Re:Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?
by pessimizer on Sunday October 09, 2016 @02:12PM
(#12672451)
That's not a great example; because Sanders had far greater non-Democratic Party support than the other primary candidate, Twitter was reflecting the opinions of a more general population than the primary would. To say it another way - Democratic primary voters reflect a narrower sector of society than Twitter does.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?
by adevine on Sunday October 09, 2016 @03:19PM
(#12672867)
I'd challenge that interpretation. Lots of Hillary's disproportionate support came from people much less likely to use Twitter (e.g. older black voters), while Sanders' strength with younger voters would be much more likely to show up on Twitter.
Re:Could Twitter Be Better Off as a Nonprofit?
by pessimizer on Sunday October 09, 2016 @04:10PM
(#12673167)
I'd agree with both points, but only 32% of voters are registered Democrats. Sanders polled far better than Clinton within the other 68%, although amongst registered Democrats, Clinton stayed 15-25% ahead during the entire primary IIRC. On Twitter, in addition to Democrats, there were also Republicans, Independents, Argentinians, and others commenting on the primary. That's the definition of a wider sample.