37,600 Unscientific Click Donors Raise $1.3 Million for Bernie During Debate! Stats Baby!

[sabrina 1]

Who won the debate?? Wapo:
Sanders, Sanders, Sanders!!

Woot!

Bernie Sanders Says Debate Performance Prompted $1.3 Miillion dollars in Donations

Sanders, a self-described democratic socialist, said the money raised Tuesday reflects the enthusiasm for his campaign. During the previous quarter, Sanders said that he raised $26 million while Clinton raised about $28 million.

Internet click donations?? UNSCIENTIFIC! Ignore this. Ignore ACT BLUE internet click donations!

They are UNSCIENTIFIC!

And now, for the Winner:


Candidate Breaking Through In The Democratic Debate: Bernie Sanders!



Hour one:

For the non-Hillary Rodham Clinton, non-Bernie Sanders Democrats participating in the first debate on Tuesday night, there was one goal: Get noticed. A look at the candidates being searched on Google during the debate shows that one candidate managed to do that.

Bernie Sanders!

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=&w=1484

Sanders repeatedly saw spikes in Google interest after he spoke. After his intro. After he talked about guns. After basically everything else he said. About an hour after the debate began, Jim Webb attracted some attention after he complained about not having an opportunity to speak. But it was Sanders that drew attention the whole time.

What's more, Sanders actually overpowered the long-term king of Google, Donald Trump. During the debate, Sanders continually attracted more Google interest than Trump.

Our partners at Zignal Labs show that Sanders also dominated Clinton on Twitter.

https://images.washingtonpost.com/?url=&op=noop

Yes, Bernie was the winner!!

Unscientifically of course!

Btw, how much did Hillary raise during the debate? Anyone know?

[cherokeeprogressive]

1. GO Bernie GO Bernie GO Bernie

[msongs]

2. remember the old days when the bernie people used to bad mouth $$ in politicis lol. not anymore nt

[sabrina 1]

3. No, could you link to where Bernie supporters EVER bad mouthed that rare thing, a Politican

FUNDED BY THE PEOPLE!

I might have missed that, though frankly I doubt it.

The current and old and future days seem not to have changed re Bernie Supporters to my knowledge.

Guess who Bernie is BEHOLDEN TO? NOT the Billionaires.

He is behold to WE THE PEOPLE who are funding his campaign.

But hey, if you can link to Bernie Supporters bad mouthing PEOPLE FUNDED not CORORATE FUNDED Campaigns I would love to see that.

[slipslidingaway]

5. There is a distinction between corporate money buying politicians and us 'common folks' donating ...

small amounts to a candidate whom we believe represents our interests.

I just ordered car magnets to share with family and friends.

[rhett o rick]

6. And once again a misrepresentation. Sen Sanders supporters bad mouth the billionaires like

Goldman-Sachs that try to buy the election. It's ok for We The People to try to buy the election a few dollars at a time.

Sounds like we are starting to see the desperation.

[sabrina 1]

11. It's just stunning, isn't it? The twisting of facts, or the ATTEMPT to do so. I have learned so

much about things since Sanders became a serious challenge to the Status Quo candidate. And not a lot of it is good.

[merrily]

34. Remember when msongs used to post in the Bernie Sanders Group? Good times. nt

Last edited Thu Oct 15, 2015, 08:21 AM - Edit history (1)

[arcane1]

8. Nope. We only complained about the corporate money the others get.

Lame attempt at rewriting history.

[zentrum]

24. Distinction-challenged, much?

[merrily]

33. Link to a DU post that objects to individual, human, citizens donating $2700 or less to a candidate.

Don't bother searching. None exist, but you knew that when you were typing your post.

[Dawgs]

40. Are you kidding?

[NuclearDem]

4. Sanders receiving a lot of donations doesn't mean Internet click polls are valid polling methods.

Nor does it mean a majority of people believe he won the debate.

That's logical reasoning you pick up in freshman level philosophy and science courses. Not exactly rocket science.

[Metric System]

10. Exactly. And here I thought the Democratic party was the party of science.

[zentrum]

26. Here, here! Pundits

…..of the MSM are the true basis of science! In fact—they are scientists!

[Metric System]

28. Sigh.

[frylock]

14. No no. Paid pundits on the teevee machine pontificating the conventional wisdom is what matters.

[NuclearDem]

15. No, proper sampling and controls for duplicates are what matter.

Seriously, has no one taken a damned statistics class here?

[frylock]

18. But we don't have that..

the only metrics we have to work with thus far are what the pundits have declared, and what's been posted in the OP. Several regular posters have put a lot of stock into what the pundits are saying as to who may have won the debate.

[RichVRichV]

35. Actually voting that starts in a few months is what really matters.

Even the best scientific sampling is only an estimated snapshot of what currently is, not what will be. We can only use the samplings to make predictions on what we think will be with increasing levels of confidence as we move closer to a specific point in time.

[JackRiddler]

36. No, it's mostly bullshit until the actual elections.

[sabrina 1]

16. It's on the internet. Everyone knows that anything that happens on the internet is 'unscientific'

No people are on the internet, they don't vote in polls, they are bots, or something.

But a dozen or so Corporate Media Talking Heads are definitely scientifically qualified to decide who wins a debate.

Please, you all dismiss tens of thousands, maybe more, real people who were asked for their opinion in polls provided by the Corp Media. But you are convinced that the dozen or so Talking Heads opinions are scientifically more important than the actual people who clearly voted for the candidate they believed was the winner.

I know that if ALL THOSE POLLS and there were many of them, had found Hillary to be the winner, they would suddenly be 'scientific'.

[NuclearDem]

22. No, they wouldn't be. Because they're bullshit online click polls.

For people who actually understand the subject matter, this doesn't change depending on whether the results fit or don't fit our personal bias.

You don't understand the subject matter. You don't have the slightest grasp on statistical science and research methods. This is just pure Dunning-Kreuger effect at this point. And to add icing on the cake, you're simultaneously engaging in conspiracy theory nonsense on the level of the Sarah Palin button/Merck/Friends of Hillary nonsense after BLM Seattle--which was hilariously and swiftly shown to be absolute ridiculous nonsense.

[Metric System]

29. Pundits have nothing to do with science either.

[Fawke Em]

43. This post is NOT about the click polls.

It's about quantitative measurements of success: the number of people donating to Sanders, the Google searches and the focus groups.

That is logical reasoning, but you Hillary supporters want to keep harping back to the online polls because you can, rightly, scream those are unscientific.

But these measurements, you don't want to deal with because they show the difference in the level of excitement generated by Sanders over your candidate.

Excited people go to the polls, you know.

[NuclearDem]

44. The "unscientific" part of the OP was in reference to people rightly calling click polls bullshit.

The OP has been defending those polls to the death, and this was just another logically fallacious attempt to do so.

Sanders receiving a lot of donations doesn't mean a majority of people believe he won the debate. 37,600 certainly is a lot of people, but for an audience of 15.3 million, it's a quarter of a percent.

[slipslidingaway]

7. Link, buy something ...

https://store.berniesanders.com/

You can take a simple (and less expensive) bumper sticker and make it a magnet by purchasing a blank magnet at a craft store and then placing the sticker on the magnet. Simple and less expensive and you can share with family and friends.

[sabrina 1]

17. I'm going to buy the Bernie Baseball cap!

[slipslidingaway]

20. Wish I looked better in hats, but this would be a great gift for my husband ...

as he walks several miles each day.

Great idea, thx!

[Metric System]

9. Campaign donations have zero to due with unscientific online polls. I know you're attempting

humor but the two are completely unrelated. It's as if you doubt the legitimacy and validity of scientific polls and that just makes you look ignorant.

[sabrina 1]

13. Really? I guess a dozen or so Corporate Media Talking Heads are 'Scientifically qualified to

determine who won the debate?'

I don't find it humorous at all. We went through this when Obama was the candidate and was also winning internet polls So no, not humorous, pretty predictable though, considering we are familiar with it all by now.

[Metric System]

21. OK I'll ask this: Why are Internet polls legitimate in your view?

[sabrina 1]

25. They provide an opportunity for PEOPLE, real PEOPLE to express their opinions. Anyone is free to use

them. And if the Corp Media thinks they are irrelevant then why use them, only to delete them when they don't turn out the way they hoped they would?

Why do you think Gallop eg, is legitimate? I remember a time when right here on DU these 'scientific' polls were about as trusted as Dick Cheney.

I feel the same way about polls now that I did then. I trust them about as much as I trust the Corporate Media.

I tend to trust the people more. I am almost certain that if Hillary was winning all these polls, we would see a very different response to them.

So many polls ALL found Sanders to be the winner. AND tens of thousands of viewers donated to his campaign.

How about Hillary? Did she receive tens of thousands of donations?

[Metric System]

27. Online polls are crap, even if it shows Hillary winning. People can vote multiple times, including

those from other countries. Anyone is free to use them, but by their very nature they're self-selecting. The results are basically worthless. They're more for entertainment value than anything else.

[sabrina 1]

31. Well, you're not going to like some of the 'scientific' polls that have begun to emerge

since the debate which seem to corroborate the 'crap' internet polls. I'm going to have fun watching this, frankly. I predict a condemnation of polls that are 'right wing'. But then most of them ARE which we discovered years ago when DU actually DISCUSSED and INVESTIGATED stuff like this.

No, Internet polls are not crap, people are not crap.

Corporate Pollsters are crap. Including eg, someone who is not a candidate in a 'primary candidate' poll is crap. What is says is that pollsters are helping a particular party determine whether or not to run a certain candidate. That is crap.

[JDPriestly]

32. The official polls are also very limited. At one point I was taking a lot of official, professional

on-line polls from a very well known company.

Your ability to answer beyond maybe four multiple choice picks is usually pretty impossible.

They don't go into much depth, not the ones I have been in.

Then, of course, around election time, you get the push-polls.

In my view, Bernie won. I explain my reasoning here.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251681349

[NuclearDem]

19. "and that just makes you look ignorant."

[slipslidingaway]

30. I remember seeing a picture of Gene Wilder ...

in the family lounge on the 8th floor of Memorial Sloan Cancer Center, transplant floor. Each time I see his picture I can only think back to that photo from their annual stem cell celebration, which is next week BTW, and we are going and meeting other friends.

Surviving Through Adversity, Gene Wilder Celebrates 80th Birthday
http://www.bonemarrowmx.com/surviving-through-adversity-gene-wilder-celebrates-80th-birthday/

One day at a time and moving forward for all people.

[frylock]

12. Probably bots..

Berniebots! I made my first donation last night!

[zentrum]

23. Thanks Sabrina.

That's gorgeous.

[PowerToThePeople]

37. K&R.

Eom

[Kalidurga]

38. I am sort of loving watching Hillary supporters try to change our perception of reality.

It is terribly funny. We are the closest to being in an anti-establishment party as we are ever going to get and still be viable politically. Which means we question authority. We don't buy pundits as people who know more than we do. And then they want us to just go along with the pundits proclamations. Really? They think this could happen? I mean it's not like pundits have earned ever earned the wrath of DU ask Tweety.

OTOH, I am not loving the bullying tactics I see over and over again. It's lopsided in terms of % of Bernie supporters that do it and Hillary supporters. I won't say in which direction.

[mythology]

39. You seem strangely proud of not understanding science

Weird.

The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.

Sanders supporters keep reminding me of the above quote from Neil deGrasse Tyson.

[sabrina 1]

41. We understand. Anything on the internet is not science. Which is why I said, right in the OP that

no one should believe those nearly 38,000 click donors on the internet are anything but Unscientific. Things like media focus groups, also said Bernie won, online media polls, all of them said Bernie won, Google searches for Bernie topped all other candidates, 50,000 new unscientific people followed Bernie on Twitter etc, are ONLY Scientific if they had all favored Hillary.

[Kalidurga]

45. You strangely didn't understand a thing I said, STEM field education can only take you so far...

apparently.

It's odd you think you can waive your hands and mutter science science science and all the people who said Bernie won will just disappear all the focus groups will not have said Bernie won and I will forget what people on the streets have been telling me. I guess if that is the tactic you want to use go for it. Don't be surprised when your "scientific polls" don't pan out and my unscientific experience does.

[artislife]

48. You seem to think you can score a point

with misdirection.

Lame.

[frylock]

46. So which scientific polls categorically show that Clinton won the debate?

[artislife]

49. You proved it by waiting

to join the forum!

Welcome.

[sabrina 1]

52. Maybe YOU can answer this question I just can't seem to get an answer to.

How scientific is it to include someone in polls that are supposed to be gauging the support for the Primary CANDIDATES??when

My understanding of Science is that when yiou introduce a NON RELATED element into Scientific Research, it totally disrupts the entire process, contaminates it in fact.

Just so you know where many people are on this question, including me.

It appears that the 'scientific' polls' goal is NOT what WE thought it was.

The goal appears to be to try to gauge something ELSE other than where the actual candidates stand with the people.

That something else appears to be to help the Dem Party determine who might be the best Establishment Candidate should the FR falter.

Iow, the 'scientific polls' mean NOTHING in terms of what they represent them to be.

But go ahead and explain how this kind of 'science' works. We are all waiting with baited breath to get an answer.

But so far,, NOTHING!

[Capt. Obvious]

51. Have you tried posting some polls?

[Capt. Obvious]

50. How many donated more than once?

[sabrina 1]

54. You are not counted as 'an individual donor' if you donate more than once. But better question:

How many donations did Hillary get during the Debate, small, not Corporate Citizens United money?

I've been searching around and haven't found anything.

Surely SOME of her supporters who are NOT Billionaires, made a few donations during the Debate?

I'm not saying they didn't, but where do I find that info, so far I have been unable to do so.

[Faux pas]

53. Kick!!!