SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
You may be getting trolled right now without even knowing it.
Donald Trump supporters artificially manipulated the results of online polls to create a false narrative that the Republican nominee won the first presidential debate on Monday night.
The efforts originated from users of the pro-Trump Reddit community r/The_Donald and 4chan messaged boards, which bombarded around 70 polls, including those launched by Time, Fortune, and CNBC.
In this latest incarnation, multiple Reddit users enlisted the Trump-supporting masses on r/The_Donald, which has over 200,000 subscribers, by posting dozens of online polls that are vulnerable to vote brigading, bots, and other forms of manipulation that make these non-scientific surveys notoriously unreliable.
Polls that were not open to public voting consistently put Clinton ahead of Trump. In a flash poll by Public Policy Polling, Clinton led Trump 51 to 40. A CNN/ORC poll conducted immediately following the debate found significantly stronger support for Clinton, who topped Trump 62 to 27.
http://www.dailydot.com/layer8/trump-clinton-debate-online-polls-4chan-the-donald/
(Score: 4, Interesting) by GungnirSniper on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:43AM
Just like the written and saved obituaries for elderly notables, so too were many of these debate "analysis" stories written in advance. Media outlets like NYT and HuffPost were predictably touting Her Majesty's victory, despite the overwhelming use of dog whistles and meaningless "oopsie" about her email server scam. Their best efforts were in quoting a bunch of cowardly Republican politicians who already were against Trump from the start.
With the way Hillary's apparatus stabbed Bernie in the back, and Trump's larger than life persona, it is no surprise the yoith would rally for Trump. Just the fact that a former war monger Republican President would come out for a hawkish national destroyer further reinforces that Trump is the candidate of change.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:15AM
> With the way Hillary's apparatus stabbed Bernie in the back,
He was so mortally wounded that he's campaigning for her hard. And he wasn't even a democrat before he ran for president.
Get out of your bubble. The internet has everything you need to educate yourself, your choice swim in the murky waters of conspiracy and irrationality is such a waste.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:17AM
It's not just the ones that jump ship for the GOP ticket this year, those of us that refuse to vote for either Clinton or Trump are also a problem for her. A disproportionate number of voters that refuse to vote for the major party candidates are coming from the traditionally Democratic side of the spectrum, which means that she'd have to do even better with the independents and conservatives to make up the difference. Unfortunately for her, the conservatives have probably never hated a candidate as much as they hate her. Her husband is probably the only person that comes close, but I think she's elbowed him out for the top spot.
She's still under the assumption that she's winning with the progressives and liberals and I think enough of us are sick of being taken for granted that she's going to lose those votes. And probably by enough that she loses the election.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:51AM
Now isn't the time to vote third party, and nor was any other election. Every election is the most important election in history to the mental midgets that make up most of the electorate, and therefore we must continue to use a strategy which has proven to cause massive long-term harm: Mindlessly vote for the lesser evil. It may not have successfully removed our two-party system (i.e. basically one of the most important changes that we need to bring about) for the last few centuries, but this time it'll work for sure.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:25PM
After the first sentence I was looking for the -1 shill mod option, but in the end I went for +1 Touche. Well done.
(Score: 2) by fritsd on Wednesday September 28 2016, @08:41AM
In an election system with representative voting, it is common practice that when e.g. the Greens campaign with a particularly good idea, the Social Democrats and other parties close to the Greens in the 2-D political compass "steal" it, by saying: "you don't have to be so extreme to vote Green, our party will also address this issue if you vote for us".
This is a win-win situation: regardless of who wins, the issue has become more paramount in the country's psyche, and will surely be addressed if the Greens end up as a minority partner in a governing coalition, and even likely, in a diluted form, if the Social Democrats govern with a party from further right (e.g. Christian Democrats).
After all, politics should be about that the people's issues are addressed. The fame and fortune for the politicians should just be a perk for them that we the people allow.
Translated to the USA: I don't understand why Hillary Clinton didn't say: "If you make me president, I will also take into account several of the issues raised by Bernie Sanders and Jill Stein", to "steal" those voters away.
FPTP voting systems are always so combative! If you are for the one party, you HAVE to be against the other party/parties. The reality is that consensus governing is a quite normal thing for most of us evolved primates.
Maybe politicians should be more like Bonobos, less like Gorillas?
(Score: 3, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @01:50PM
Because she has no credibility. She can't even tell the truth about having pneumonia (if in fact that's what her illness was), she's such a reflexive liar. If she can't even tell the truth about something so basic, so eminently understandable, then how can she be trusted on big things? Oh, "I'm wearing red today (when she's wearing blue), and you can trust me to shut down the TPP!" ?
People who supported Bernie are the party's base. They're the ones who show up to vote in every election, no matter how obscure. They turn out to canvass, poll watch, and do all the hard, tedious work of politics. They pay attention to the issues. Likewise the Greens, who are so few because they only retain the most fanatical; they pay attention and know the issues. None of those people will be taken in by the promises of a candidate who is not really their candidate, proven by the revelations that the DNC rigged the primary for her. At most they'll vote for Hillary out of fear of Trump, a fear that's been stoked by the Clintons and all their cronies and surrogates in every corrupt height in the country. But they won't do it gladly, and they won't go out of their way for her. People who ordinarily stand out in the rain for hours for Democratic candidates haven't even bothered themselves to put signs in their windows for her this time. I live in the People's Republic of Park Slope, Brooklyn, and I haven't seen one blessed sign for Hillary Clinton. Not one.
I hope that all those people, instead of voting for Hillary, vote for Jill Stein. A very big, loud, and clear message needs to be sent to the DNC, that progressives are not to be taken for granted any more.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Francis on Thursday September 29 2016, @12:23AM
I mostly agree, except for that bit about the Greens. The Greens remain a minor party because they show up every four years, have a barely noticeable campaign and then wait for the next Presidential election.
I'm sure they are doing more than that, but parties do best when they work their way up. Getting a Green party candidate elected to state and local offices increases the visibility of the party. And most of those down ticket elections are much less expensive to run for. A million dollars is more than enough for some of those state races. A few thousand might even be enough for city council positions.
As parties get more low members elected to low level parties it increases their visibility as well as their ability to fund raise. Trying to win the Presidency without working from the bottom up is highly unlikely to work.
(Score: 4, Informative) by NotSanguine on Wednesday September 28 2016, @06:34AM
Just like the written and saved obituaries for elderly notables, so too were many of these debate "analysis" stories written in advance. Media outlets like NYT and HuffPost were predictably touting Her Majesty's victory, despite the overwhelming use of dog whistles and meaningless "oopsie" about her email server scam. Their best efforts were in quoting a bunch of cowardly Republican politicians who already were against Trump from the start.
Fivethirtyeight [fivethirtyeight.com] and the NYT as well as many other organs live blogged the debates.
I'll let you do your own google-fu to find those. I know you won't because it runs contrary to the narrative in which you're you're invested.
Or, you could shock the hell out of everyone and actually delve into some real information. Shocking idea, isn't it?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Wednesday September 28 2016, @01:23PM
I don't get how people are still fooled by this ringmaster. He certainly will bring about change though. He will change the minds of every american who voted for him to wishing they hadn't. If the conservatives think Obama was a big dud, just wait till they get their darling dr dolittle in office. The best we can expect is a very mediocre presidency and at worst another woodrow wilson or Bush jr. All we need is one good national crisis like another 9-11 and that politically impotent charlatan will crumble. It takes way more than big mouth to convince me you are worthy of such an important title.
Hillary I wont even begin to touch. She damaged herself enough and is a wolf in sheep's clothing. A two faced republicrat is a better description. Neither of these two clowns is worthy of a real American vote. How we got here is a great example of how poorly Americans are educated and taught to think critically and more importantly, think for themselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @04:07PM
And when he crumbles, he's going to declare martial law and start launching nukes, because thats what his idol Putin would do. Its not going to be pretty.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Wednesday September 28 2016, @05:29PM
I wish somebody with deep pockets would mount an independent run. It would have to be a real iconoclast, though, because not many wealthy people remain who don't owe their wealth to the protection and scheming of the old boy network. The last time it happened it was a wealthy guy with deep pockets and a zeal for justice who was never supposed to sit in the big chair and only got there through historical accident (Teddy Roosevelt). He ushered in a raft of progressive changes that built American national wealth and power for the last century, and which the corrupt 1% have now almost completely undone.
If such a person could be found, however, I think he or she could win. Even as a total unknown, with no real money or name recognition, the Libertarian candidate Johnson is polling at 8%. If you think about it, that's exceptionally good under the circumstances. Somebody who could hire real PR firms and political operators and build a real viable third party would walk away with most of the Independents and the base of both major parties.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 28 2016, @03:28PM
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that Trump won the debate. He not only lost, he lost big time. The two biggest sound bites are Trump sniffing repeatedly, and Trump answering Hillary's rhetorical question about whether he paid zero Federal taxes by saying "because I'm smart".
That's why his campaign is suggesting he'll skip the other two.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 29 2016, @02:02AM
Oh, yes, Donald should skip the next two debates. Why wait until election day to concede when he could just get it over with now? That would definitely be an historic moment in American presidential politics!