Why Didn't Bernie Sanders Win the Debate? (by @themefund)

[@aSongScout]

Yes, you would be correct. Online polls are notoriously difficult to get good statistics from because in most cases you can't control for a random sample very well.

[@RobertJones]

+aSongScout I also wonder about the validity of the online polls as they are likely not geo-locked to US voters. A candidate could be very popular outside the US and get tons of votes online from those fans, but have little to no support in the population that is able to vote for them.

[@mickeleh]

I think you're onto something. Long before the start of this season Bernie (or his people, whoever they may be) began a fierce online presence. In addition to Reddit, he’s mastered both Twitter and FB. My FB newsfeed has had a steady stream of memorable Bernie memes for a couple of years (it seems). One of the keys to polling that is frequently overlooked is the screener. Since polls, by their nature, involve a limited number of respondents, they are only as good as their samples. Are you asking a representative sample (based on various criteria: age, income, gender, geolocation, race, likelihood to vote, etc)-or is your pool of respondents skewed before you even ask the first question? Online polls are notorious for skewed samples. People generally self-select, so the most motivated partisans are the ones who show up.

[@grantwalker191]

I've actually been thinking and talking about this a lot too. I'm interested in the source for the Pew poll you mentioned. I couldn't find it in a few minutes of Googling. I did hear some info by The New Turks where they discussed the methodologies of the studies done after the debates where many of the people saying they thought Hillary won had only seen media coverage or highlights of the debates rather than having watched it themselves. I think that's noteworthy.

[@fr33doom]

you still got it, even with your very scarce upload schedule ;)

[@Digitalhunny]

If Bernie Sanders HAD won, Your country would probably have a "REAL" human with feelings as a president. I'm SO sorry for your loss. It was loose, loose with Trump & Clinton.

[@robax]

... woke up in Guantanamo

[@altarflame]

I think it's worth noting that you say the last time a candidate had this much internet support, it was Obama in 2008 - that seems like it worked out ok ;) Anyway the poll you're referencing, in addition to the factors you listed - they only called LAND LINES. When I watched this the autoplay video right after it seemed to pretty thoroughly explain the whole deal (without ever using the word "conspiracy"). I don't know for sure if he can be elected by actual voters, but my hope that he can has increased with his numbers over the months. It's not JUST online support - he's had the biggest turnouts of the election season, too, breaking his own records for this year over and over. All of those people are leaving their houses! As are the participants in all the Bernie debate watching parties that happen all over!

[@HappyAccidentVideos]

I think at this point in our history, it's a big mistake to say that the online crowd doesn't count. Everyone and their grandmother is on Facebook and other social media platforms, and if your feed is anything like mine, people are engaging with politics. To say it's just the reddit community that's boosting Bernie's online polls is an outright inaccuracy. What Bernie has to say is relevant to ALL American people, and I think that's why his message is resonating with so many people.

[@RobertJones]

+Happy Accident Productions Being interested in the spectacle of politics is different than being engaged and active. I know many people who are all about the issues debate, but uninterested in actually going out and DOING something about said issues. I actually made a video about it many years ago: kzbin.info/www/bejne/rYW4laCao7R7m6s

[@HappyAccidentVideos]

I think that's what's so interesting about Bernie's campaign. He's mobilizing people. He's encouraging them to go out, and hold their elected officials responsible. What's crazy is that Bernie supporters actually do this. I've never seen a more active political crowd than Bernie's.That's why he has such huge turnouts at his rallies. *****

[@emcskills]

Online support doesn't mean actual support in the ballot box. IE Ron Paul 2012!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@samarabobera]

+emcskills yeah, I was thinking - how old are the reddit-folk supporting Bernie....and will they vote?!

[@ChefMimsy]

If there's any conspiracy involved, it's on the part of the education system in this country. People have no f'ing clue what "Socialism" is and they're scared of it. Especially the people who own the country (you know, the 1%). I believe that the population that inhabits reddit have probably been online since before they could read, which is almost true for my kids (although they had computers all their lives. yeah, I'm old). The reddit population, it seems to me, gets more exposure to opposing viewpoints and are not afraid of a good argument. And they know how to google something if they're unsure of wtf it is. So, to some degree, I believe the mainstream media is catering to the majority of its viewers who are pretty much ignorant when it comes to the difference between economic systems and systems of government and any permutations thereof, and a large number of those people believe Socialism represents a threat to their religion. The online popularity of Bernie matters ONLY if the people who hold a preference for him actually get up and vote. Who the president is, as we have learned from our current federal government, matters less than who is elected to represent us in congress. The current congress is populated by too many people who are owned by too few entities (ie, corporations). They do NOT represent us, they represent those who donated most heavily to their campaigns because statistically speaking, the candidate who spends the most, wins more frequently. The system is broken. Note too, that Bernie's support has come in the form of small donations from actual people who want Real Change You Can Believe In (oh, there's that dementia setting in...). What I heard from the debate was a man who truly believes in the ability of people to be able to think about their country and what is best for everyone and who understands that the government is there FOR the PEOPLE who are its citizens. I also heard a politician who is slick and well experienced at the political tactics of the game. (I will note that I think her husband was the best president since JKF, but I really didn't understand much about JFK because I was a little kid when he was killed. I also wouldn't give a rat's ass if he was getting blowjobs on the steps of the capital building... after all, the current congress has been giving it to most of us up the ass since 2008) Apologies for so many words.

[@Dustpuuppy]

This gets complicated for several reasons. You mentioned some. You didn't mention that three focus groups also chose Bernie as the winner. Again, it's not scientific but it would seem to be an indicator. The more scientific polls were done a week after the debate and about 60% of the people polled didn't see the debate live. Some had seen it later, some hadn't seen it at all. When CNN posted the debate online, they edited it. And they were rather viscous with anyone who posted the uncut version. People who hadn't seen it at all were just going on what the heard on the news. And while it's true that Bernie has a LOT of online support, I have to think that Hillary would have had people on her side trying to 'fix' those same polls. On the other hand, the pundits would be looking for the old standards. Who looked the most "Presidential". Bernie never has that slick look. A lot of his supporters like this about him. A lot of older people might get dismissive of him because of it. If the more scientific polls had been done the next day and had only surveyed people who had actually seen the debate live... then the question would be answered. As it is? Who the hell knows?

[@nirvomind]

first im not an us citizens, but let me tell u something , Burnie speaks to he younger generations which autimaticly use the internet , not to mention that we are tired of the olsscholl faces with no results and second , people who did vote in Internet are Physical too, why countong the telefon polls and not the internet , and as we live in 2015 normaly everyone use internet , and i believe it is realistic , and Bernie will sure win. Bernie Sanders has been fighting harder for us for decades longer than anyone. I told you something other people in other countries will give their life to have a president like Bernie Sanders.

[@michaelkrumbein5807]

Internet presence is vital, to be sure, but it still needs fundraising. Bernie has one advantage, Hillary has the other.

[@RobertJones]

+Michael Krumbein Hillary had more money in 2008 as well though. She has less *funders*, but more funds. Which is more powerful a grassroots collection of small donations and funds, or a powerful small group with near infinite resources? I'm not sure, just thinking out loud.

[@michaelkrumbein5807]

***** We'll see who gains the ultimate advantage. My fear is that Bernie is running more of a Ron Paul-style campaign than Obama; a noisy, spirited campaign that fails to gather any big-money support and sees him reduced to a caricature outside his base supporters. I'm hoping otherwise.

[@RobertJones]

Michael Krumbein Seems that way except that Sanders has the backing of pretty much every major labor union in the US as well. Somthing which Ron Paul did not have during his run.

[@MaN2Mega]

You missed one thing, the so called scientific polls made that claimed Clinton won were very misleading. Only 30% of the people polled saw the debate, you can find this information of the sites that conducted the polls. Now this is the same as me asking you if a movie you did not see was good or bad, it's a ridicules.

[@mickeleh]

+Bernard M Not entirely ridiculous. Unfortunate, but not necessarily ridicuolous. When you show up to vote, nobody asks whether you saw the debate or not. Impressions-second- and third-hand ripple through the population. That's why so much effort is put into controlling the post-debate spin.

[@MaN2Mega]

***** The question was not who will you vote for the question was who do you think won the debate.... So yes it was pathetic and ridicules. This is just more proof that the US has nothing to do with democracy and the majority of people in the US are to stupid to see it...

[@mickeleh]

+Bernard M Rule by majority of the people is the definition of democracy. You can't complain about the majority of the people and say that the US has nothing to do with democracy.

[@MaN2Mega]

+mickeleh Of course i can, people think it's a democracy because they don't know how much they are lied to, in a democracy people need correct information to rule, it's the very foundation, you can't decide without knowing all the facts, dictators feed their people with missinformation to controls them not democracies...

[@dotdotdot370]

You're looking for clues in all the wrong places. Bernie won the debate because Bernie won the debate. Hilary behaved like a president, spoke like a president, and answered like a president. But any intelligent person not caught up in the razzle dazzle of 'politics as usual' could see through this charade. It was obvious to Bernie fans that Hilary's inauthentic and scripted words were designed to make her appear as though she cared about issues that Bernie has devoted his life to for decades. And her latest disingenuous attempt to brand Bernie as a sexist has fallen flat in her face as MSNBC's Mika Brzezinski dubs Hillary 'pathetic' for playing sexism card. When you get a serious dose of authentic Bernie, Hilary simply comes across as another fake career politician, who cares more about winning than the American people. Pretty obvious really, but not to supporters of the same old establishment ways. They can hardly see the forest for the trees anymore.