Support NeoGAF

[zero shift]

The Sanders vs Hillary arguments are annoying as fuck for primarily two reasons:

The first is that it seems that both sides are too stubborn to admit the elephant in the room for their candidates. For Sanders supporters it is the simple fact that he is not electable. For better or worse, he is to the Democrats as to what many conservative hardliners are to the GOP. He speaks very well to the more "radical" half of the base, while doesn't kindle as well with the more "moderate" side of the base, and (most importantly) doesn't speak for the common American voter. Sorry, there is no revolution taking place in the country (at least not yet). Again for better or worse, most Americans aren't keen with augmenting the country to follow the Scandinavian model or be the "Bolivia of the first world." The reality is what Sanders is doing is laying the foundation for a base that wants those things. That's why he kept bringing up "revolution" and voter-turnouts during the debate, as well as bring up the same policy points over and over.

Hillary fans also have a problem. While Sanders fans seem to think every candidate that isn't Bernie is a manchurian candidate for corporate America, Hillary fans think that she is the quintessential candidate for the job and brush complaints against her as nothing but a tinfoil hat bickering. Hillary certainly is no manchurian candidate, it isn't like she is completely free from their control. As much as people deny it, the majority of her funds come from big business. Her track record isn't something to get too excited about when looking at her record on criminal justice, defense, drugs, and going against big business. It certainly is better than most candidates, but it isn't something that most people should be satisfied with. I feel that many Hillary supporters see these criticisms as people more or less saying, "Oh my God! Hillary is essentially a Republican with a vagina and under a donkey banner! If she wins then I'll sit this out because both sides are the same!" In reality outside of a few select diehards nobody is saying this and even fewer are willing to risk not voting during the general election.

The second reason it annoys me is because...it isn't really happening. Esquire summarized things perfectly:

Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton: Together they won the debate, because last night it really hit me what a great pair they make. He is forcing her to talk about income inequality and campaign finance reform, she is taking his anger and turning it into something more palatable. Time and again, Sanders serves up the Howard Beale moments, and Clinton translates them into smooth talking points. Sanders gets you upset about a problem, Clinton convinces you she can fix it. I remain unconvinced that Sanders can get elected— we are not going to elect a socialist in America in 2016— but the longer he stays in the race, the more he reveals the concerns of the disaffected voter who is not crazy enough to vote Republican, the more Hillary can run on those concerns in a more appetizing way. They need each other. We need them.

They work together. Bernie had plenty of opportunities to attack Hillary and rarely took it, the same is true vice-versa. Again, this isn't like the GOP debate where the candidates are all poo throwing monkeys. Bernie is more interested in steering the conversation leftward, Hillary is more interested in getting elected, and going by last night's debate they are both succeeding with their goals in full. There is no "grudge match" between the two. The only grudge match is between the Democratic base in which half of them thinks that the incremental change Hillary proposes will do nothing and if a candidate like Bernie isn't elected we will be doomed to be stuck in a nation that will Banana Republic, and the other half that thinks incremental change is the only realistic way forward and that by people voting for Bernie it potentially opens the door for a situation where he isn't elected for being too left and the nation is left with a thousand years of darkness due to a Republican being elected.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

The notion that Sanders would have been an unremarkable candidate in the 1950's is nonsense. He calls himself a socialist, has come out in favor of marijuana legalization, gay marriage, and civil rights, wants single-payer universal healthcare, and is a massive union supporter. He would be BY FAR the most extreme candidate in the 1950's and it's a mark of how far we've come that he's the 2nd choice in the Democratic Party right now.

Setting aside his civil liberties stances as I said (and which you have nevertheless highlighted) and focusing purely on economic issues, he's really not. You pick union support and universal healthcare; well...

Only a fool would try to deprive working men and women of the right to join the union of their choice.

That's Eisenhower. As for universal healthcare, Truman fought for that as part of the 1949 Fair Deal. It narrowly failed, but the point is that it *narrowly* failed. There were a great number who fought for it and Sanders would not have been out of place for doing so. It wasn't a true single-payer and was actually more similar to a much more comprehensive and full-blooded Affordable Healthcare Act (and it's sad in itself in 66 years our ambitions fell, not increased), but the basic degree of separation between single-payer and comprehensive insurance backed by the government is small.

 

[Piecake]

Setting aside his civil liberties stances as I said (and which you have nevertheless highlighted) and focusing purely on economic issues, he's really not. You pick union support and universal healthcare; well...



That's Eisenhower. As for universal healthcare, Truman fought for that as part of the 1949 Fair Deal. It narrowly failed, but the point is that it *narrowly* failed. There were a great number who fought for it and Sanders would not have been out of place for doing so. It wasn't a true single-payer and was actually more similar to a much more comprehensive and full-blooded Affordable Healthcare Act (and it's sad in itself in 66 years our ambitions fell, not increased), but the basic degree of separation between single-payer and comprehensive insurance backed by the government is small.

Just because Eisenhower did not want to touch the labor union issue does not mean that he liked or supported them. I mean, he was perfectly fine with using the powers of the Taft-Hartley act to weaken Union power. That does not seem like a supporter of unions, no matter what he said on the campaign trail (not quite sure of his stated opinion on unions actually was)

As for Bernie in the 50s, I have no doubt that he would be branded a communist for his avowed socialism and be basically black-balled forever.

 

[Marauder Shields]

It always amazes me that people actually think Bernie could be President. He looks awful.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Just because Eisenhower did not want to touch the labor union issue does not mean that he liked or supported them. I mean, he was perfectly fine with using the powers of the Taft-Hartley act to weaken Union power. That does not seem like a supporter of unions, no matter what he said on the campaign trail (not quite sure of his stated opinion on unions actually was)

As for Bernie in the 50s, I have no doubt that he would be branded a communist for his avowed socialism and be basically black-balled forever.

I'm not saying he was pro-union, but I'm saying that you can see the political centre of gravity was much further left than it is now. Can you imagine a leading Republican candidate even vaguely saying anything slightly good about unions? Even most Democrats are cautious.

Bernie would have been black-balled for saying he's a socialist, yes. Disregarding that and looking at the issues (where him being a socialist is fairly dubious anyway), and he's suddenly not far from the norm at all.

 

[Piecake]

I'm not saying he was pro-union, but I'm saying that you can see the political centre of gravity was much further left than it is now. Can you imagine a leading Republican candidate even vaguely saying anything slightly good about unions? Even most Democrats are cautious.

Bernie would have been black-balled for saying he's a socialist, yes. Disregarding that and looking at the issues (where him being a socialist is fairly dubious anyway), and he's suddenly not far from the norm at all.

It was actually moving right in the 50s. It started moving right during FDRs final two terms (he really didnt get any more New Deal legislation passed), and really moved right during Truman's term. Certainly, the republicans were much more moderate and sane back then (on everything but communism), but as for the democrats, I think Bernie would be to the left of his party, just like he is now. He paints himself as an outsider of the establishment, one who fights against outside influence, money, etc etc, and anyone who does that is automatically not among the norm.

And I don't think Americas changing opinion on unions is a really good indication of how economically liberal America is.

 

[benjipwns]

Here's the party platforms back to the 1800s:
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/platforms.php

GOP 1948: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25836
DEM 1948: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29599
Progressive Party 1948: http://left.wikia.com/wiki/Progressive_Party_Platform,_1948
Summarized version:

demands negotiation and discussion with the Soviet Union to find areas of agreement
to win the peace.
• calls for the repeal of the peacetime draft and the rejection of Universal Military
Training.
• calls for the immediate cessation of the piling up of armament expenditures beyond
reasonable peactime requirements for national defense.
• demand the repudiation of the Truman Doctrine and the Marshall Plan.
• will work to realize the ideal of the United Nations as a world family of nations.
• will work through the United Nations for a world disarmament agreement to outlaw
the atomic bomb and all other instruments of mass destruction.
• condemns segregation and discrimination in all its forms and in all places.
• calls for a Constitutional amendment which will prohibit every form of discrimination
against women.
• recognizes the just claims of the Japanese Americans for indemnity for the losses
suffered during their wartime internment.
• demands abolition of Jim Crow in the armed forces.
• promotes the peaceful use of atomic energy to realize its potential as a source of
power and as a tool in science, medicine and technology.
• demands the enactment of a minimum wage of $1 an hour. [benji's note, this is roughly $10 in 2015 dollars]
• stands for the family-type farm as the basic unit of American agriculture and call for a
long-range national land policy designed to discourage the growth of corporation
farms. .
• calls for a 5-year program of price supports for all major crops.
• supports the right of every American to good health through a national system of
health insurance.
• propose a program of Federal assistance for the establishment of day care centers for
all children.
• calls for the overhaul of the tax structure.
• calls for a system of federal scholarships in order to enable all those with necessary
qualifications but without adequate means of support to obtain higher education in
institutions of their own choice.
• calls for the enactment of legislation to promote science, including human and social
sciences.

GOP 1952: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25837
DEM 1952: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29600

Compare to the more successful 1924 Progressive Party's platform: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29618

And 1912's (Teddy): http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=29617

Administration of Justice

The Progressive party, in order to secure to the people a better administration of justice and by that means to bring about a more general respect for the law and the courts, pledges itself to work unceasingly for the reform of legal procedure and judicial methods.

We believe that the issuance of injunctions in cases arising out of labor disputes should be prohibited when such injunctions would not apply when no labor disputes existed.

We also believe that a person cited for contempt in labor disputes, except when such contempt was committed in the actual presence of the court or so near thereto as to interfere with the proper administration of justice, should have a right to trial by jury.

Social and Industrial Justice

The supreme duty of the Nation is the conservation of human resources through an enlightened measure of social and industrial justice. We pledge ourselves to work unceasingly in State and Nation for:

Effective legislation looking to the prevention of industrial accidents, occupational diseases, overwork, involuntary unemployment, and other injurous effects incident to modern industry;

The fixing of minimum safety and health standards for the various occupations, and the exercise of the public authority of State and Nation, including the Federal Control over interstate commerce, and the taxing power, to maintain such standards;

The prohibition of child labor;

Minimum wage standards for working women, to provide a "living wage" in all industrial occupations;

The general prohibition of night work for women and the establishment of an eight hour day for women and young persons;

One day's rest in seven for all wage workers;

The eight hour day in continuous twenty-four hour industries;

The abolition of the convict contract labor system; substituting a system of prison production for governmental consumption only; and the application of prisoners' earnings to the support of their dependent families;

Publicity as to wages, hours and conditions of labor; full reports upon industrial accidents and diseases, and the opening to public inspection of all tallies, weights, measures and check systems on labor products;

Standards of compensation for death by industrial accident and injury and trade disease which will transfer the burden of lost earnings from the families of working people to the industry, and thus to the community;

The protection of home life against the hazards of sickness, irregular employment and old age through the adoption of a system of social insurance adapted to American use;

The development of the creative labor power of America by lifting the last load of illiteracy from American youth and establishing continuation schools for industrial education under public control and encouraging agricultural education and demonstration in rural schools;

The establishment of industrial research laboratories to put the methods and discoveries of science at the service of American producers;

We favor the organization of the workers, men and women, as a means of protecting their interests and of promoting their progress.

Health

We favor the union of all the existing agencies of the Federal Government dealing with the public health into a single national health service without discrimination against or for any one set of therapeutic methods, school of medicine, or school of healing with such additional powers as may be necessary to enable it to perform efficiently such duties in the protection of the public from preventable diseases as may be properly undertaken by the Federal authorities, including the executing of existing laws regarding pure food, quarantine and cognate subjects, the promotion of vital statistics and the extension of the registration area of such statistics, and co-operation with the health activities of the various States and cities of the Nation.

Business

We believe that true popular government, justice and prosperity go hand in hand, and, so believing, it is our purpose to secure that large measure of general prosperity which is the fruit of legitimate and honest business, fostered by equal justice and by sound progressive laws.

We demand that the test of true prosperity shall be the benefits conferred thereby on all the citizens, not confined to individuals or classes, and that the test of corporate efficiency shall be the ability better to serve the public; that those who profit by control of business affairs shall justify that profit and that control by sharing with the public the fruits thereof.

We therefore demand a strong National regulation of inter-State corporations. The corporation is an essential part of modern business. The concentration of modem business, in some degree, is both inevitable and necessary for national and international business efficiency. But the existing concentration of vast wealth under a corporate system, unguarded and uncontrolled by the Nation, has placed in the hands of a few men enormous, secret, irresponsible power over the daily life of the citizen--a power insufferable in a free Government and certain of abuse.

This power has been abused, in monopoly of National resources, in stock watering, in unfair competition and unfair privileges, and finally in sinister influences on the public agencies of State and Nation. We do not fear commercial power, but we insist that it shall be exercised openly, under publicity, supervision and regulation of the most efficient sort, which will preserve its good while eradicating and preventing its ill.

To that end we urge the establishment of a strong Federal administrative commission of high standing, which shall maintain permanent active supervision over industrial corporations engaged in inter-State commerce, or such of them as are of public importance, doing for them what the Government now does for the National banks, and what is now done for the railroads by the Inter-State Commerce Commission.

Such a commission must enforce the complete publicity of those corporation transactions which are of public interest; must attack unfair competition, false capitalization and special privilege, and by continuous trained watchfulness guard and keep open equally all the highways of American commerce.

Thus the business man will have certain knowledge of the law, and will be able to conduct his business easily in conformity therewith; the investor will find security for his capital; dividends will be rendered more certain, and the savings of the people will be drawn naturally and safely into the channels of trade.

Under such a system of constructive regulation, legitimate business, freed from confusion, uncertainty and fruitless litigation, will develop normally in response to the energy and enterprise of the American business man.

We favor strengthening the Sherman Law by prohibiting agreement to divide territory or limit output; refusing to sell to customers who buy from business rivals; to sell below cost in certain areas while maintaining higher prices in other places; using the power of transportation to aid or injure special business concerns; and other unfair trade practices.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Man, you really are as bad as ErasureAcer.

I seriously doubt it.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

I am sorry, but that makes absolutely no sense at all. Are you seriously calling someone who would consider voting for a super moderate republican an ideologue? Lol. do you even know what the word means? And he didnt even say he would vote for that mythical Republican over Bernie. He said that he would consider it, and it was mostly used as a rhetorical device to show that he would vote for Bernie because there really isnt any other legitimate choice.

Your whole attack against Bam has been one incredible reach.

A socially progressive person who strongly supports neoliberal economics would conceivably support Clinton ahead of a Tea Partier and a "super moderate Republican" ahead of Sanders. Would such a person be less or more of an ideologue than a Sanders supporter who would vote for Clinton in a presidential election?

Not talking about all or specific people here, but as an outsider, it seems to me that whilst Sanders has the "totally super passionate about politics yet have never actually voted before" folk rallying behind him, Clinton has the wannabe Very Serious People. Being open to supporting a more centrist candidate (from either party) over someone farther to the left (or right) doesn't inevitably mean that you're more pragmatic and realistic than that candidate's supporters, it can just mean you're more right (or left) wing. Which is fine, but leads me to wonder why there's all this concern trolling about people like Sanders and Corbyn (and their supporters) and the political meta-game, instead of discussion about actual policies.

 

[SamVimes]

I seriously doubt it.

I mean it's strange. You're trolling the sanders supporters in every single thread but claim to like him. Then you say that you'd rather vote for a moderate republican, just say you don't like the man and get on with it instead of doing this shit.

 

[dramatis]

We're moving left socially but right economically.

Incorrect.

On Social Ideology, the Left Catches Up to the Right (section later in article discusses changes in economic ideology) (May 22, 2015)

Conservatives Still Lead Liberals on Economic Issues

In contrast to the way Americans describe their views on social issues, they still by a wide margin, 39% to 19%, describe their views on economic issues as conservative rather than liberal. However, as on social ideology, the gap between conservatives and liberals has been shrinking and is lower today than at any point since 1999, with the 39% saying they are economically conservative the lowest to date.

Conservative Lead on Social and Economic Ideology Shrinking (May 28, 2014)

Fewer Americans Identify as Economic Conservatives in 2013 (May 24, 2013)

Three years in a row is essentially a trend. Towards economic liberals. It's moving quite slowly, but it's moving there.

The idea that we're moving right and that nominating a moderate candidate would only pull us to the right is incorrect. Rather, if the Democratic candidate wins, it's up to the right to put forth a candidate that can have wider appeal than the next Dem candidate, so the onus is on the right to stop being extreme. The idea has never been to gun for an extreme candidate to pull us in a particular direction; instead, the practical, working formula is to nominate a moderate candidate that pulls the country in a particular direction.

 

[benjipwns]

Self-identification is meaningless if the person doesn't define conservative or liberal for you.

"Protecting" Social Security and Medicare. Is this a conservative or liberal position? Now ask Tea Partiers who want government hands off their Medicare. Now ask people who consider the defense of 80 and 50 year old institutions from any change to be conservative.

 

[Cheebo]

I mean it's strange. You're trolling the sanders supporters in every single thread but claim to like him. Then you say that you'd rather vote for a moderate republican, just say you don't like the man and get on with it instead of doing this shit.

No one can top EraserAcer. No one in all of GAF history perhaps. He is the defending champ, and we love him for it. Dip into the well of past Eraser political threads if you dare...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ivIhnSfvTN4&watch_response

Dennis Kucinich is going to win this NeoGAF!

www.dennis4president.com

 

[ucdawg12]

Three years in a row is essentially a trend. Towards economic liberals. It's moving quite slowly, but it's moving there.

The idea that we're moving right and that nominating a moderate candidate would only pull us to the right is incorrect. Rather, if the Democratic candidate wins, it's up to the right to put forth a candidate that can have wider appeal than the next Dem candidate, so the onus is on the right to stop being extreme. The idea has never been to gun for an extreme candidate to pull us in a particular direction; instead, the practical, working formula is to nominate a moderate candidate that pulls the country in a particular direction.

Do you think this trend is reflected in our elected politicians though?

 

[Coriolanus]

Three years in a row is essentially a trend. Towards economic liberals. It's moving quite slowly, but it's moving there.

Those graphs seem to indicate nothing of the sort.

No one can top EraserAcer. No one in all of GAF history perhaps. He is the defending champ, and we love him for it. Dip into the well of past Eraser political threads if you dare...

And this is cheap ad hominem that has far outstayed its welcome.

 

[dramatis]

Do you think this trend is reflected in our elected politicians though?

As a whole? In 2012, more votes were cast for Democratic representatives than Republican representatives, yet the House remained in Republican control. In 2014, we had record low turnout.

Our elected government is the representation of people who don't vote, but blame the politicians for not representing them. It's the representation of people who can only be passionate about a figure and a symbol but not inclined to be passionate about the institution and bureaucracy needed to sustain a large population. It's the representation of a smaller, very obsessive crowd that has the numbers to triumph against apathy but not the numbers to exceed the actual thoughts of a more present nation.

I think our government composition now certainly represents the American people. The schizophrenic, apathetic, the tendency to blame others, it's all there, right now. We have economic liberals in Congress. But the Gallup poll for 2015 reminds the reader that self-identified economic conservatives outnumber self-identified economic liberals 2 to 1. So yes, the trend is reflected in our elected politicians.

Those graphs seem to indicate nothing of the sort.

I thought about it when I was looking at them. There's three separate surveys conducted by Gallup on a yearly basis; the ones I linked are 2013-2015. Progressively for each year, the identification as very conservative/conservative on economic issues has dropped. The graphs show a trend of decline for that case.

I agree with benji that what Gallup asked is probably not so good of an indicator as to what the mass American blob is thinking, considering that respondents can interpret conservative/liberal as they please. If there's better data showing that the country is actually trending right instead of left though, I welcome it.

 

[dehydratedbabies]

And this is cheap ad hominem that has far outstayed its welcome.

Hear hear.

 

[Coriolanus]

I thought about it when I was looking at them. There's three separate surveys conducted by Gallup on a yearly basis; the ones I linked are 2013-2015. Progressively for each year, the identification as very conservative/conservative on economic issues has dropped. The graphs show a trend of decline for that case.

Problem is that the graphs also show that there can be very harsh spikes in conservative economics that far outstrip the rate of descent when they hit, and they also last three years. Thus three ain't enough to establish a trend.

Wondering what caused the 04-06 spike, tbh. Kinda sad that the views became more conservative when the country was legit seeing the results of the bank asshattery. Yes, let's double down on the views that caused the fucking thing.

 

[phanphare]

I thought this was pretty cool. Seth MacFarlane introduced Sanders in LA last night.

he got a joke in about Webb too lol

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EiPf3dz6ljc

 

[itchyass86]

I saw some interesting graphics today concerning post-debate polls - probably with high margins of error and bias, but still interesting:


http://www.burnplan.org/HillaryWins.png
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2663/6584/original.jpg

 

[B-Dubs]

I saw some interesting graphics today concerning post-debate polls - probably with high margins of error and bias, but still interesting:


http://www.burnplan.org/HillaryWins.png
https://a.disquscdn.com/uploads/mediaembed/images/2663/6584/original.jpg

Internet polls are useless, especially those. They're just way too easy to spoof and aren't representative of the actual electorate. All those results tell us is Bernie's supporters are very excited for him and very internet savvy. We aren't going to know how the debate turned out until tomorrow at the earliest.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

You're trolling the sanders supporters in every single thread but claim to like him.

Maybe if you read this sentence a couple of times you'll understand. The answer is pretty much right there in front of you.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

Hillary's really been working hard on her "I'm a real human being just like you!" face. She's upgraded from "creepy mannequin" to "wax figure"!

 

[anaron]

Hillary's really been working hard on her "I'm a real human being just like you!" face. She's upgraded from "creepy mannequin" to "wax figure"!

surprise, this horribly edited off-screen gif isnt flattering.

 

[Dude Abides]

Hillary's really been working hard on her "I'm a real human being just like you!" face. She's upgraded from "creepy mannequin" to "wax figure"!

Yeah that corporate sellout video game banning bitch is so fake you guys. I sure hope Saint Bernie saves us from this lizard person.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Internet polls are useless, especially those. They're just way too easy to spoof and aren't representative of the actual electorate. All those results tell us is Bernie's supporters are very excited for him and very internet savvy. We aren't going to know how the debate turned out until tomorrow at the earliest.

There's already a poll out. Clinton won by a huge margin.

 

[Ryoku]

So I voted Slasher Smile thinking it was Bernie. I then saw Grampa Marx.

Lol.

 

[LUFTRAUSER]

Internet polls are useless, especially those. They're just way too easy to spoof and aren't representative of the actual electorate. All those results tell us is Bernie's supporters are very excited for him and very internet savvy. We aren't going to know how the debate turned out until tomorrow at the earliest.

This. Everytime I saw one of those "CNN IS CENSUREN' THE MEDIAZ BERN'S TEH REAL WINNUR" posts on imgur I cringed.

 

[B-Dubs]

This. Everytime I saw one of those "CNN IS CENSUREN' THE MEDIAZ BERN'S TEH REAL WINNUR" posts on imgur I cringed.

Not many people pay attention in their high school statistics class. Even fewer bother to remember anything after the test.

 

[loki 16]

There's already a poll out. Clinton won by a huge margin.

Sure she did.

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

So I voted Slasher Smile thinking it was Bernie. I then saw Grampa Marx.

Lol.

I wanna change my vote to Slasher Smile because, after having some time to think about it and digest the debate, that smile and pretty much admitting to killing a man was the weirdest thing that happened.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Sure she did.

More critically, however, the debate allowed front-runner Hillary Clinton to boost her standing among a far bigger base of support, making her the clear winner in the eyes of most Democratic voters.

A 55 percent majority of registered Democratic voters who watched the debate said Clinton won. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who saw a surge in online interest and fundraising, was a distant second, with only 22 percent saying he was the best of the night.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry..._hp_ref=politics&ir=Politics&section=politics

This is the first real poll out btw. Not some straw poll bullshit.

 

[neogaffer1]

There's already a poll out. Clinton won by a huge margin.

link?
edit: nevermind

edit 2: and this isn't an online poll how?

The HuffPost/YouGov poll consisted of 1,000 completed interviews conducted Oct. 13 and Oct.14 among U.S. adults, using a sample selected from YouGov's opt-in online panel to match the demographics and other characteristics of the adult U.S. population.

i got a "huffpost/yougov" poll just scrolling down the page, which is why i ask.

 

[The Technomancer]

This. Everytime I saw one of those "CNN IS CENSUREN' THE MEDIAZ BERN'S TEH REAL WINNUR" posts on imgur I cringed.

Yeah it clogged up my twitter feed, and from some people I would have expected better from

 

[shinra-bansho]

link?
edit: nevermind

edit 2: and this isn't an online poll how?

There's a difference between a representative sampling approach that happens to use the internet as a vehicle for polling and the awesome GAF scientific online poll.

I don't even know why this needs explaining.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

link?
edit: nevermind

edit 2: and this isn't an online poll how?



i got a "huffpost/yougov" poll just scrolling down the page, which is why i ask.

You can read all about it here.

http://data.huffingtonpost.com/yougov/methodology

 

[neogaffer1]

You can read all about it here.

http://data.huffingtonpost.com/yougov/methodology

thanks

There's a difference between a representative sampling approach that happens to use the internet as a vehicle for polling and the awesome GAF scientific online poll.

I don't even know why this needs explaining.

i only asked that because it seemed like they were just using a similar poll to the one they gave me where they just have it attached to an article and ask people to vote, which is pretty much like every other unusable online poll. based on the above link it seems like the difference is that it has a separate pool of people to chose from when they do real polls like this one

 

[SamVimes]

Internet polls are useless, but what about the focus groups? I think Sanders supporters are doing themselves a disservice by mentioning the polls instead of those.

Maybe if you read this sentence a couple of times you'll understand. The answer is pretty much right there in front of you.

The answer is that you're le master troll? I don't really consider that a good excuse.

 

[Chariot]

Yeah that corporate sellout video game banning bitch is so fake you guys. I sure hope Saint Bernie saves us from this lizard person.

She is a old annual AAA franchise while Bernie is the kickstartered game that continues an equally old indie franchise. O'Malley is a solid game in-between that goes drowned the two hypes, Jim Webb is Battlefield Vietnam and Chafe is a RPG-Maker game on Steam Greenlight.

 

[Bill Squabber]

She is a old annual AAA franchise while Bernie is the kickstartered game that continues an equally old indie franchise. O'Malley is a solid game in-between that goes drowned the two hypes, Jim Webb is Battlefield Vietnam and Chafe is a RPG-Maker game on Steam Greenlight.

So what your saying is that Clinton is COD and Bernie is Shenmue 3. No one thinks Bernie has a chance, just like no one thought Shenmue 3 would get made...

 

[Ryouji Gunblade]

Any hopes that CNN could be neutral are dead.

 

[lednerg]

Maybe if you read this sentence a couple of times you'll understand. The answer is pretty much right there in front of you.

You've been acting like such an insufferable butthole towards Bernie supporters that you're making their case for them. Try dialing that back a bit.

 

[giga]

Jim Webb is an idiot. 😂

https://twitter.com/JimWebbUSA/status/655038358100582400

 

[Cheebo]

NBC's polling is out and like HuffPosts yesterday shows Dems picking Hillary as the winner of the debate and the candidate making the most gains in her overall polling post-debate.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/why-fight-between-jeb-bush-marco-rubio-getting-ugly-n445866

So far all of the scientific polling out post-debate have Hillary making the most gains in her numbers. I doubt many were predicting this before the debate.

 

[teiresias]

NBC's polling is out and like HuffPosts yesterday shows Dems picking Hillary as the winner of the debate and the candidate making the most gains in her overall polling post-debate.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/why-fight-between-jeb-bush-marco-rubio-getting-ugly-n445866

So far all of the scientific polling out post-debate have Hillary making the most gains in her numbers. I doubt many were predicting this before the debate.

Your link goes to some article about jeB! and rubio, not the poll.

 

[phanphare]

Jim Webb is an idiot. 😂

https://twitter.com/JimWebbUSA/status/655038358100582400

lol

"excuse me, we haven't gotten our salads yet"

 

[Cheebo]

Your link goes to some article about jeB! and rubio, not the poll.

The video is about the poll numbers, even the headline isnt.

 

[Fenderputty]

NBC's polling is out and like HuffPosts yesterday shows Dems picking Hillary as the winner of the debate and the candidate making the most gains in her overall polling post-debate.

http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/why-fight-between-jeb-bush-marco-rubio-getting-ugly-n445866

So far all of the scientific polling out post-debate have Hillary making the most gains in her numbers. I doubt many were predicting this before the debate.

I thought Sanders would get a slight bump with Hillary mostly holding. Seems like everyone but internet liberals thought she won.

 

[Cheebo]

I thought Sanders would get a slight bump with Hillary mostly holding. Seems like everyone but internet liberals thought she won.

Yep. The bettings odds have been plummeting for Sanders too post-debate unsurprisingly. This debate was his best chance at breaking through and by all indications so far he blew it.

 

[RDreamer]

The debate actually lowered my opinion of Hillary pretty substantially I think. Honestly to win over someone like me even more she had one job: don't sound like a ducking weather vane. What did she do? Sounded like a weather vane.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully prepared to vote for her versus any of the clown republicans, but I'm still disappointed.

Sanders faltered a bit at first but I think he pulled it together well at the end. O'Malley reminded me how much I liked his speaking style at the conventions when he spoke. I was kind of looking forward to him being a candidate. It's really unfortunate what he did to the police state in Baltimore. That's almost a deal killer and his answers in the debate on that didn't really make up for it.

I also think Sanders had a missed opportunity during the capitalism vs socialism part. He could have said something like "do you like Medicare? Do you like the fire department coming to your house when it's on fire? Well congrats, you like democratic socialism. I want to do more good things like that. I want to do things that other countries have already tested and discovered we could do. I want to provide healthcare and schooling to everyone. we should use a capitalist approach where it makes sense, but discard it when it doesn't. We've already decided that on many issues. Let's debate some others."