bernie

....thought of first.

[aidbo]

91. Yeah. #BernieSoRich he buys Twitter ads. If Hillary is such a lock to win..

..then why are straws being grasped at so wildly?

[workinclasszero]

96. #BernieSoRich he buys Twitter ads

LOL

[TheFarS1de]

216. #HillarysFacebookFriends ...

as long as they get paid

[frazzled]

101. Winning the Internets is not the same as winning elections

Let's remember who overwhelmingly won the Internets in 2008. Or rather in 2007 (the equivalent of where we are now, in 2015): it was John Edwards all the way. I think people forget how enamored this board and Kos et al were of the Two Americas meme and how convinced they were of how people would flock to the message if only they heard it and fell under the spell. Let's also remember Howard Dean in 2004. And it wasn't because of the affair or the scream that those two candidates did not win the nomination. Neither of them was winning with average American voters. And you can concoct as many conspiracy theories about the mainstream media or the powers that be as you like to defend your views of what is happening out in the real world, but they'd remain conspiracies. The real story is on the ground.

Buying out arenas in surefire supporter places like Madison WI or Portland OR and paying for Twitter trends will get you the semblance of support and the media attention you need to get a foothold, but it is not the full picture. It feels cosmetic and glossy, but it's not real and it's not deep.

I'm not impressed by stadiums and Twitter. I look back to the conventional wisdom of the Internets in previous cycles, and I feel quite certain that the Internet is not the place to take the temperature of the American public.

I know my comments will be of no consequence to anyone here. So carry on.

[TM99]

107. The internet of 2004 and 2007

is not the internet of today.

In 2004, there was no Facebook or Twitter.

In 2007 and 2008 Facebook was just getting under way. They had about 100,000 business pages but did not really take off until 2009. The same is true for Twitter.

It is simply impossible to compare then and now with regards to social media.

[workinclasszero]

130. You are totally right

History will repeat itself again.

And so it goes.

[GeorgeGist]

139. I believe your perception is distorted.

[AgingAmerican]

140. Projection

[Agschmid]

150. I don't see anything wrong with him doing it...

However can you imagine the shit that would be flinging if Hillary had done this.

[Luminous Animal]

160. Why? For taking out an ad? Obama did it and I thought it was smart politics

When Romney, in turn, did it, I don't recall any Dems flinging shit at Romney.

Twitter has a huge audience and this is one way that advertising is done on Twitter. All campaigns should take advantage of advertising every where they can.

[still_one]

152. and there is nothing wrong with him doing it. Because of Citizens United, it is the only way

candidates have a chance in today's political environment

[ucrdem]

163. The nicest possible interpretation is that Bernie! (r) is being marketed like toothpaste.

The not-nice interpretation is that the marketing is being misrepresented as some kind of electoral process. It isn't. The number of millennials clicking sponsored twitter links is about as meaningful politically as their favorite brand of dogfood.

[Luminous Animal]

166. Um, no. As the article explained (and Obama did similar in 2012), it is to direct

tweeters to a specific message from the campaign… A message not dominated by trolls.

By the way, when Hillary spends millions on ads in a specific market, do also characterizer her as being marketed like dog food or tootpaste?

I am about 99% sure that Hillary will do similar in the primary and/or the general. As I said in the title, Obama did it and so did Romney.

[ucrdem]

167. "Obama did similar" what exactly? Link?

[Luminous Animal]

169. See the WSJ entry that YOU linked to in post #25

YOUR link. Text quoted below is under the picture of Bernie/

In the 2012 presidential election, President Barack Obama’s campaign purchased the hashtag #fourmoreyears. The Mitt Romney campaign fired back by paying to promote the hashtag #cantaffordfourmore

.

[ucrdem]

170. "Bernie Sanders Makes Big Twitter Purchase"?

9:10 pm ET - Oct 13, 2015 2016 - "Bernie Sanders Makes Big Twitter Purchase"

Ahead of the Democratic debate, Sen. Bernie Sanders became the first 2016 presidential candidate on Tuesday to pay six-figures to take over Twitter’s top trending topic.

Twitter users watching the debate via their smart phones will see the hashtag #DebatewithBernie at the top of the national trending topics – above the hashtag for the debate and other popular items for the day.

A spokesman for Twitter confirmed the Sanders campaign purchased the top trending hashtag, but declined to say the exact cost. In the past, Twitter has charged $200,000 for similar campaigns.

The promoted hashtag is one of Twitter’s most expensive ad options. It allows the campaign to choose which links users see when they click on the hashtag – in order to avoid spam or unsavory tweets “taking over” the hashtag. In this case, the Sanders campaign chose a tweet from Mr. Sanders’ account that asks users to sign up to say good luck to the candidate.

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/10/13/bernie-sanders-makes-big-twitter-purchase/

This one?

[Luminous Animal]

172. Yep. The same article that says, under Bernie's picture...

In the 2012 presidential election, President Barack Obama’s campaign purchased the hashtag #fourmoreyears. The Mitt Romney campaign fired back by paying to promote the hashtag #cantaffordfourmore.

Obviously, you believe that Obama was being marketed like toothpaste or dog food. And that would be the nicest possible interpretation.

[ucrdem]

174. I don't remember Obama claiming to win a debate based on paid Twitter ads. nt

[Luminous Animal]

175. And that has zero to do with the OP. Because the hashtag did not direct

any one single person to vote on any internet polls. It simply went to Bernie's twitter post with zero re-direct to internet polls but, rather, if any one decided to click on the link, it went to his donation page.

The OP is one big giant fabrication.

And Bernie supporters are supposed to the the awful ones. Snort.

Lies, lies, piled on lies.

[ucrdem]

176. Is "Bernie Sanders Clearly Won The Democratic Debate -- On Twitter" a fabrication?

It got 66 recs in LBN and no is calling it a fabrication:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141233247

[Luminous Animal]

189. Really. Millennials are too smart to fall for an internet ad but too stupid

to favorite a tweet?

[mythology]

168. Twitter is where a lot of millenials get their news

I don't use it myself, but this seems like money spent to reach out to his likely supporters where they are. I don't see this as some Machiavellian scheme.

[ucrdem]

173. The problem is that paid sponsorship and "word of mouth" aren't clearly distinguished. nt

[Luminous Animal]

177. If you are over 80 years old. And yes. If, the word "Promoted" with an arrow doesn't

clue one in… maybe you should have your grandchildren explain it to you.

So what is it, do millennials grok internet advertising (dog food… tooth paste) or are they confused because "word of mouth" aren't clearly distinguished".

[ucrdem]

178. No such arrow on Bernie's hashtag. Made up facts aren't facts, sorry. nt

[Luminous Animal]

179. Every paid advertising has the promoted arrow. Every single one.

[ucrdem]

180. Except when they don't. Thanks for the deep thoughts. nt

[Luminous Animal]

182. You banking on people's ignorance of the internet. You are 100% employing fox

news tactics.

Fact. When Obama bought his hashtag. It was clearly marked

Fact. From your own linked article. Bernie the same.

[ucrdem]

184. I don't doubt that Obama's hashtag was clearly marked. nt

[Luminous Animal]

186. That is sweet. But it is not up to the org buying the ad. Obama had no choice.

Bernie didn't either. Buy an ad and it will tagged as such.

Again. You are promoting and depending on ignorance.

[ucrdem]

187. Bernie's hashtag can be seen in the embedded tweet I've posted 3x and there's NO arrow. Period. nt

[Luminous Animal]

190. Because the ad expired. It is a 24 hour ad. The campaign would have to pay 200,000 a day

to keep it live.

[ucrdem]

191. The subject here is his hashtag.

[Luminous Animal]

193. : )

[Luminous Animal]

198. His hashtag was #debatewithbernie The horrors.

[Armstead]

185. He's also planning on buying some TV ads!.... Oh the Horror, The Horror

Fer crisskaaes. It's a political campaign. You want him to it in a fucking room and talk to himself?

[moobu2]

188. No.

It's just Bernie Sanders followers were going around posting everywhere that Bernie had won the debate and a lot of them offered all the internet polls as proof. Well, the Sanders campaign and activists used his very expensive Twitter top trending topic to organize and direct followers to go to those internet polls so they could manipulate the results. It was just a bunch of phoniness and Bernie made a plea for money during the debate and then his followers were like "OMG, look how much money people just spontaneously gave Bernie. Bernie must be the winner".

That's pretty much the point. It was all BS. Hillary won the debate and she's gaining in the polls and she's the clear frontrunner.

[Armstead]

192. Politics is manipulating people to vote

I actually agree with you about the internet polls being not predictive of actual public sentiment.

But Sanders campaign encouraging people to vote in them is not much different than the GOTV campaigns that is the basis of the political process.

[ucrdem]

194. TV ads are very clearly identified as paid political ads. Tweets aren't. That the problem. nt

[Luminous Animal]

196. I really do not understand why you say this. Because they are clearly marked.

[ucrdem]

197. Possibly but in this universe none of your remarks are remotely relevant. nt

[slipslidingaway]

195. My milleniall son said 'smart use of his money/contribution' nt

[Luminous Animal]

199. As did my millennial daughter. Low cost and wide audience.

[slipslidingaway]

203. Yes, so glad that are taking part and are enthused about a candidate! n/t

[R B Garr]

200. Yes, heard about this and other calls to firestorm

websites (spamming) during the debate to make a phony claim that social media spammed all to hell was really The American People "voting" instead of a bunch of internet trolls.

I saw the spamming happening live on Facebook. It was hilarious -- while Anderson asked the question, the Disagree button percentages started spiking up before Clinton even spoke. The opposite happened for Sanders -- before he even spoke, the Agree percentages spiked. The split screens were hilarious as the poor little trolls got confused and had to stop until it became clear how to start spamming.

Way before the first half was close to over, Sanders was spammed as the winner, and the first part of the debate he appeared confused, so it was So PHONY!

SO PHONY!

[ucrdem]

202. LOL.

Like Greenwald's Pulitzer. What happens on the internet really should stay on the internet.

p.s. thanks!

[R B Garr]

206. Yes, and thanks for your links, too!

The manipulation is just annoying, so it's refreshing to see people keeping it real -- so thanks to you, too.

[ucrdem]

209. hey thanks! :-D big props to moobu2 for the OP . . .

. . . take a bow moobu2!!

[Luminous Animal]

208. Yes. You heard about and advert on Twitter. Obama did a similar advert on twitter.

Neither called for a firestorm.

[R B Garr]

210. Yes, Bernie supporters called for a firestorm.

And I saw the firestormimg / spammimg in action live during the debate and it was very obvious.

And please don't compare Obama supporters to Bernie supporters. It's confirmed and observed all over the internet how much the Bernistas ridicule and badger people, and that is unique to them.

[DrBulldog]

211. A totally made-up thread - and look at all the Hillary suckers here that took the bait.

[moobu2]

212. Made up? How so? Please explain without calling people rude made up names.

[LostOne4Ever]

218. I smell desperation from the OP (nt)

[Omaha Steve]

222. Bernies donations on the DU weren't strong until the following day

Look though my posts in his group. Paper trail.