Why are polls, which are a projection of the future potential behavior of a population (and only a mere sample at that) asserted as – or really, straight up pushed as -more reliable than data showing literal number of existing supporters (donor and volunteer data)?

Donate and support us on Patreon! https://www.patreon.com/bePatron?c=1785147

Why are polls, which are a projection of the future potential behavior of a population (and only a mere sample at that) asserted as – or really, straight up pushed as -more reliable than data showing literal number of existing supporters (donor and volunteer data)? Bernie has more than twice as many donors (more than 1 million) than the next candidate (at approximately 500,000). How on earth in all reality can the narrative that Bernie is third or lower be remotely justified when actual literal data definitively exhobits that Bernie IS demonstrably preferred by more primary voters than all of the other candidates. I just keep feeling gaslighted by the narrative that is being pushed by the polls and assumption that a projected sample (polls) are more reliable than data that exhibits literal, actual support that currently exists as opposed to the mere sentiment or idea of projected support of a candidate in the future, i.e. the primary.

submitted by /u/freebernie2020
[link] [comments]
SandersForPresident: search results – self:yes

Leave a Reply