Bernie Spends 0 on Polling, Hillary Spends $900k. Bernie Doesn't Need Polling

[sabrina 1]

Bernie Spends 0 on Polling, Hillary Spends $900K. Bernie Doesn't Need Polling Nuff Said

From the WSJ:

Her campaign spent more than $900,000 on polling in the quarter that ended June 30th; Mr. Sanders, $0.

Bernie doesn't need polling.
He speaks his mind and doesn't test where the wind is blowing. He's been saying the same thing for 40 years.... and now the wind is finally at his back.

Why poll when you are speaking the truth? There's no need to poll test the truth. No need for listening tours or focus groups.

Give 'em Hell Bernie!

So that's where all the polls are coming from?

[democrank]

1. I`ve never understood this polling business.

Why would a candidate have to use polls/focus groups to help decide what to stand for? If a candidate is out there speaking the truth about his/her positions, no polling would be needed.

[sufrommich]

4. That's not what campaigns use internal polls for.

They're used to measure positive and negative responses to their message,it's not that the policies change according to polls,it's the effectiveness of the campaign's groundwork that is being is being gauged.They use polls to determine where they need to concentrate on gaining votes,down to which neighborhoods in which counties they need to focus on.Internal polls are a different animal than polls that measure which candidate is ahead in the primaries.

[zeemike]

12. Well you just said the same thing.

It is about how to tailor the message.
If you speak from the heart and not the head you don't need to tailor the message.

But we have now accepted politics as a machine that cranks out wins for us...nothing organic at all...and nothing about real people.

[sufrommich]

13. There's a structural science to running a national

campaign in a huge country of 320 million people.You want to believe that's not true,have at it.

[zeemike]

24. Oh I know it's true.

But it is manipulative and controlling...something that is the bane of democracy...and allows rule by oligarchy.
And if you are willing to accept it then have at it.

[MADem]

51. One person's "manipulative and controlling" is another person's "responsive to my concerns and

interests."

It isn't about anything as dire as (drum roll) "oligarchy."

It has to do with talking about ISSUES that VOTERS want to HEAR about!

[zeemike]

65. And if all you want it talk that is all you will get.

Talk is cheap.
It's more about marketing than actual policy...tell them anything they want to hear to make the sale...and once sold there is no money back guarantee.

I prefer to buy the real thing so I can have confidence it will work when I get it home.

[MADem]

69. No--it's about targeting the message to the audience, and there's nothing wrong with that.

Do you want to hear Bernie talk for an hour about the rights of gun owners? That's in his wheelhouse, given his state and his voting record, but it might not be in yours.

I'll bet if he's addressing a bunch of hunters, though, that subject would move to the fore. See, he'd do a "poll" of the audience and figure out that this subject was of interest to them.

Polling does the same thing, only in a more scientific fashion.

That "real thing" analogy just doesn't cut it with me, sorry. The "real thing" is a bottle of Coke. Someone who uses modern scientific method rather than count on the applause of people who may be skylarking (hello, The Donald?) will probably have a better shot at sustaining a candidacy.

It's not like this hasn't happened before:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3797562

[zeemike]

83. It's not the talk that matters it is the actions.

And it is one thing if the talk matches the actions and another when it don't.
When it don't it is manipulation by speaking to concerns and ignoring the action part.

But the point of the OP is Sanders is not using polling...Clinton is. But then he don't need to and she does.
He already understands what their concerns are because he has been closer to them in the last 30 years, where Hillary has been living in a bubble for that long...and the passion in the crowd shows that...and no he did not pay them to do it like Trump did.

And you are right it is nothing new...people have always longed for a populist candidate, but power always has won...and what you are suggesting is that power should always win.
Well I hope not again...and this time it just might work because people are fed up with it.

[MADem]

84. That is true--people who talk and talk and talk about what they see as "wrong," but who have no path

to solving those problems, are in essence, all talk, no action.

Look, there's nothing wrong with using polling. This conversation is phrased in a way to suggest "Waaaaah--Polling is BAAAAAAD!" when it is nothing of the sort.

Successful politicians and businesses do it all the time. People who rely on wishin' and hopin' generally don't do very well.

I'd go hear Donald Trump speak in a heartbeat, and bring a car load of friends, purely for the spectacle and the gut-busting amusement factor. I'd be up in the audience taking pictures and laughing my ass off.

It doesn't mean he'd ever get my vote. He'd have to poll me to know that.

[zeemike]

90. No there is nothing wrong with polling, it's a tool.

And a tool can be used for good or bad...like a hammer can build a house or murder someone.
And the tool of polling can be used in bad ways too, like push polling to manipulate people's perceptions...

But if you need a tool to find out what people think it means you have not been listening to them or cannot relate to them.

But I wouldn't walk across the street to hear Trump...and if I had TV and he was on it I would change channels...I don't listen to fools for any reason including entertainment...especially entertainment.

[MADem]

93. You do know that internal polls are generally not released or published?

It's not like politicians are swinging their hammers all over hell. That isn't their purpose at all, and you don't seem to get that.

They are a tool to help politicians focus their efforts.

Trying to find an "evil motive" in internal polling sounds to me like a bridge too far.

More about trying to be pejorative about a SPECIFIC candidate than having any actual objections.

Here's a candidate who drew great crowds and didn't seem to do much polling:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3797562

How did that work out for him?

Your churlishness IS noted.

[zeemike]

99. It has nothing to do with evil motives.

It has to do with marketing...and I happen to think it is a shame we have to marked politicians in a democracy...like I said, I am too idealistic for this world we have created.

Did not know the word churlish but looked it up.

In this question, churlish is an adjective that means rude and boorish. A churlish person is one whose middle name might as well be Rude. He's the one who was never taught to mind his manners and avoid telling vulgar jokes at the dinner table.

Sounds like an insult but I forgive you for it. I would never say that to you.

[MADem]

101. So now, responding to voter concerns is "marketing."

It's somehow more "pure" to think everyone in the audience loves you? Even though I -- and a carload of Trump hating yuck-it-ups--might populate an audience at a Trumpfest just for the laughs?

Come off it. I'm just not buying this thesis you are shopping. And your purpose in shopping it IS rude, which is why I used that very word--it's to denigrate Clinton for using internal polling as a tool to ensure she covers the topics that concern people. What you are doing is falsely equating idealism with shitty, poor-boy candidate practices and trying to pretend there's nobility there. If Sanders' team had the money to spare, you can be damn sure they'd be polling their asses off.

You can ask Kucinch of Fox News how that "idealist-above-the-fray" attitude worked out for him.

It will be a sorry and difficult walk-back for you if you discover Sanders starts using internal polling, too. And if he hangs around for any time at all, I can promise you, he'll do that.

[zeemike]

109. So being rude to you is expressing my ideas which conflict with yours?

I would call that narcissistic but I don't know you that well.

Well pardon me if I don't respond, because I don't want to be rude.

[MADem]

113. You're not being rude to ME. Not in the slightest!

You're being churlish about Clinton.

Though you kind of ruined your "not being rude" record with that lame "narcissistic" insult. That was rude. Totally off-point, too. I'll forgive you because you plainly didn't understand the arc of the conversation (and because the term "churlish" is new to you).

If Sanders was doing the exact same thing, running a few polls and focusing his commentaries, you'd be cheering. "Good for BERRRRRNIE!!! He wants to know what the PEEEE-PUL are interested in!!!! He CARES about US, so he ASKS~~!!!! YAY!!!!!"

Your objections have ENTIRELY to do with the person doing the act, not the act itself.

And you know it.

Thus...churlish.

[Frances]

102. Did you object when Obama used polling?

Back in 2008, I worried about how so many DUers thought that Obama agreed with them on every single issue.

Since not every single DUer agreed on every single issue, I knew that there would be a lot of disappointment at DU when Obama got in office.

The only way you are going to get a President who agrees with you on every single issue is for you to run and get elected yourself. And even then, you will probably change your mind on some things as events unfold.

[zeemike]

105. I don't want a president that agrees with me on every issue.

Just one that will do what he says.

And no I did not object when Obama did it...I believed he would do what he said...stop the torture, close Gitmo, the public option and so forth. But we got nothing but excuses and just the opposite of what he said.
Which led to my disillusionment.

Now I want one who has a record of actually doing what he said he would do. Not one who talks a good game...one I can believe in. And I think that is what most voters want.

[rhett o rick]

152. Sen Sanders has been saying the same message over and over for years. It doesn't matter

to him who his audience is. He truly represents the people. HRC on the other hand, wants to target the message to the audience at the time. If she is speaking to common folks, she says she wants to control the banks, if she is speaking to the banksters, she tells them that those wishing to control the banks are foolish (and they applaud and give her a nice big check).

Sen Sanders is truly for the people. I doubt you can deny that. Goldman-Sachs, the bank that made millions on Greeces financial crash has said that they like HRC as much as Bush. I find that scary.

[MADem]

153. If "it doesn't matter to him who his audience is" then he'll have trouble in the big wide world.

America is not homogenous Vermont. It's lots of people, lots of diversity, lots of issues that Vermonters don't face.

If he doesn't want to know what concerns this larger constituency, fine--but don't be surprised if he fails to connect.

If he's actually "for the people" he would do well to ask the people what they want and need, not assume that his VT paradigms are going to work from sea to shining sea....because they aren't.

The words Banksters and Banks and Goldman - Sachs paired with "scary" fail to move me. I could play the same game and say "white people" and "guns" and "Lockheed Martin" and "Sandia Labs where they make atomic weapons for America's Nuclear arsenal" and "Failed F-35s that can't win in any dogfights" and "Military-Industrial-CONGRESSIONAL complex," and "Sanders: I am NOT a liberal" and quid-pro-quo....

See how that works? Scary!!!!!

[rhett o rick]

163. When you tell the truth, it doesn't matter who your audience is.

HRC tells the people one thing and tells her bankster friends another. HRC told us that Saddam Hussein had WMD. What does that say for her integrity. Goldman-Sachs, one of the worst if not the worst banks in the world love her and give her money for her personal wealth. They, Goldman-Sachs doesn't give a crap about Americans 22% children that live in poverty. Go ahead and support HRC and Goldman-Sachs and the status quo and watch the poverty rate of American children continue to climb.

[MADem]

164. If your "truth" is "guns are good" and "the F-35 is a swell airplane" then YES, it DOES matter. nt

[davidpdx]

172. Faulty logic

Bernie is from Vermont, Vermont is not homogeneous, therefore Bernie doesn't understand anything outside Vermont.

[MADem]

176. But Vermont IS homogenous. I think you'd do well to pull the string on the conversation.

You don't appear to be going all the way back to the source of the Nile, there.

[davidpdx]

182. I grew up in a fairly homogeneous area

Not by choice since it is where one of my parents lived. So are you saying there is no way I can understand outside that area?

Please answer yes or no.

[MADem]

184. Sorry, can't do that. There's always a way, but it's often a difficult path. And the older one

gets, the more people tend to be set in their ways. That's not a slam, it's just reality.

You don't still live in that homogenous area either, so your very own example is a bit of a nonstarter.

[davidpdx]

187. Thanks, I knew you wouldn't answer

[MADem]

188. Don't ask questions that can't be answered, then. That kind of repartee is terribly lame.

When did you stop beating your wife?

See how that works?

[davidpdx]

190. No, it could be answered

you just refused to.

[MADem]

191. I answered it--you just didn't like the answer.

Too bad for you. I'm not going to give you a hard lie just to comply with some bullshit rule you've invented.

When DID you stop sellling heroin to schoolkids, again?


Come on--tell me when!

See how that works?

[Arkana]

62. This is naive in the extreme.

Every candidate that has ever run for office and won has tailored their message depending on whom they are speaking. It doesn't mean they're being dishonest, it means they're emphasizing issues that they know are important to their audience.

[zeemike]

67. Yes I know, I am too idealistic.

Wanting democracy to work like is is supposed to...when we all know it never has.
Which explains why we continue to deteriorate as a nation and the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, and wars are now continuous.

But glad you are satisfied with it, but I am not.

[Arkana]

68. Please explain how speaking to one's audience

is somehow causing economic deterioration.

Go ahead. I'll wait.

[zeemike]

76. OK I will try.

You speak to your audience and find out what they are concerned about...to get their vote.
Then when you got it you do what you want, or in this case what your financial supporters want you to do...no problem with the audience, you can always come up with an excuse that the devil (Republicans) made you do it...but you kept them from doing something worse.

That is how triangulation works, and the Dems have been the abused spouse in the game...and we the enablers.
See you did not have to wait long.

[daleanime]

72. Just speaking for myself....

but I don't think you're too idealistic. I agree on this a lot. Now, while I think there is a place for polling in the system, too many over use them. If it's used to make sure you're getting your message out, good. If you're using them to tailor you're policy, no way.

[LordGlenconner]

116. Well I give you credit for at least knowing yourself

[zeemike]

117. Well I believe the unexamined life is not worth living.

[the_sly_pig]

169. I agree with you.

The entire purpose of having a representative republic is so that informed people make good decisions for the masses who are not privy to the full extent of information. Marketing or polls are weather vanes designed to gauge what people want to hear rather than the heart-felt opinion of a candidate for office.

The end result of "marketing" is that we end up with someone whose true feelings and opinions are hidden. I will vote for Hillary if she is the candidate, but will I trust her over Bernie? Nope.

As far as I'm concerned, successful marketing is about who can lie most effectively.

[zeemike]

174. It's nice to have a response with agreement...thanks.

And I think we have become too acceptent of it...they made it normal when it should not be.

[A Simple Game]

18. Exactly right they use polls to measure positive and negative responses to their message.

And it's true that in most cases their actual policies or positions don't change.

For example, if a candidate has been saying or implies by action that they support the use of unnecessary wars for profit and political expediency and polling shows that that stance doesn't get a positive response, they will adjust their message to say they don't support or at least not say they support unnecessary wars for profit and political expediency. That doesn't mean that their policy or what they will actually do if elected will change. Many people think it is because their candidate had "evolved" when in fact it is only the message that has "evolved." Besides, who actually cares anyway it's just a war, or maybe a family's life ruined by a big bank's policies, no big deal right?

Then you get some, though not many, candidates that are foolish enough to say what they mean, believe what they say, never vary, and not care how it is accepted by the public because they have learned what is best for the country and will not waver in their principles. What do you think, is that 100% honest and unwavering candidate more foolish, or are the people that support a candidate like that more foolish? I don't know, a tossup?

[brooklynite]

29. Here's a reason to use polling...

...it's great that Bernie can make a speech; but it won't automatically turn out voters ON Election Day; for that you need staff to direct your volunteers; you need to know which States and Cities to spend money on (office space, mailing, advertising). For THAT, it's useful to know where your message is resonating and where it's not.

I think some people here look at what's happening in Iowa and NH and don't think about how BIG the game board gets. Texas has 1 million Democratic votes (not all as liberal as Sanders) spread over an immense amount of territory, and votes the same day as nine other States. Since Sanders won't have the financial resources, he'll need to target his available GOTV operation where it can do the most good. That's where polling is useful.

[sufrommich]

35. I sometimes feel like this when I read GD/P:

[msanthrope]

49. That encapsulates a certain segment perfectly. nt

[redstateblues]

70. Love that!!

[Gothmog]

86. I agree-modern campaign organizations use a host of tools to get to voters

The lack of polling is not a good thing for Sanders if he is expecting to run a viable campaign in the general election where the Koch brothers will be spending $887 million and the GOP nominee will be spending another billion dollars.

It was asked and I saw no real answers as to how Sanders will expand his base. Right now, Sanders has a nice message that plays well on DU and to a narrow segment of the Democratic party. I have seen no efforts by the Sanders campaign to expand his base and the fact that Sanders is not even polling to see how he can expand his base is telling to me.

[tammywammy]

95. +a million

[zappaman]

106. Nailed it.

[MADem]

156. But....but....but!!!

They're using FACEBOOK!!! And social MEEEEEDIA!!!!!

Look, they put stuff up on their WALL!!!!




Brilliant graphic....

[davidpdx]

173. I find it stupefying how a Hillary Clinton supporter would dismiss social media

especially when she did such a poor job of using it the last time around.

[MADem]

175. No one is dismissing it, but it ain't ALL that.

A lot of older voters eschew social media. Of the hundred or so that I drove to the polls to vote for Elizabeth Warren, if five were "on the computer" at all, that would be a lot.

So the influence of social media CAN be overstated.

Remember Howard Dean and those orange hats? No ground game? No goodies.

[davidpdx]

181. Yes for older people, but it was getting out younger people in 2008

You and the other person were clearly mocking the use of social media. Under estimate it at your own peril.

[MADem]

185. I wasn't "mocking social media." I was mocking the POV that it's the be-all and end-all, and

the answer to every politician's prayers.

I get asses to the polls every election day. EVERY election day--even the local ones, the off-year ones, the specials, etc.

My voters are reliable (I've been bringing some of them to vote for fifteen years, now), and they don't give a shit about twitter or facebook or instagram, or other forms of social media. So here's my advice to you: OVER estimate it at YOUR own peril.

[davidpdx]

186. Yes, you were

And while I applaud you for driving people to the polls, you know at some point the older generation will not be there. It will be interesting for you to report how many fewer familiar faces you see in 2016.

[MADem]

189. No, I wasn't. Anyone can read what I wrote.

If you choose to interpret my comments in a twisted-pretzel-logic manner, I cannot stop you.

If you are hoping for all of "the older generation" to die off before the primaries and the general election, you're just not going to get your wish. What an odd thing to say...everyone dies, you know. One of the candidates is a septuagenarian, for heaven's sake. Are you hurrying him along, too?

Funny thing, though--every time I lose a voter--and most of these folks I regard as friends, another one takes her (and it's usually though not always a her) place.

I have to say, I really don't get your comment about my friends dying off, there. Seems a bit mean-spirited to me, frankly. "I'll show you! They're gonna DIE!!!"

Hmmm.

[davidpdx]

192. Talk about twisted-pretzel logic

All I said is that "you know at some point the older generation will not be there". The point being the elder generation passes on and is replaced with a younger generation. It is just a fact of life. That younger generation is very much social media centered. I'd also bet social media and online platforms are being used to HELP get the older generation to the polls. If that is true, then the older voters are benefiting from social media and online platforms indirectly. So keep on mocking...

[MADem]

193. The topic of this thread is about internal polling for the 2016 elections.

Not about waiting for my friends to die.

Why say shit like that at all?

SMH.

Unless the "social media generation" surprise the hell out of us all, I'm betting they vote in the same low, lousy numbers they always have done. If Vietnam couldn't get them out to vote, what can? If Iraq didn't move them, what will?

[MADem]

59. And we've never seen THAT happen before, have we?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x109209

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=108x21792

That forgotten Fox News employee was even likened to GOD here...shows how quickly the landscape can change!

I like to go hear politicians speak live--it doesn't mean I'll vote for them. Not all crowds are supporters; some are just curious. I'd go see Trump for the laughs if he were speaking nearby! That doesn't mean I'd be hypnotized by his Complicated Hair to vote for him!

[haydukelives]

159. bla,bla

bla.

[quickesst]

6. a lot of Bernie's supporters...

...would disagree with you as evidenced by the excitement generated by his supporters when a poll shows up here that favors Bernie. They flock like stink on shit in order to counter those useless polls that "don't mean anything". When I say useless, I am of course referring to those polls favorable to Hillary. As to the OP, when your average person reads a poll, I would venture a guess that the last question they have on their mind is, "Gee, I wonder who paid for this poll?" Hillary is running a smart campaign, and Bernie"s supporters are grasping at straws.

[sufrommich]

8. The Clinton campaign isn't paying for the polls we see in the media,

despite what the OP says.

[quickesst]

22. I wondered about that

...after I posted. The paid polls referred to in the OP I assume, are private polls the public never sees but are used as a campaign tool to get the pulse of the nation to improve said campaign. Correct and enlighten me if I am wrong, as I do admit some ignorance when it comes to campaign strategy. Thanks in advance. I stand by the rest of my post. The only media polls that are good polls are the polls that favor Bernie, and they do flock to them like stink on shit.💩😝

[PATRICK]

40. Your difficulty

in getting this discussion to acknowledge the complex differences in polling explains why the propaganda polling abuses remain an issue in themselves. People wanted in to these necessarily accurate internal polling. It's simple available data waiting to for anyone to do themselves. Some political eyes-of-Heisenberg morphing ensued. We have a range of public polling that is competitive in public effect even more than accuracy. A constant circle of illusions. We have internal polls that pressure pols differently now because this public polling has mightily entered into the campaign mix. It is how we keep a questionable score in the external campaign game. We have "leaks" of internal polls that are gamed from the inside to the point of outright lies, or are actually signs of victorious glee, worry or despair. Truth is deniable until someone plain gives up- if only internally. Back to secrecy in all scenarios or else, like some losers failure to bluff it out causes downticket disaster.

The mainstream situation is not serving the public in these muddied waters if anything is responding to controls other than accuracy. To that point fixing the vote to beat down the accuracy becomes almost necessary for a hopeless party. that and continued misrepresentation of everything, polls or no polls, in our old media forums at least.

Internal polls are still secret. Public polls are still not reliable. Gaming of perceived opinion and interpretation continues. Emotions throw aside the game board of history and science. Accuracy checking(rather a campaign contest barometer) to protect against vote fixing is not allowed to come into its own and the scales dangerously tip toward aggressive fraud. The best and most needed polls are decent exit polls. The actual vote decision is the actual opinion.

Post election rationalization of exit polls has also been confused or corrupted.

Maybe it's like using a rubber harm on a steel nail. Why do we ave to accept a rubber hammer?

[Gothmog]

87. You rarely see the true internal polls done by the candidates

The poling that Clinton is doing is for internal purposes and the polls used by the media are paid for by the media

[zappaman]

107. Of course not.

The OP just made that up.

[Thor_MN]

46. I've yet to see a poll that favors Sanders.

Only polls that that are somehow spun into some sort of "trend" that is seen as blind faith hopeful to his supporters.

It's early yet, Sander's numbers have come up out total obscurity as he has gained some recognition. Clinton's numbers haven't changed much. That means Sanders has gained some formerly undecideds. When those start to run out, it will be much harder to peel away those that support Clinton.

I'm one of the undecideds. I like Sanders' message. I have some doubts on his chances in the General. Some of his rabid supporters are a negative for me. Clinton, I like less, but her chances in the General (at this point) simply crush everyone else, on all sides.

Sanders has a lot of ground to make up, but it can be still considered early.

[quickesst]

61. well said

thanks for the well thought out reply
Add to that, if Bernie pulls it off, I will gladly and enthusiastically support him. thanks again

[Recursion]

7. You think an elected representative has no need to know what Americans think? (nt)

[PoliticAverse]

44. Yes but they might not win. Polling is about winning. When polls showed supporting same-sex marriage

might cause a candidate to lose many Democrats opposed it. When the American public
shifted their opinion on the issue and polls reflected that most of those Democrats evolved
their position too.

[eridani]

150. And why did the American people change their minds on this issue?

Because activists refused to let unfavorable poll results stop them. As a result, they now see good poll results.

[PoliticAverse]

151. Exactly. They changed public opinion by their activeness. n/t

[sabrina 1]

179. That's a shame. It was the right thing to do but polls caused them not to it. Too bad

that this how our 'leaders' decide what to do, put their fingers in the wind to find out which way it is blowing, instead of being the ones to lead, to make it happen.

Bernie doesn't need polls to tell him what is the right thing to do.

And it were not for the few who go against the polls nothing would ever happen.

[George II]

60. Candidates, when elected, represent 100% if their constituency, not just those who voted...

....for them.

If everyone would only realize this we'd probably have more civil campaigns, governance, AND discussions on DU.

[pnwmom]

140. Not true. There are different ways to express what your policies are,

and some are more understandable than others.

Polling can help a candidate figure out how best to get his message across, and whether it is getting across.

[Gman]

2. You've got to know what the score is

If you want to win the game. Kinda reinforces that he's not serious about winning. Only in getting his message out there. And it is a good message nevertheless.

[sabrina 1]

121. He is very serious about winning this race. He does not need to know

what the score is day by day.

Polling isn't going to change his message in any way so why would he spend money on something that he doesn't need?

He is focusing on what is important. And that is why he is doing so well.

[Drunken Irishman]

129. It's not about changing the message.

You do realize polling is used for more than issues, right? It's used to tell you where you need to dump your resources and where your message might not be working as well. It's used to tell you what states you need to campaign more in and what states you're probably good to pass up on because you're either too far down or far enough ahead you can afford it. Bernie isn't going to be everywhere at once - he's going to have to decide where and when to campaign. If an internal poll shows he's leading by five in Michigan but down 3 in Ohio, he's best served campaigning in Ohio.

Internal polling was a HUGE reason behind Obama's 2008 and 2012 wins. They predicted the voting electorate perfectly and it allowed them to know where to campaign, and more importantly, where their support was so they could get that support out. Polling is vital to a successful ground game.

I truly hope, if Bernie is our nominee, he plans on using polling. Or he's going to lose. Just as Romney lost in 2012.

[pnwmom]

141. Polling could let him know whether people are accurately HEARING his message.

And if he doesn't do ANY polling, as this article appears to indicate, then he won't know.

[Gman]

146. There is a limit to his issues

I don't hear anything significant on foreign policy (although I think he and Hillary are likely identical). And I don't hear anything on the border (I.e. the waste of resources there), or even the voting rights act (important to minorities. Again, he is likely identical to Hillary. So he needs something more to close the gap and broaden his appeal beyond the narrow group that supports him now. His current message is not enough. And polling is the only way to narrow down more issues he can use to define any differences between he and Hillary. As it stands there is little to go on to switch from Hillary, especially for minorities. Asian American support put Obama over the top in the 12 GE. She has strong support there too.

[daybranch]

3. Bernie's views are the views of most Americans.

Bernie's time has come, occupy, numerous wars, the oppression by a rich class, and the use of police in a war on the people all over the world demonstrates the time is now for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country. Fortunately this time we will be led by one of us, not a rich one percenter like Washington or Jefferson. We must have Bernie and Bernie's ideas if we are to help our brothers , our sisters both here and around the world.
Clint ons are just more of the economic oppression. They just throw crumbs in order to maintain law and order in the poorer classes. We do not want their crumbs, we want our liberty, which is only possible through economic equity. Hillary like the republican candidates is a symbol of that oppressive greed. She must not be elected.
Obama was asked if he was going to redistribute income. His parsed answer was very telling as it told us about his donors control of his agenda. Social justice but economic protection of the wealthy from democratic forces. It is clear today that more equal distribution of income must occur and Hillary is fighting this. She is on the wrong side of history.

[onehandle]

5. That's true. Bernie doesn't need polling.

There are a lot of things he doesn't need.

He won't need anything after March 1st, if not earlier.

[Adrahil]

9. Crap like this makes me worry that Bernie ...

... has no idea what it takes to win a national election.

[Gothmog]

88. Agreed

I have been really worried that the Sanders campaign would not be competitive in a national race

[BlueJazz]

10. Hillary doesn't need polls. She's got her orders from this country's Overloads and will..

...act and say exactly how, when and where the powers-that-be say she should..

[MisterP]

110. "overloads" is actually a good term for them

they OVERLOAD our prisons and colleges to pad their portfolios, their OVERLOADED derivatives market "creates" more money in a year than all humanity's earned in its existence, they OVERLOAD our working hours and mortgages, they OVERLOAD the rainforests with oil palms

[nashville_brook]

132. they actually require the polling to make the case for how messages are crafted

you want the check? show me the numbers where this issue polls well (that's the basic transaction).

[DCBob]

11. This is yet another reason to be concerned about Bernie as our nominee.

If he doesn't believe in polling he will be at a tremendous disadvantage to the GOP candidate should he somehow miraculously win the Dem nomination. That's like going into a fight blindfolded.

[99Forever]

14. Because he doesn't have to stick his finger in the wind to know where he stands?

Bwahahahahahaha!

Funny story, bro.

[DCBob]

16. No.. but he needs to know whats going on in the minds of the electorate...

or else he is flying blind. Maybe its a joke to you but beating the GOP is a serious issue to most of the rest of us.

[99Forever]

20. That's the difference between Bernie and Hillary.

He doesn't need to run focus groups and other bullshit political tricks like Hillary, he's been in touch with We the People for decades, not hob-knobbing with the Wall Street Banksters and Warmongers behind closed doors.

What's a joke is the fools who don't see thru the bullshit.

[DCBob]

25. I think he knows Vermont-type people very well, but beyond that, I dont think so.

He has yet to connect at all with minority voters. A little polling intel might help him with that... but I guess that's all bullshit to the political geniuses in Bernie's camp.

[DCBob]

28. Ignorance is bliss.

Thank you for the insult. Get lost.

[99Forever]

31. Ahhh, did I penetrate your DC bubble and touch a nerve?

[DCBob]

37. DC bubble??

I lived 20 years in the midwest, 10 years in the south, 20 years in the DC area and 3 years in Asia.

You appear to be the ignorant one.

I am done with you. Please get lost or put me on ignore.

[99Forever]

38. You seriously think you are going to order me around?

And I am going to comply? You are sadly mistaken, sir. We the People are not "getting lost" or "going away" and We the People will call you out every time you try to run your game.

[ybbor]

56. This^^^^

I will not just go away because you say so.

Speak truth to power!

[Bobbie Jo]

80. Wait

So you represent "we the people?"

Hmmm.. I didn't get the memo.

We.

Try getting out more, seriously.

[MADem]

115. +1,000!

So much pointless rudeness--like that's going to convince anyone of the "rightness" of the poster's argument! That "Internet Tough Guy" approach always works a treat!

It's funny...and it's pathetic. All at the same time!!!






Ahhhhh.....ACTING!!!!!!

[appalachiablue]

97. +1 Well said.

[Cha]

71. It's too bad when all they have are personal insults.

[London Lover Man]

66. I guess you don't know about our Brunches with Bernie every Friday..

where average Americans gets to ask him anything.

I'm from Colorado, and I'm a Bernie supporter.

[SheilaT]

42. Flying blind? When his crowds keep on getting larger and

he keeps on needing to find larger venues? Isn't it beyond obvious that what he's saying people are responding very positively to?

A couple of days ago someone posted her annoyance that Hillary Clinton was out "listening" to people, and "fact-finding", as if after all these years in public office -- the very experience her supporters say make her so qualified to be President -- as if after all these years she honestly doesn't know what the issues are, or what people actually want. That behavior smacks of not having a clue what the campaign message should be without lots of focus groups and advisers. And if she doesn't come into this knowing exactly what her message should be she's just not a strong candidate.

[rhett o rick]

180. So plez be specific. On which issues do you think he isn't in tune with the public? nm

[Adrahil]

30. And we have exhibit A.

That's not what politicians use internal polls for, usually. They use them to determine id a particular message is penetrating, and perhaps most importantly, when and where to expend precious resources.

It is shocking to me that supposedly politically saavy people here can demonstrte this level of naïveté.

[99Forever]

33. Polls are propaganda tools, nothing more, nothing less.

If you need a "poll" to figure out that We the People are pissed off at corrupt DC business as usual, you shouldn't be anywhere close to the reins of power.

[Adrahil]

39. And more proof.

If Bernie gets the nomination, I hope people like you ar NOT advising him, or the election will be a disaster.

[99Forever]

41. Another major difference between Bernie and Hillary.

Bernie doesn't need an army of "advisers" because he has actually listened to We the People for decades.

Being tone deaf has it's drawbacks, eh?

[Adrahil]

52. Yeah, and he has a unicorn horn too! nt

[Agschmid]

55. You tell us...

[zappaman]

108. Bernie doesn't need "advisors"?

On what planet?

[sabrina 1]

155. There you are again. I love it when you kick my threads!

[Evergreen Emerald]

47. Agreed

I was going to suggest the same thing. Polls are useful to know where to focus resources.

I don't think it is naivete however. Everything Clinton does is twisted into something horrible. Even if that twisting defies logic. Can you imagine if she ran a campaign with no internal polling? She would be attacked for not knowing how to run a campaign.

[Arkana]

63. Yeah, Bernie doesn't need things like "polls"

or a "message" or "financial backing" or "friends in Congress".

He can run his own campaign! With blackjack! And hookers!

Listen, I don't think it's warranted, but this is why people think he's deaf on racial issues--because he's a one-trick pony. He insists that racial inequality is economically based, despite the fact that black people are treated like crap regardless of financial status.

[sabrina 1]

160. Well 12, 000 people in a RED STATE tonight, don't agree with you! Looks like

maybe he knows something, and THEY know something, you don't know?

[Arkana]

161. Ron Paul pulled crowds that size too.

[En Garde]

168. No, he didn't but Barack Obama did.

[zappaman]

170. Actually he did.

http://www.p2012.org/paul/paulcrowds.html

[En Garde]

171. By your own source, Ron Paul never drew 10,000 and over -- much less two weeks in a row.

As I recall, Paul's people would consistently inflate his crowd numbers in 2012. Not as bad as Trump, though.

[bobbobbins01]

19. I don't think he doesn't believe in polling.

I think he's just conserving his money. There is nothing wrong with finding out how your message resonates with the people, and making a few tweaks to draw more people in. Bernie has his standard talking points, but I think his speeches are more off the cuff than most candidates, so its probably harder for him to tailor a message that is 90% stream of consciousness anyway.

[DCBob]

21. His supporters claim he doesn't need polling.

Just go with your gut, shoot from the hip, give em hell Bernie!

I think that's about the way they feel. Not smart.

[bobbobbins01]

26. Well it fits a narrative, but I don't see it as a bad thing

Supporters from all the candidates are wrong pretty frequently, they mean well but everyone gets sucked into some kind of gotcha game.

[Arkana]

64. And for some reason, being honest somehow implies

that you don't need internal polling.

How the hell do you think the Obama people pulled off what they pulled off? You think they just guessed that all the national polls were wrong?

[MADem]

154. It musta been .... MAGIC!!!!!

[moobu2]

15. He doesn't need to spend any money on polling because

He's not going to win the primary and he knows it.

[NorthCarolina]

135. So basically you're saying, the fix is already in the software?

Great...thanks HAVA

[ConservativeDemocrat]

167. In the software?

No, in the public. By all those polls you hate. Hillary's leads are massive. Over Republicans, over Senator Sanders. Over everyone running.

Please. You simply can't be that dumb.

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community

[FlatBaroque]

17. Establishment relics are unable to address changes on the go

they are always fighting the previous campaign. They lack agility and imagination.

[frylock]

112. This right here..

the game has changed quite a bit even since 2008. Team Clinton seems oblivious as to the power of social media and net roots. Let them continue to rely on polling people on their land lines while Sanders is blowing up on FB, Reddit, Twitter, etc.

[DanTex]

23. Maybe that explains why he's losing so badly.

On what planet is not knowing what the electorate thinks a good way of running a campaign?

[Metric System]

34. Right? It seems like some WANT to lose the White House. Polling is a normal part of politics. If

you're putting out a message that's turning off the electorate, it's damn good to know. Why go around blind when you have a tool like polling at your disposal?

[Stuckinthebush]

36. Bernie is not an idiot

I assume he knows that polling is key to a winning campaign. I think this is an indication that he doesn't believe he has a chance to beat Clinton in the primary. His game is to get the progressive message front and center (which I support) and perhaps to set himself up as a running mate for Clinton.

Why waste money on polling when you can save that for the future Clinton-Sanders pot of cash?

[PATRICK]

43. At this point

he truly does not need them if he is launching a vigorous open source campaign which he must mostly because of what he is. At some point he will be even offered such services and will use them in a different way than Hillary or any other of the game mob.

It is the desperate and fraudulent GOP that must evade disclosing honest polling and conduct dishonest public claims.

[MADem]

162. Running mate? No way. Hillary will go younger, and west.

Castro, maybe. She needs to bring new blood along, and he's got some nice positives. He will also
"poll well" (since that's the topic of this thread) with Hispanic voters.

Can't imagine what he'd want to do in the cabinet. He might want a seat at a kitchen table cabinet...and since he and Clinton are friends, he might well get that.

[Scootaloo]

144. On the same one where not caring is a winning strategy, I guess?

[RufusTFirefly]

32. Some people have no respect for the sacred principle...

... of one dollar, one vote.

[hootinholler]

45. That could explain why Bernie isn't included in some polls

I don't think he focus groups much either.

[artislife]

48. Newest meme wafting through Facebook this morning

*whispers* If the majority of millenials vote for Bernie Sanders in the Presidential election, he will win by a land slide.
Pass it on.






Remember, we outnumber the baby boomers






I'm an Xer and I will hop on board

[London Lover Man]

120. X'er here too...

I'm hopping on the Millennial Train!

[Dem_in_Nebr.]

133. I'm a boomer

Can I join the Bern Train???

[Paka]

166. I'm an old pre-boomer geezer,

but I love trains.

[En Garde]

50. Those hedge fund titans know how to influence public opinion. Hillary is good for business.

The .0001% take care of their own.

[1StrongBlackMan]

53. The sage pair of advice ...

"Never ask a question for which you do not wish to know the answer", along with (the lawyerly): "Never ask a question that you do not already know, and can live with, the answer" ... both, come to mind.

Also, I am noting that a politician, in a representative form of government, actively gauging the public sentiment, is somehow a bad thing?

[Fred Sanders]

54. Random statistics analysis or demographic analysis....or money, who needs those to win the WH?

Am I right, peoples? Polling and statistics are all woo anyway, am I right again??

Look, I get it.

Free speech is money these days, no doubt and that is a sad state of affairs indeed, that all Democratic candidates want to fix, but in the meantime having no money is like having no speech.....which is why we are all at DU and not running for President.

Reality bites, no doubt, and fantasy is the balm.

Bernie will not win the nomination because he will run out of money long before the
Great and Winding Road of Endless Campaign and Primary Season meanders out of the backwoods of America.

Like I said, reality bites.

[George II]

57. Candidates ALWAYS run their own internal polls, but....

....Hillary Clinton didn’t pay for these polls:

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster#2016-races

Iowa Caucus Clinton 56, Sanders 24 (+32)
New Hamphire Primary Clinton 46, Sanders 32 (+14)
Florida Primary Clinton 64, Sanders 21 (+43)
North Carolina Primary Clinton 56, Sanders 21 (+35)

General Election

Clinton 50 Bush 42 (+8)
Clinton 52 Bush 41 (+11)
Clinton 50 Rubio 40 (+10)
Clinton 49 Paul 41 (+8)
Clinton 53 Ryan 41 (+12)
Clinton 52 Christie 39 (+13)

[Fred Sanders]

58. Two Clintons in hand are better than one Bernie in the bush...it is as simple as that.

I think it is far, far too vital that the WH not in GOP Warhawks hands that the overwhelming favorite to retain it should also be the overwhelming favourite to be nominated.

Those numerous polls of Clinton making scrap metal of the GOP Clown Car are compelling.

[bluedigger]

73. I'm sure Bernie will use polling later in the campaign cycle.

At this point he can gain ground everywhere simply by getting his message out and growing his base. His money is limited compared to HRC, and better spent elsewhere. As the primaries approach he can start to fine tune his attention to pick up additional marginalized voters. This is an interesting difference in how the two campaigns are using their resources at this point, but neither cause for gloating or panic for advocates of either candidate. It's just a difference in tactics driven by their relative positions in the race.

[marym625]

74. Kicking and feeling the Bern!

[JI7]

77. And notice he still leads DU polls and pro Sanders threads get more recs

We don't need polls and endorsements.

There was one website where Sanders had more support even in the south and many red states. Sanders had almost 20 supporters and Hillary had less than 5. This means he could win TExas . Polls show Hillary will lose Texas and a lot of other red states.

[Agschmid]

85. Is this for real?

[Cali_Democrat]

94. No. I'm 99% sure that poster was joking.

[Agschmid]

96. Okay cause I literally can't at this point...

[sabrina 1]

139. Yes, exactly. He doesn't need polls at this point, he knows he has to get his name

and message to every part of the country. He started out with virtually no mane recognition. I like that he is not frivolous with his limited resources, where others might be spending money they don't need to spend right now.

When he wins the primaries, no doubt he will do what needs to be done to win the GE.

Since the people are funding his election, this is what they want to see, that the money they are providing for his campaign is going to be used carefully.

He can see polls without paying for them right now. Why waste the money?

[iandhr]

78. Actually he does poll

He just hasn't spent any money on his own polls yet but he will.




http://hartresearch.com/clients/


Hart Research lists Sanders as a client of theres. This is who he used for his Senate races.

[JI7]

81. Sanders is smart. He sees now that there are polls on du and other

Sites so he no longer has to pay for it.

[olddots]

79. polling is for jocks

hope that offends everyone who thinks government is sports entertainment .

[Thinkingabout]

82. Hillary isn't afraid of the results, she is polling higher than the GOP and other candidates running

in the DNC. I doubt Bernie wants to see the results of his showing with GOP candidates.

[LWolf]

89. As a voter, I have never based a vote on polls, and I never will.

My vote is based on issues, and goes to the candidate who best represents those issues, not with campaign speeches, but with record and policy.

Whether or not politicians should use polls to help their campaigns is a different story. I'm not a candidate, and don't ever plan to be a candidate, so I can't say.

I can say that using polls to triangulate what position a candidate takes in a campaign speech is a big negative for me as a voter.

[NCTraveler]

91. The political naivete is strong with this one. Really strong. nt.

[Dr Hobbitstein]

119. We're talking about someone who claimed

a staunch Republican woo-peddler (and large Republican donor) was a "great liberal", then doubled down when called out.

[zappaman]

123. Par for the course

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=4363923

"RT is watched now by over 50 million US households."

[Dr Hobbitstein]

137. I forgot about that one...

Total classic! But the Dr Oz thread was INCREDIBLE.

[zappaman]

138. Yeah that was a memorable one.

"Good liberal"!

[zappaman]

148. You ain't seen nothin yet!

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1251457253

[dsc]

92. a politican who doesn't poll is like a teacher who doesn't evaluate his or her class

I teach math to mostly sophomores and juniors. In that endeavor I have to teach a certain curriculum to a set of kids. The curriculum doesn't change much from year to year, the kids do. I can't teach the entire curriculum to those kids in a semester so I have to evaluate the kids and see what parts I need to emphasize and what parts I don't. If I don't do that, the kids won't learn what they need to learn to score decently on the test at the end and perform well in their next math class. Since I have only 70 or so kids a semester, I don't poll them, I observe them, test them, give them class assignments etc. I see what my message, the stuff I am teaching, is getting across and what part isn't. I then adjust. The math doesn't change. Triangles still have 180 degrees, parallel lines still don't intersect, the quadratic formula is still what it is. What does change is those things which I emphasize and those which I don't.

[Cali_Democrat]

98. Polling is vital

If you're not polling, you don't know what's going on in the minds of voters and how they're reacting to certain messages.

It's like flying blind.

Polling is a science...a proven science.

I can't see how Bernie supporters might think this is a good thing.

It actually shows that he's not serious about winning a national election.

There are a lot of Dems who want to win the White House. That isn't possible with a candidate who isn't actually serious about winning.

This is actually worrisome.

[pa28]

100. How will he know what positions to take today?

[LiberalAndProud]

103. That could be the difference between $45 million, $15 million or $2 million.

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/martin-omalley-raises-2-million-lags-behind-clinton-sanders


Judicious use of campaign funds is vital. Having more money to spend on polls, it doesn't surprise me that Hillary is spending more money on polls.

[zappaman]

104. So?

[BrotherIvan]

118. Sanders may be wise enough to save money on polling this early

He also may be wise enough to put all his energy into speaking to people, gathering volunteers, building an organization to put them to work, and winning the internet. After summer, he may start polling to see where he is.

That is why many Sanders supporters have said that his money will go a long way. His $ is worth $100 of any big candidate's. He doesn't travel on private jets, he doesn't buy whole floors of top flight hotels. He looks like he doesn't have hair and makeup and a stylist traveling with him. He doesn't need to keep up the appearance of uber wealth to go take their silver.

But one thing that has not been discussed much is that he pays his staff. His campaign structure is not like the typical corporation where the people at the top, like say a consultant, rakes in the big bucks, and the little people doing the grunt work get nada. THAT RIGHT THERE should tell you everything you need to know. He's walking the talk.

[SoapBox]

127. ^This!^

Absolutely.

[Babel_17]

122. “There go my people, I must find out where they are going so I can lead them.”

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=74197

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy, Rockford, IL, Coronado Theater Rally
October 24, 1960

The point of the matter is that these are new times, requiring new people and new solutions. And I believe that in these kinds of times, when this country must move, when it must be inspired by energy, when it must drive ahead if we are going to survive, if we are going to defend freedom - we cannot sit by and let the world move around us, we have to move with it, we have to lead it. We don't want to be like the leader in the French Revolution who said, "There go my people. I must find out where they are going so I can lead them." [Laughter.]

[whereisjustice]

124. With and army of advisors and pollsters and technicians, Clinton can't answer simple question

Just think of the money she'll spend on corporate advisors when in power trying to decide how to govern. Right now, she's simply advertising herself as an empty book waiting for the richest donors to fill her pages.

[Drunken Irishman]

126. This thread really exposes the people who have little knowledge of how campaigns work.

'He doesn't need polling' is a very ignorant statement.

MAYBE not in the primaries, where you're focused on basically the same pie as your opponents - voters who, on the whole, are going to agree with you on 99% of the issues. But in the general? IF this his is the policy he's going to adopt, he's going to fail.

People forget just how vital polling was to Obama in 2012. They had the demographics of the country spot on in that election, which allowed them to plan on what states to campaign in, even when the national narrative was saying: campaign here!

Look at Pennsylvania. Romney made a last minute change there - putting resources in the state to try to win it. This was at the expense of other regional states HE HAD TO WIN (Ohio, namely), but a risk he took that the media latched onto - could Romney REALLY win Pennsylvania?

On DU, back then, I remember some posters saying Obama needed to get to Pennsylvania. There were even some in the media saying the same. Clearly Romney felt he had an opening - but Obama didn't bite.

Why? Because his internals were showing he was going to win Pennsylvania.

Obama won 52-47.

It was the same in places like Florida. Despite press polls indicating Romney was pulling away there, Obama still held a presence and continued campaigning. He won the state.

Internal polls, when done right, are invaluable to a campaign. 2016 is likely going to be a close election and if Bernie decides to spend zero on polling, then his only other choice will be to go by national polls, which are less accurate. Had Obama gone by national polls instead of his internals in 2012, he would've been in Pennsylvania needlessly campaigning, losing out on stops in Ohio to lock up that state.

This doesn't even get into how you can utilize polling to actually get the vote out. Every successful campaign uses polling to establish their ground game in states. Without it, you're driving blind.

But whatever. He's free to run his campaign however he wants.

[zappaman]

128. Apparently internal polling is now a bad thing.

[MADem]

158. "He doesn't need pollling" is the happy twin of "He doesn't need SUPERDELEGATES!"

Which I've been told several times in the last week or two!!

Next thing you know, we'll hear "He doesn't need actual votes!"

SMH....

[valerief]

130. Well, you could twist that to say Clinton is a job provider.

[tritsofme]

131. Polls aren't necessary when you know you have no chance at the nomination.

Smart use of resources on his part.

[Sheepshank]

134. Bernie doesn't want polling

And no point in spending any of his hard earned contributions on something he doesn't want in the first place.

Polls serve several purposes. Amongst those purposes are: it bolsters up and promotes a candidate to the public, it lets a candidate know if their messaging is clear and understood and appropriate for their current audience, as well as tell the candidate how they are doing.

Its not something magical that Bernie does want polls...it is just make sense campaign strategy on his part when money is so tight.

[pnwmom]

142. As you say, a poll can "let a candidate know if their messaging is clear and understood."

Why wouldn't Bernie want to know that?

[Sheepshank]

149. Well I can only surmise....

Bernie supporters think Bernie has everything right, all his opinions etc already mimics the best and most pure progressive. In addition Bernie has always been perfect, has never had to evolve on any issue. What would be the point of polls?

[99th_Monkey]

136. Bernie also spends next to nothing on staff & consultants

I saw a graph on this, but didn't bookmark it. If I find it, I'll edit to add a link.

[sabrina 1]

147. He doesn't have to spend money on staff the way Hillary does, we are all so willing

to volunteer for him because he is the only hope for this country right now.

[Adrahil]

183. Well, he had BETTER start thinking about staff and organization.

He cannot win a general election on fairy farts and unicorn droppings.

He needs people on the ground, a sophisticated GOTV program, a media strategy, and much, much more.

Bernie has never run a national campaign, and he had BETTER get some people around him who have.

The utter naivete of some of his supporters, and maybe Bernie himself, is a BIG concern if he should win the nomination (he won't, but but if he does....)

[pnwmom]

143. He might be saving money not doing polls now, but if he runs in the General he needs to do them.

Otherwise, he'd be handicapping himself needlessly. A poll can tell a candidate whether his message is coming across to its intended target.

Without polls, the only way to find out will be in the General election.

[silenttigersong]

145. As a result of Clinton's polling

We are receiving the Bill Clinton apology tour.

[orpupilofnature57]

178. + 1000 Well Put !!!!!!

[Spitfire of ATJ]

157. $300,000 a MONTH???

Is she trying to buy a clue?

[Paka]

165. Good thing she has all that money,

so she can waste a lot of it doing the polling that lets her manipulate her message to fool those people that can be "fooled all of the time" according to Abe. This early in the game, polling is exclusively for marketing management.

Some polling later on can be useful, but the most important tool for getting out the vote will be the thousands upon thousands of voluteer foot soldiers that Bernie is signing up everywhere he appears. His message is clear, and the only polling he needs right now comes in the form of the huge crowds coming out to hear him.

[orpupilofnature57]

177. MSM = Misanthropic Sycophant Monsters, speech coaches, smoke & mirror experts, Monsanto, on and on .

One makes an appeal to our common sense the other tries to dazzle us with a seance of appeal .