Well looky here! Bernie Sanders Sweeps Online Polls...

[cherokeeprogressive]

For the numbers to be this far apart, there must have been TENS OF THOUSANDS of people double/triple/quadruple/hundred-uple voting!



http://www.huffingtonpost.com/brian-hanley/bernie-sanders-sweeps-onl_b_8847040.html?ncid=txtlnkusaolp00000592

[LWolf]

1. Well, of course

every single Sanders supporter in the nation doubled/tripled/quadrupled down on the voting, while the vast majority of other candidates' supporters didn't bother to vote at all. How else would something like this happen?

[cherokeeprogressive]

3. No other possible explanation! n/t

[Cal33]

31. And those Hillary supporters who did vote were all 100% honest, like our DSW. Please

see link below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251931420

[LWolf]

34. Yep. nt

[NorthCarolina]

2. How many time do we have to rehash this. Everyone already KNOWS

Hillary supporters (a) do not own computers, and (b) ONLY have land lines, no cellphones. Geez....lets at least try to keep up to date here folks.

[cherokeeprogressive]

4. You're right. I should delete this, huh...

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

11. Wall Street CEOs don't own computers?

[NorthCarolina]

13. Not the ones that are

Hillary supporters. Just no, No, and NO! They don't....because IF THEY DID...well, Bernie would damn sure get pummeled in these online polls.

[frylock]

14. They have far more productive things to do..

like hanging out on DU all day telling Sandernistas how they have far more productive things to do.

[thereismore]

5. Not scientific!

Well, whatever. Bernie is going to win Iowa and NH. Even though he might be a little behind in IA right now,
the caucus system favors him. I think he is already a frontrunner in IA, and he is going to win it handily.

[NCTraveler]

6. This is your path to victory.

Onward online warriors!!!!

A couple percent of these people are going to show up to the polls for the first time. First question they ask will be "how do I clear cookies?" "What do you mean I only get to vote once?" "My basement has more of a democratic feel to it." lol.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

8. Will Hillary be there to advise them about "wiping"?

[NCTraveler]

9. I don't think so. But possibly. I hear she has speakers in every voting booth in the country. nt.

Going Gowdy with the email thing I see. Benghazi!!!!!!!!!

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. You'd think those "scientific" poll numbers would be reflected in online polls.

Did all those ardent Clinton supporters have their click fingers broken by even more ardent Sanders supporters?

[NorthCarolina]

10. Well, the CWA and DFA polls reflected identical margins as well.

Of course, those polls were probably dominated by one over zealous Bernie supporter who not only knows how to clear cookies, but also knows each members personal info.

[mythology]

17. Those are self-selected groups that don't demographically match the country

There are multiple reasons an online poll won't match a scientifically valid poll. It's really not hard do do some research so you understand statistics and how to tell if a study or poll is useful to judge the population as a whole.

[NuclearDem]

19. I could've sworn I logged into DU.

But here I am replying to someone using quotation marks around scientific the same way a knuckle-dragging creationist or AGW denier would when professionals and scientists tell them something different from what they've read on the internet somewhere.

Weird.

[Cali_Democrat]

20. Remember in 2012 when we made fun of the GOPers for trying to unskew the polls?

I would have never imagined that DUers would be unskewing polls a few years later.

Crazy.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

21. I'm merely questioning the science part of "scientific" polls.

There are no facts, only interpretations. Friedrich Nietzsche

[NuclearDem]

22. Facts in the context of philosophy and facts in the context of science aren't the same thing.

That Nietzsche quote, while entirely relevant to a discussion on epistemology, could not be more irrelevant when discussing facts as repeatable, observable phenomena that form the building blocks of the entire scientific method.

Creationists do the same thing with the word "theory"--use an irrelevant, inappropriate definition because of how it so perfectly suits their needs.

If polling and research confuse you so, maybe you can stop by the library and pick up a book on elementary sociology or statistics.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

23. I'm sticking with Nietsche

And, with Mark Twain. There lies, damned lies, and statistics.

Statistics are interesting. But, they still demand interpretation. i.e. Hillary leads in the polls statistically. Does not equal Hillary will win.

Statistics prove nothing except that they may be handy tools regarding probability but that's open to interpretation. i.e. Statistically speaking we won the war in Vietnam. We killed more "enemies", razed more villages, inflicted more damage. Same for all of Bush's wars.

[NuclearDem]

24. Yeah, I think you should go ahead and pick up that book now.

There are just so many things wrong with what you wrote here I can't even begin to address it.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

25. Awww, go ahead. Educamate me.

[NuclearDem]

32. Alright, let's start with your ridiculous Vietnam analogy:

That lovely attempt to say "statistics is bullshit, look at Vietnam" ignores the simple fact that wars aren't won or lost simply by number of casualties, but by which party more completely achieved its goals. Additionally, higher casualties can end up being an advantage for that affected party when it gives their opponent the impression that their numbers are limitless or their tactics ruthless enough to not be easily defeated.

Or maybe we can discuss how Mark Twain was actually quoting someone else when he wrote that sentence, and frankly, nobody really knows where that phrase comes from.

Or that polls cannot accurately measure public opinion if they cannot account for outside factors that would unduly influence the outcome of a questionnaire. Online click polls are trash because they don't control for repeat votes and are completely self-selected. Professionals, on the other hand, account for all sorts of factors--initial/recent bias by reordering questions and answers, repeats by using official registrations, self-selection by seeking out respondents who proportionally represent a region's demographics, etc.

Online polls only serve to drive traffic and generate ad revenue--which is why some of us find absolutely fucking hilarious that anti-corporate Sanders supporters are the ones most actively using these.

So, maybe go out and pick up a statistics book. Or don't. Ignorance is bliss, from what I hear.

[questionseverything]

26. you found us out!!!

[Happenstance24]

12. Horrible argument

You can take 90 seconds to make a bot that multi votes for you all night long while you sleep. Now who would know how to do something like that? Older Clinton voters or millennial Sanders voters? Hmmm. Let me think.....

[workinclasszero]

15. OMG stop the presses!

Bernie Sanders wins online spam poll!!!

[restorefreedom]

16. sory forr thr typpos

my fingerz arre sore frm votng thousnds of timmes.

[questionseverything]

27. ty for doing that i was busy that night and could not click at all

[restorefreedom]

28. it waz myy pleassurre :) nt

[roaminronin]

18. But, but

only LAN lines polls really count! LOL!

[Dem2]

29. Shocking

[virtualobserver]

30. They will explain away the losses in Iowa and NH with equal intensity

Then only South Carolina will be a true measure of her support.

[redstateblues]

33. Reminiscent of the polls Hannity would do on FOX

usually 95-5 in favor of whoever Sean was praising.