Straight Dope Message Board

Straight Dope Message Board (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/index.php)
-   Elections (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/forumdisplay.php?f=34)
-   -   Internet support intensity vs. real world support (https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=879704)

E-DUB 07-31-2019 09:22 PM

Internet support intensity vs. real world support
 
I've notice that some of the democratic candidates seem to have far more intense levels of support on the internet than they seem to have in the real world. I'm thinking specifically of Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, and Tulsi Gabbard. Any ideas on why this is occurring? Are the reasons different for each of the three candidates. Could any of this be due to foreign troll farm type activity? I don't know, but would like to know what the story is here.

Hermitian 08-01-2019 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-DUB (Post 21782441)
I've notice that some of the democratic candidates seem to have far more intense levels of support on the internet than they seem to have in the real world. I'm thinking specifically of Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, and Tulsi Gabbard.

Well, I think it is well understood that "people who interact/protest a lot on the internet" and "voters" are not largely overlapping.

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-DUB (Post 21782441)
Could any of this be due to foreign troll farm type activity? .

Could be. They would probably push for candidates that they think would not win in the national election.

Sterling Archer 08-01-2019 10:29 AM

I think Yang has a small group of very vocal supporters.

Williamson has a little of that, but I think she’s also getting troll/4chan support because she is so out there.

CarnalK 08-01-2019 10:52 AM

This isn't a phenomenon limited to Presidential candidates. The internet gives birth to lots of intense fringy groups. I'm sure you can find lots of reading on the subject but basically people can more easily find people with similar fringy views, get into a social media bubble and whip themselves up.

HurricaneDitka 08-01-2019 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-DUB (Post 21782441)
I've notice that some of the democratic candidates seem to have far more intense levels of support on the internet than they seem to have in the real world. I'm thinking specifically of Bernie Sanders, Andrew Yang, and Tulsi Gabbard. Any ideas on why this is occurring? Are the reasons different for each of the three candidates. Could any of this be due to foreign troll farm type activity? I don't know, but would like to know what the story is here.

Absolutely, at least in the case of Sanders, we know that he received Russian support in 2016.

Icarus 08-01-2019 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-DUB (Post 21782441)
I've notice that some of the democratic candidates seem to have far more intense levels of support on the internet than they seem to have in the real world.

I'm not doubting your premise, but what is it that you have noticed and how are you perceiving that there is a difference?

E-DUB 08-01-2019 04:13 PM

I spend a lot of time online and tend to scan comments sections. Now Gabbard and Yang are hovering at, what, 1 or 2 percent but any mention of them tends to generate a lot of positive comments (most of which also take potshots at other candidates). Now with Bernie, I get it. Second time around the track. A lot of devoted followers, etc. Yang, I can even understand that. The novelty factor. The Outsider. But how do you explain Tulsi?

asahi 08-01-2019 04:54 PM

I think that the internet gives fringe groups a community that enables them to seed messages and build communities. What's changed since the days of Ron Paul (2002-2005) is that payment platforms made funding easier.

Boycott 08-01-2019 06:29 PM

There's a nice expression someone I follow on Twitter who analyses this sort of stuff uses: Cuomo's Law


The meaning of it is that during the New York Gubernatorial Primary last year between incumbent Andrew Cuomo and the actress turned progressive activist Cynthia Nixon, social media would have made you think Nixon was set to win and win big. Comments on Cuomo were exceedingly negative whereas Nixon became a social media sensation. Furthermore in their sole debate Nixon called him corrupt, a liar, a corporate shill. She really went all out.

Come the election result - Cuomo won with almost 66% of the vote.

E-DUB 08-01-2019 09:52 PM

So why aren't the candidates with larger followings having the same thing happen with them? I mean if you can get that many folks from the smaller following of Candidate X why aren't you getting the same thing only more so from the larger following of Candidate Y?

CarnalK 08-01-2019 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by E-DUB (Post 21784611)
So why aren't the candidates with larger followings having the same thing happen with them? I mean if you can get that many folks from the smaller following of Candidate X why aren't you getting the same thing only more so from the larger following of Candidate Y?

You do, to a degree, but they are swamped out by "normal" people. In both of Hillary's primaries, there was definitely some knife out Hillary or bust types circling the internet.

But if you don't have some oddball ideas then you are somewhat less likely to attract oddball followers.

Thing Fish 08-08-2019 02:36 PM

Simple explanation. The candidates you mention are all more popular with young voters than older ones, and younger people use the internet more. There are a lot of Biden voters out there, but most of them need to call their grandkids to help them log into AOL.

Ravenman 08-08-2019 02:55 PM

Yeah, I see it as the Dewey Defeats Truman effect. Back then, the headline was allegedly based on polls to people with phones in their home. Gauging public opinion by watching Twitter in 2016 or 2019 is basically the same as getting opinions only from people with home phones in 1948.

Icarus 08-08-2019 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thing Fish (Post 21795136)
Simple explanation. The candidates you mention are all more popular with young voters than older ones, and younger people use the internet more. There are a lot of Biden voters out there, but most of them need to call their grandkids to help them log into AOL.

Or, a more charitable description would be, they exist in the real world, not just online.

MyFootsZZZ 08-08-2019 03:06 PM

I just read the OP. I didn't want to read the other comments until I made my own, (I will).

There is a huge disconnect between TV people and YouTube people. Running a TV at on a highly rated show is not the best way to get across the people under a certain age, often. People don't watch NBC Fox or CNN for their news, on the very left they watch 'David Pakman' 'Secular Talk' 'Young Turks' and 'The Minority Report with Sam Seder.'

They're whole different worlds.

Some people are really out of touch with that.

MyFootsZZZ 08-08-2019 03:10 PM

Bernie was just on Joe Rogan Podcast the other day and it's still 1 trending on YouTube.

Boycott 08-08-2019 03:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarus (Post 21795176)
Or, a more charitable description would be, they exist in the real world, not just online.

They exist on Facebook.

Go to a major news outlet's page (not right wing obviously) and the comments on pieces about Biden are much more supportive. Do the same on twitter and it's much more negative.

For two reasons I think...

1) Facebook has an older demographic of users
2) Twitter is much more informal and open to echo chambers.

Number 1 is pretty obvious. Number 2 reflects that facebook is personal and formal --- people use their real names, their family and friends see your posts and it's supposed to be about connections. Twitter however allows for more anonymity, it allows you to curate your feed in a manner much more user friendly (you can hours scrolling through twitter or using a basic search to see what's happening...people aren't refreshing their facebook feeds every two minutes).

Take the Biden fundraiser comments that caused so much furore. It happened because a reporter present tweeted out an isolated (without context) quote and in minutes it blew up. You don't have that power of outreach on facebook. But what you do have on facebook are rank and file voters who do not consume themselves with politics or spend their entire days online. Biden is reaching those voters.

Icarus 08-08-2019 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boycott (Post 21795210)
Take the Biden fundraiser comments that caused so much furore. It happened because a reporter present tweeted out an isolated (without context) quote and in minutes it blew up. You don't have that power of outreach on facebook. But what you do have on facebook are rank and file voters who do not consume themselves with politics or spend their entire days online. Biden is reaching those voters.

And the numbers seem to suggest that group is still predominant, in spite of what others may wish.

Icarus 08-08-2019 03:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyFootsZZZ (Post 21795196)
I just read the OP. I didn't want to read the other comments until I made my own, (I will).

There is a huge disconnect between TV people and YouTube people. Running a TV at on a highly rated show is not the best way to get across the people under a certain age, often. People don't watch NBC Fox or CNN for their news, on the very left they watch 'David Pakman' 'Secular Talk' 'Young Turks' and 'The Minority Report with Sam Seder.'

They're whole different worlds.

Some people are really out of touch with that.

And those people are out of touch with the other world. Goes both ways.

MyFootsZZZ 08-08-2019 03:21 PM

Young people won't forgive bidding for what he said about millennials.


...just wanted to add that.

MyFootsZZZ 08-08-2019 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarus (Post 21795223)
And those people are out of touch with the other world. Goes both ways.

I agree however I've seen the other world too I've been pretty to both. One dissects the other much like The Daily Show did or used to.

But things can be taken out of context, too.


If it were Bernie and Trump who would swallow their pride and vote for Bernie? If it were Biden and Trump do you think that kids care about Trump being reelected?

I hope so.

Icarus 08-08-2019 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyFootsZZZ (Post 21795247)
I agree however I've seen the other world too I've been pretty to both. One dissects the other much like The Daily Show did or used to.

But things can be taken out of context, too.


If it were Bernie and Trump who would swallow their pride and vote for Bernie? If it were Bernie invited with the kids show up to vote?

Oh, I'm not endorsing one side over the other. I just like to point out that EVERYONE, the youngs included, can end up in a media bubble. And it pays to be generally aware of the numbers to understand where the broader population is.

MyFootsZZZ 08-08-2019 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Icarus (Post 21795255)
Oh, I'm not endorsing one side over the other. I just like to point out that EVERYONE, the youngs included, can end up in a media bubble. And it pays to be generally aware of the numbers to understand where the broader population is.

I agree... By the way I edited that last part it didn't make any sense.

Boycott 08-08-2019 03:36 PM

Look at the UK. Jeremy Corbyn is popular on Twitter and Reddit. Theresa May was despised. In some real life polls for who would be the better PM...Undecided beat the pair of them!


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright 2018 STM Reader, LLC.