Threads that Say "Polls Say Bernie Won theDebate" Are Misleading...Facebook Polls are NOT Scientific

[tgards79]

People post these things just so the Title Thread makes an impression. It's utterly false.

[immoderate]

1. Not necessarily.

Compared to what?

--imm

[mythology]

3. Compared to scientific polls

The only way to tell who won is to wait and look at legitimate polls conducted after the debate. There isn't a way to tell yet who won. Online polls are garbage and pundits have significant limitations.

[immoderate]

11. Hyperbole aside, how can you 'scientifically' decide the winner of a debate?

Do you score style and content separately?

--imm

[brooklynite]

25. Science is not a style...it's a process

A "scientific poll" is organized to replicate as closely as possible the actual population set.

See attached: http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251685007

[immoderate]

32. The "scientific poll" doesn't determine the winner of the debate.

Even the election doesn't do that.

--imm

[randys1]

29. Polls would show the % of people who THOUGHT one person won over another

Who actually won?

Impossible to know and not important, because the people who watch them will decide and then vote.

[stone space]

7. Compared to actual elections, I suppose, which are themselves unscientific error-ridden polls. (nt)

[leveymg]

2. Nor are the instant pronouncements of MSM pundits. They are experts at ass kissing, but little else

People post these things just so the Title Thread makes an impression. It's utterly false.

On that, we agree.

[JackInGreen]

4. You are correct

The bent punditocracy is so much more reliable

[Doubledee]

5. well, a definite maybe

Thank you for the link, it made for an interesting, if rather partisan , read. What I found missing from this paean to Hillary's invincibility was any noting of several points I think important in assessing both the debate itself and the chances of both Clinton and Sanders.

Clinton has a rather blatant track record of deception and support for the financial community, she back stabbed Elisabeth Warren immediately after winning the race for the Senate in NY. I think that to many voters Clinton represents the same old same old, with the proviso that she is a well financed and shrewd campaigner.

As to uncle Bernie, up against a money churning machine like that of Clinton , he has not only survived but thrived. Unlike Hil, Bernie's contributions come from small donors, an important point when assessing real popularity I believe. We are beset with myriad problems, and Sanders speaks eloquently to most of them. In any consideration of who will win it is important to factor in the disgust this electorate has for the status quo. Bernie represents, whether true or not, an opposition to that in the minds of many voters.

[HooptieWagon]

6. Pundits aren't scientific.

They are merely stating their opinion, just as a million plus online poll respondents are. Every single poll had Sanders the winner, not a single one for Clinton. What are the odds? Then also, every single focus group declared Sanders the winner, even one made up of primarily Clinton supporters. How can that be?
CNN>Time-Warner > One of Hillarys biggest donors. I wonder why they ignored their own poll? Maybe because it backfired, and didn't support their agenda they were trying to pass off as journalism?

[72DejaVu]

8. But...but...but

"If that poll wasn't legitimate, why did I vote in it 50 times?"

[NorthCarolina]

12. Well, that certainly explains

how Clinton was able to capture as much as 20% in some of them.

[NorthCarolina]

9. Yes, I quite sure the many, many, many polls showing Bernie ahead by A LOT

mean absolutely nothing except to indicate that the real winner was Hillary. Gotcha. Hows the weather out on that limb?

[lumberjack_jeff]

10. So Hillary won the debate *because* she lost all the online polls and focus groups?

Are they individually reliable? Perhaps not.

Are they collectively reliable?

I'd say more so than using them to assume the inverse argument.

The fact that she lost those polls is not evidence that she won.

[Fawke Em]

13. There were other valid methods of his success, though.

He was the most searched candidate during and after the debate, according to Google, he got more than 40,000 people to donate to his campaign during the debate and the blush period afterwards, he won all the focus groups and he garnered the most followers and mentions on social media.

So, while online polls aren't all that scientific, there were other measures that are easily counted and quantifiable to show that he did win it with the people.

[tgards79]

14. Google searches are biased too. Focus groups are a joke. Counting pundits is also a joke.

Only rigorous polls can come close to discerning the truth. But while we are offering opinions on the debate, here is a good one:
http://www.borntorunthenumbers.com/2015/10/the-first-democratic-debate-start.html

[TM99]

27. Nice self-promotion there buddy!

So what are your qualifications? What is your methodology? Where did you train? What is your track record? Questions, questions, and more questions.

Everything is biased, includes pollsters, search engines, focus groups, pundits, etc.

[NorthCarolina]

15. Do you feel pundits are "scientific" or simply "bought"?

I know that for me, I will take authenticity over pandering any day of the week. Bernie won the debate because he is authentic. That's whats important, not your candidate and her newest Pander-du-Jour.

[TheKentuckian]

16. When did who won a debate became the province of science?

Let's say that it is measurable then what is the set of criteria we are going by?

I think the who won is subjective and the only scientific way to measure is a poll of actual viewers and what their opinion is.

[WI_DEM]

17. Why don't we all wait and see how the polls will be reflected after the debate

obviously we all think our preferred candidate won. But yes, on-line polls where supporters are told to go and vote are not scientific.

[tgards79]

19. Not sure of this...that "we all think our preferred candidate won"...

I certainly preferred Obama over Romney, but it was very clear that in the first debate between the two, that Romney was killing him, much to my chagrin.

[Metric System]

18. They either don't understand or don't care about the difference between scientific and click polls.

Many of us have tried to explain the difference and why they're crap even IF they're favorable to Hillary, but I guess science has been thrown under the bus.

[TheKentuckian]

22. Then since nobody has any science to support their subjective opinion then Clinton supporters

need to accept that difference of opinion and stop trying to be definitive because it often seems many are using the pundits as evidence of who won which is no more scientific in backing up their opinions.

[procon]

20. Yes, but for whatever reason, Sanders supporters need that illusion.

Yeah, like everyone fell off the pumpkin cart yesterday, right? He didn't "win". All these social media and instant internet polls are nothing but a reflection of the emotion of the moment. That, and the cheesy efforts from pro-Sanders groups to tip the scales and then loudly tout their "victory". C'mon... do you really not realize what that says about the candidate?

Look, even though Sanders didn't win this time, he did a good job and he had some great moments, but Clinton was just a little better. He made some unforced errors that really hurt him far more than the mistakes Clinton made. Sanders needs to beef of his foreign policy chops. He was a stammering hot mess when he was asked about China and went off on a confused word salad about Putin; it was bad. He also must -- must! -- reassess his position on guns and find a way to show that he is more aligned with the Democratic views on gun control.

Sanders can improve his message, and so can Clinton. They both can and must do better. I'm still unaligned with either camp, but I want both of these candidates to woo me and show me the best they've got if they want to earn my vote and really win the nomination.

[frylock]

21. Opinions of pundits aren't scientific either.

[frylock]

24. i think you'll find that most Sanders supporters are pointing to other metrics..

to gauge his success in the debate, such as donations, and new followers of Sanders on social media.

[Fearless]

26. Your opinion is not scientific. What is your point?

[TM99]

28. This horse is thoroughly beaten

however it does not dispute the assertion that Sanders won.

That assertion may be based on such rubrics, however, it is no more or no less 'scientific' than pundits calling it for Clinton.

Thus far, all Clinton supporters seem to be able to say is that Sanders didn't win. I have yet to read a fucking thread presenting the opinions on why y'all think she did. I don't need graphs, spreadsheets, or formula's either.

But this sophistry is getting tiresome.

[highprincipleswork]

30. Just how "scientific" is the opinion or judgment of a pundit, or even a whole news network?

[HooptieWagon]

31. You mean all those Facebook likes from Bangladesh that Clinton bought are worthless?

Glad to see she wasted her campaign dough, again.

[Motown_Johnny]

33. And pundits are scientific? Your OP is misleading.

You posted that just so the title makes an impression. It is utterly false.

[HereSince1628]

35. Fail... an unscientific poll -can- be correct.

It's wrong to equate science with correctness.

As a former editor of scientific journals I can assure you there are many problems in 'scientific' studies and their conclusions. A significant fraction of conclusions in published scientific papers goes beyond the results and is accepted without change mostly because it is in agreement with prevailing paradigms.


But please, don't take my word for that:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2015/08/27/trouble-in-science-massive-effort-to-reproduce-100-experimental-results-succeeds-only-36-times/