DU a poll on MSNBC: Do you plan on voting for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016? 82k votes

[Omaha Steve]

Last edited Thu Apr 16, 2015, 01:07 PM - Edit history (1)

Do you plan on voting for Hillary Clinton for president in 2016?

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-hillary-2016

[saintsebastian]

1. Pleased with the Results

Last I checked, 87% of respondents answered "no".

[samsingh]

4. that's an odd result

[PoliticAverse]

12. Not at all. Online political polls are meaningless as they depend on which side does a better job

spamming the poll.

[Cosmic Kitten]

22. So get spamming, friend!

[workinclasszero]

40. Yup.

Online polls are a joke and everybody knows it.

Even the reich wing knows how to "freep" an online poll LOL

[Amishman]

2. Ouch, that's a lot of No answers

I expected better.

I'm not thrilled with the idea of her as our nominee, but 87% no is a bit disconcerting.

[okaawhatever]

9. I think the survey was rigged. There is no way there aren't more than 2% unsure voters at

this point. These polls can be created by viewers. I'll bet some right winger created that poll and then advertised it on a right wing site. Show me any other poll that has 11% yes, 87% no and 1% undecided. Even on a right wing site you'll have more than 2% undecided voters over a year out from the election.

[Cosmic Kitten]

46. Not for a personality with 25 years of exposure

That's her Achilles heel.
Everyone already made up their minds.

She is a known commodity.
Her name recognition is
second to NONE in the 2016 race.
That's why she polls high...
both like and dislike.

2% seems reasonable.

[okaawhatever]

54. Look at the comments. It's clearly trolling. The numbers also don't come anywhere near all the

other polls. A poll on MSNBC would reflect their viewers, this doesn't come close. It's BS.

[Cosmic Kitten]

57. Yes, it is BS. I would be encouraged if...

Hillary supporters could match
whatever the other people are doing.

If rigging a poll or spamming a poll
is so simple, lets see it get done.

If Hillary supporters can rally
and swing this poll, it would send a message.

[B2G]

3. 72K 'no'?? nt

[NYC_SKP]

5. OMG, but if she picks up those "Maybe" votes.....

K/R

[sufrommich]

6. Internet polls are meaningless,they're designed to

be clickbait.

[jwirr]

10. Especially this one. It does not give me any other options. Why didn't they put in a "If she gets

the nomination" choice. That would have more correct than voting yes or no.

[sufrommich]

13. It wouldn't matter what the wording is. The internet

is full of political forums with posts begging posters to swamp online polls,they're a useless barometer of anything.

[jwirr]

15. I know and like on Ed most of us watching are progressive so the conclusion is usually what we

think it will be.

[Cosmic Kitten]

21. Start begging Team Hillary

Lets see these numbers swing
in favor of Hillary!

To the Twitter Mobile!

[sufrommich]

24. What? nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

49. I'd like to see if Hillary supporters can swing the poll

If the internet is full of political forums
with posts begging posters to
swamp online polls, lets see it happen!

Seriously, If Hillary has such a strong
following it should only take a few
tweets and Facebook posts to get
people voting, right?

This should be no problem is
Hillary has vast numbers of supporters.
Social media makes this easy peasy.

If all we see are complaints that it's
a rigged poll or it's a bunch of freepers
yet there is no reaction from Hillary
supporters, what should we conclude?

Freepers are more committed?
Freepers are more clever?

[sufrommich]

52. I don't care who votes in these stupid clickbait

polls anymore than I care who wins on American Idol. You want to believe they have any real meaning,have at it.

[Cosmic Kitten]

58. Yet here we are discussing it?

Elections are "American Idol" writ large.

It's the equivalent to picking
a team in the Super Bowl,
particularly when the candidates
don't give a fig about voters
once the election is over.

[sufrommich]

59. Well, I'm discussing how ignorant it is to

believe that self selected online polls have any semblance to reality,ever. I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.

[Cosmic Kitten]

61. You realize all polls are somewhat "self-selected" right?

We are not drawing
ping pong balls out of a jar
"randomly" or "haphazardly".

Choosing to participate in a poll
is the definition of self-selection.

Response rates for phone polls is about 10%
About 90% refuse to participate.
That self-selection bias makes polls
subject to sampling bias and necessitates
weighting, of which we are rarely if ever
fully disclosed.

Just saying, polling is always biased...
by who participates, demographics,
the client and their expectations,
the poll construction and
even the polling house reputation.

Self-selection is not the biggest bias.

[titaniumsalute]

7. This poll is horseshit

On liberal leaning MSNBC only 11% of 82,000 people said they would vote for Hillary? Come on.

These online polls are so easily subjected to trollers, etc. they aren't reliable at all.

[Cosmic Kitten]

20. +80,000 trolls?

[titaniumsalute]

23. There are dozens of scientific polls already out there that do not reflect what this poll says

So why would you trust an online poll that you can vote in dozens or even hundreds of times? It doesn't take 80,000 people. It takes a few hundred getting paid $8 an hour with an ax to grind to hit these polls.

[B2G]

29. It won't let me vote more than once. nt

[Agschmid]

32. Delete your cookies.

[B2G]

53. No thanks

Not looking to fuck everything else up.

[titaniumsalute]

64. If you delete cookies you can vote as many times as you want

[Cosmic Kitten]

38. Why would anyone manipulate this particular poll?

FYI, internet polls,
well designed internet polls
are more accurate than phone polls.

Also, this poll is not "weighted".
Scientific polls are generally
manipulated to by the polling house.

Raw numbers from a wide range
of participants can be more reflective
of public mood than calling a particular
state, zip code or of registered, likely, voters.

Just saying, it's not a scientific poll.
But it may be reflective of a national
mood amongst people willing to click
a button, at the MSNBC website.
That's all.

[Binkie The Clown]

26. I could write an ap that clicked 80,000 times in fifteen minutes or less. n/t

[TampaAnimusVortex]

31. Maybe so...

You might even be able to delete the cookie it puts on your system to check to see if you voted, but exactly how are you going to prevent them from noticing that the same IP address is spamming them?

[Binkie The Clown]

51. I've just manually put in 15 votes...

by deleting that specific cookie and refreshing/re-clicking, and it has not complained about my IP, so apparently it doesn't check that. The votes I put in DID register on the vote count, so I know they are not being ignored.

[Cosmic Kitten]

42. Lets see it!

Seriously!
If it's that simple
I would, and others I assume,
be genuinely amazed to see that
poll swing wildly in the opposite direction.

I kidding, I would be amazed.
It would prove once and for all
what a crock or crap polling can be.
Not to mention, I'd never doubt
your sincerity ever again.

Please write an ap!
Pretty please!

[Binkie The Clown]

48. I'll give it a shot, with these disclaimers...

I've been retired for 7 years now, so my programming is a bit rusty.
I'll need to look at the ajax/js coding and figure out how it works.
It may take me several hours to work out, but once working, it should be able to click 80,000 times in fifteen minutes.
If it turns out I can't do it, well, sometimes I need to just keep my mouth shut!

[Binkie The Clown]

63. I may have to backtrack...

The page uses jQuery, which I'm not familiar with.
There is a jQuery script that writes the cookie. That could be replaced with a dummy version that didn't write the cookie, and then I could make a copy of the whole web page and put it on my own server.
It would probably take me quite a while to learn how to use the jQuery api.

Or, I could write a C++ program running in the background on my system, continuously deleting that specific cookie, so I could click away as fast as I wanted to.

In any case, given that the poll has 80,000+ votes is proof enough that SOMEBODY has already accomplished this.

I'll keep plugging away at it just for fun, but no guarantees about how long it will take me to get caught up on 7 years of technology I've neglected to say current on.

[Metric System]

66. Are YOU serious? These kind of polls mean nothing. They're not scientific.

[leftofcool]

37. No, Republicans

[Cosmic Kitten]

65. Maybe that's why they win mid-term elections?

They are that committed to their cause.
Or, maybe they have something to "vote for"?

[leftofcool]

8. Wow! 11% of Republicans say they will vote for her.

[R B Garr]

35. LOL! I think you nailed what's really going on here. n/t

[City Lights]

11. I realize it's an Internet poll, but I am surprised at the lopsidedness of the results. nt

[Gothmog]

14. The poll needs some love

[Liberal_in_LA]

17. I voted

[onehandle]

16. Looks like the basement commandos at FR are on the case. nt

[Cosmic Kitten]

19. It's a conspiracy!!!11!!!!!1

[workinclasszero]

43. Exactly

Typical freep operation and the sad anti Hillary bunch here just loves it! SMH

[Cosmic Kitten]

18. Meanwhile, outside the DU bubble...

Hillary isn't getting much love
Over 80% say NO! Yikes!

[nadinbrzezinski]

33. Yesterday I was talking with somebody who should know

I will save affiliation or why I was talking with him... suffice it to say... he said and I paraphrase, "I will have a hell of a time getting my membership enthused about Hillary."

You are correct, this is the bubble. I talk with real people every day.

That "poll" on April 16 of 2015 is down right hilarious though.

[Agschmid]

34. Link to an actual poll that says that...

[Metric System]

67. I think you should do some reading on unscientific online polls:

http://mediamatters.org/blog/2012/10/12/right-wing-media-hype-unscientific-online-poll/190595

[Takket]

25. BS, clearly tampered with.

There gave been many polls about 2016 already and Hillary is constantly in the 50+% range.

But... can I just ask... WHO programmed this poll?????? you have to physically click on the run to see the answers. just put up a pie chart the shows all the answers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! That's so stupid I can't even fathom it! I know, I'm making a mountain out of a molehill, but I can't imagine why someone thought it made sense to add all these extra clicks to view the results.

[Glassunion]

27. No

I feel we are going to nominate Elizabeth not Hillary.

So I couldn't vote for Hillary.

[bigdarryl]

28. Stupid ass polling your asking people a year and a half out on who there voting for

[Liberal_Stalwart71]

41. That would make sense if it were someone other than Hillary Clinton. She is well known.

Not some unknown candidate with no name recognition. People know who she is. I'm convinced that folks just don't like her. They've only forgotten that they don't like her. Once we getting deeper into the election cycle, people will be reminded. Always a divisive figure.

I think the Democrats can and should do better.

[nadinbrzezinski]

30. April 16, 2015

Elections are in Nov of 2016..... what is the proper reaction to this, and the reaction to this?



Ad infinitum

[Omaha Steve]

36. 2,000 votes at MSNBC since I posted this

[sufrommich]

39. Allen West linked to the poll yesterday,so did The Blaze.

In fact Google shows a number of right wing sites linked to it. This is why no one should ever take these clickbait polls seriously,no matter what they're about.

[workinclasszero]

45. Oh wow! LOLOL

Allen West and again, The Blaze!

How damn long do we have to see this right wing republican BULLSHIT on this site???

The anti Hillary people on here apparently have NO SHAME at all!

[sufrommich]

47. For the life of me, I can't figure out why

politically savvy people would ever cite self selected online polls,ever. It's the equivalent of believing that Unskewed Polls guy who swore Romney was going to win in a landslide.

[workinclasszero]

50. It's the equivalent of believing that Unskewed Polls guy...

I know right? LOL

I guess if this is all the anti Hillary crowd has, Hillary has nothing to worry about.

Its just sickening to see "leftist progressives" get in bed with Glenn Beck and Allen West!?

I mean what the actual f*** is up with that? The cognitive dissonance must be tremendous!

[DemocratSinceBirth]

56. Their tactics seem rooted in Leninism

"If You Want to Make an Omelet, You Must Be Willing to Break a Few Eggs.” — Lenin

[Cosmic Kitten]

60. Challenging Hillary is "getting in bed with Glen Beck"

I guess if this is all the anti Hillary crowd has, Hillary has nothing to worry about.

Its just sickening to see "leftist progressives" get in bed with Glenn Beck and Allen West!?

I mean what the actual f*** is up with that? The cognitive dissonance must be

tremendous!

That seems like a pretty low
and slimy insult.

In fact it seems like a smear?
Are you trying to be hurtful and rude?

[workinclasszero]

62. See post 39

And this right wing garbage that was also posted today from Glenn Beck's site The Blaze:

The Blaze: Will Elizabeth Warren Replace Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Presidential Candidate?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10026516720

It looks like this board is being invaded by right wing loons sadly.

[Binkie The Clown]

44. Here's an MSNBC poll that gives Hillary 71% yes.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/poll-hillary-clinton-2016

[Cosmic Kitten]

55. That poll has about 8000 votes

[fadedrose]

68. I voted

I see 9,835 "YES" votes who are planned to vote for HC in 2016, and

76k who say "NO" and are not planning to vote for her. Does this mean 76,000 are not planning to vote for her, or does "k" have another meaning?