Trump Supporters Rig Online Polls Post-Debate

This was obvious to anyone with a functional, working brain, eyes and ears. Donald Trump didn't merely lose the first 2016 Presidential Debate to Hillary Clinton, he lost badly. He was a sniffling, incoherent mess. But immediately after (in fact, before it was even over), online polls started to show Trump to be the winner. In some cases, as in The Drudge Report's poll, the skew was so lopsided as to be preposterously obvious.

Thank you! CNBC #DebateNight poll with over 400,000 votes.
Trump 61%
Clinton 39%#AmericaFirst #ImWithYou https://t.co/c8rB0iSj7c pic.twitter.com/lgu6tOkYCP

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 27, 2016

I'm familiar with the "FReeping" of polls. Named for the practice honed by the denizens of FreeRepublic.com, members are given links to open online polls they wish to skew. And thousands of "flying monkeys" descend upon the polls, making the FReepers' wishes seem more represented than they really are. The practice is widespread, and goes beyond Right Wing World these days. That's why online polls are generally regarded (except by low-info voters) as interesting but worthless. But the problem is, while the practice can be merely a prank, more often it is done to influence public opinion. In this case, to make it seem as though Trump won the debate, in order to cement that idea into the public consciousness. In effect, to rewrite history.

Ironically, conservatives--who are supposed to be "law and order" good guys, moral and just, and all about fairness--think nothing of getting a lie cast as the truth if it benefits them. They really don't care how they win, whether it involves cheating, disenfranchising voters, whatever the means, if the end is: they win. So, even though I know I've let this blog run fallow lately, I see it as my duty to expose this sort of thing whenever I run across it. Please read.

[Excerpt]

4chan and Reddit bombarded debate polls to declare Trump the winner

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. . .

Read more at: The Daily Dot

First Democratic Debate Brings Out Bernie PUMAs

Image from USAToday

The first Democratic presidential primary debate was held in my old hometown of Las Vegas on Tuesday Night. By all accounts, it was a sober, serious affair, in stark contrast to the three-ring circuses held by the GOP in recent months. While there was some expected disagreement, and the occasional dig from one candidate to another, but the tone was noticeably more adult, more mature and more presidential.

Better yet, both of the leading candidates, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton acquitted themselves well, and made their own fans very happy. I wouldn't be surprised if Sanders increased his brand, since fewer people know it as well as the Clinton brand. And Clinton put many minds at ease with her personable, sharp and "ready" performance. It didn't have the zazz of the GOP free-for-alls, but it was more in line with what one of these things is supposed to be.

My assessment was that both Sanders and Clinton came off well, but that Clinton had the edge. Sanders got tripped up a few times, and Clinton for the most part didn't. The media, by-and-large, agreed with me, widely hailing Clinton as the winner, and proclaiming (without irony) that after months of media criticism, she now had a big boost. Sanders was acknowledged to have done well, with the same observations I made, where he could have prepared better.

But that's not the whole story. There's been something bubbling under the surface for a while now that really came to a head after the debate. Bernie Sanders supporters, who have long felt ignored, are making more noise than ever, and are not showing the decorum of their hero. Quite the contrary.

Okay, little sidebar here. I've contributed to a few message boards over the past 24 hours, using some of the arguments I'm using in this column. Doing so, I have incurred the wrath of Bernie supporters. This kind of proves my overall point, but I'm going to attempt to squelch what I can here, by saying: 1) I'm not referring to all Bernie supporters; 2) I make no comparison between Ron Paul and Bernie Sanders as candidates; and 3) I'm a progressive liberal Democrat who happens to like Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton.

In online polls, Clinton didn't win the debate. In many cases, she came in third or fourth (which is preposterous). Sanders won, and not just by a little. By a lot. By an absurd lot. By an old MSNBC Ed Show text poll margin. By a "Saddam Hussein won an election" margin. In one of the polls, it was Sanders at 81%. That's not normal, and it's not remotely believable. So, it was off into the blogosphere and social media to figure out what was going on.

Image from source, New York Times

Doing so was akin to wading into the piranha-filled waters of a NewsBusters or Breitbart message board. Inexplicably, the Bernie fans are filling the role usually played by extremist Tea Baggin,' Palin lovin' conservatives. The love for Bernie overflows, and the venom against Hillary is flowing freely, with spittle, foam and maybe a little blood. It's just bonkers.

My conclusion is this. Whereas in the 2008 election, Hillary Clinton had her "PUMAs" (which stood for "Party Unity My Ass") and Ron Paul had his disciples who would rig polls, use trickery and even break the law to try and engineer a win for their candidate, Sanders has his own "Feel the Bern" cult.  It's not too much of a stretch to believe that these extra-energized, strident and driven supporters will be more likely to participate in an online poll. So, I won't go so far as to say any of the polls have yet been rigged, or even that any shady business has happened. But I do believe these polls are overly lopsided due to a practice called "FReeping." It's completely legal, but it's not particularly accurate.

That said, I'm more than a little worried that this is going to get worse. I've already encountered Bernie supporters who loathe Clinton with every fiber of their being, and refuse to vote for her if she's the nominee. They're doing their level best to convert people not just to their candidate, but to their view of Mrs. Clinton. They don't save their vitriol for her either, questioning the intelligence and integrity of her supporters. Their abrasiveness and invective tarnish not only their own candidate, it spills over into the entire Democratic effort at electing a candidate.

Here's a response I got from someone I agreed with on the hostility level:

 "One told me to die in a fire on this board. Also said that if Bernie doesn't get the nomination, he doesn't care if the whole country burns. Kind of a fire theme. I don't think Bernie would tolerate such cultish behavior, and I wouldn't be surprised if he regrets creating this monster." (Source)


And that pretty much sums up my concern. It's their way or the highway, they will not vote at all if their candidate doesn't win the primary, they will trash the other candidate, and take no prisoners along the way. This is not needed when the Republican side is in such disarray. I hope that Bernie notices, and says something about it. And I hope the Hillary supporters don't take the bait.

[Excerpt]

Who Won and Lost the Democratic Debate? The Web Has Its Say

Bloggers, commentators and the Twitterati quickly weighed in on the first Democratic debate, scoring the winners and losers. Hillary Rodham Clinton was the clear victor, according to the opinion shapers in the political world (even conservative commentators). . .

Read more at: New York Times

From Idea to the News: How a Conservative Meme Travels

Image from JayeSchlesinger

The route of political memes from the right seems to go like this lately:

- Arch political blogs like Free Republic ferret out what they think is a big story. Examples include the Bill Ayers or the ACORN stories.

- Right-wing talk radio is either simultaneous or immediately follows the bloggers, talking for three-hour stretches, daily, hammering the story.

- FOX "News" follows, or once again hits simultaneously, as there is cross-over with some of their hosts and guests.

- The story doesn't spread very far into the mainstream at first, beyond letters to the editor columns, and other political blogs. But if the story has legs, it begins to seep into the mainstream, which becomes unavoidable after. . .

- Eventually, the story makes it into actual conservative politicians' quotes, sometimes all the way to the top. In today's world, that means John McCain's campaign.

So a segment of the population that used to be decidedly fringe, now have become sort of mainstream, though it usually takes a lot of effort from all of the above.

While I've seen this happen, I've missed a critical step. Today, I happened by (OK, trolled) the wing-nutty Free Republic site, in this case on the topic of a supposed "surge" of support for McCain in Pennsylvania. See, this is the new story they want to push, that a state that has voted for 20 years for Democrats is poised to switch to McCain.

But they can't let that just naturally happen. FReepers aren't like that. They fancy themselves as puppet masters, and to a degree, they are. It is a usual game for them to "FReep" a poll, to make their views seem more popular than they are. They've learned the old "perception is reality" tactic from Karl Rove. And here is a direct quote from their site, to try and affect public opinion in Pennsylvania and beyond. Check it out:

"Freepers! Google the topic 'Pennsylvania Newspapers' and go throught [sic] he list and start posting in forums. Put tons of links to stories posted here."

So next time you think that public opinion is swinging to an unlikely place, don't be so sure.

Source: FreeRepublic