Who Won the Debate?

[KeithE]

Pundits almost unanimously say Clinton won:

Online polls taken during and immediately after the debate say Sanders won:



But soon after pundits filled the air with their declarations of a Clinton victory, a poll of 760 registered democrats conducted yesterday (10/14/15) says Clinton won handily:

I did not watch it (had a committee meeting). But as usual, I’ll go with the undefiled (all voters not just registered democrats and before the media bias starts to enter mindsets), DATA (i.e the online polls). But I do recognize the chilling fact that the media sets national opinions (more than we realize).

Ya’ll may have other poll data and your own impressions to share - I’ve only seen after the fact snippets.

[Tim Bonney]

I usually like the stats you post Keith. But web polls are totally unscientific. Web polls can simply be telling us that more people who like Sanders voted in the self selected web poll, not the overall view of Democrats on Clinton and Sanders.

It appears to me that the pundits are saying she won because she won. But I'm seeing the further left now doing with Sanders what the further right often does. That is blame the news media when your candidate doesn't look as good to everyone else as he does to you.

[Haruo]

I didn't watch the debate. I mostly heard Sanders won. The first report on the debate that I recall seeing said something (in the headline) like "Sanders may have won the nomination, even the election, when he defended Hillary" [presumably on the email thing]. I'm told MSNBC even declared Sanders the winner, then backtracked. And from friends all across the spectrum I heard "Basically all Clinton said is we should elect her because I'm a woman." (A friend of a friend quipped, "Why not? It worked for Obama.") I completely agree with Keith that the corporate media have way more power to mold the majority view than they have a right to. But I didn't watch the debate, and haven't even followed much of the aftermath.

BTW how come Keith gets to post a chart but last night when I tried to post a screenshot in the Administrators' forum, I got a "Attachment limit reached" error message?

[Tim Bonney]

I had the same thing happen the last time I tried to post a pic. Keith has some secret corporate powers here on the forum apparently.

I didn't watch the debate the night of the debate. But I've watched video since. I like Sanders. But I think Clinton edged him out.

I also feel like Sanders has flipped on gun control. It is the first place I'm seen him slide on an issue because a new political environment.

[Tim Bonney]

This may come across as ageist. And I don't mean it to be, after all I have plenty of gray hair. But does anyone think the appearance of Sander's age hurts him? He has that wispy white hair that never seems to have seen a comb. I think it makes him look a lot older than he actually is.

Is it me or does it make Bernie looked like the old guy running for prez? What do you think?

[KeithE]

[Tim Bonney]

Here is an interesting article about Sanders supporters rigging online polls. http://www.dailynewsbin.com/opinion/ber ... sly/22827/

[Dave Roberts]

Wonder what color Hillary's roots are?

[Tim Bonney]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

I think the entire Democratic party, and the whole field of candidates, won the debate. It was issues focused and serious, quite a contrast to the circus atmosphere that the Republican debates have assumed, and very refreshing in light of the politics of the past 20 years or so. In spite of Trump's claim that nobody would be watching, it was one of the best rated Democratic debates ever. Of course, controversy and the circus atmosphere drew a bigger audience for the GOP debate, but the negative numbers that followed both of theirs never materialized after this one.

Sanders did well. So did Clinton, and Martin O'Malley. Webb and Chafee not as well.

[Haruo]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

Some interesting, post-debate observations. Looking at post-debate polling, and trends, I see three specific events which will have an effect on Hillary's candidacy.

1. The Benghazi committee's hearings. Gowdy backed off and away and ran the other direction on Sunday's "Face the Nation," with Elijah Cummings coming along behind and basically claiming victory. Gowdy's basically said "it's not about Hillary at all" in reference to the investigation. I think she's already won this controversy without having to do much except watch the GOP participants knock each other around and out.
2. Biden's decision to run or not. If the VP gets in, it will be much closer. Realistically, with the exception of the early primaries in NH and Iowa, Hillary leads the Democratic field with about 70% in the polls. The VP is popular among Democrats, and is enough of a campaigner to run a viable campaign to the convention which would cause her to have to spend some of the money she has amassed. I don't think he could overtake her lead, but he could make a good, solid run.
3. How long Trump lasts. Trump's standing in the polls, consistent at about 25% of the GOP, means that 75% of the GOP isn't supporting him. If he stays in until the convention, and it goes to a second or third round of voting from the floor, he'll drain most of the campaign money that the others have raised, along with a good chunk of his own. Realistically, he doesn't stand a snowball's chance on a hot stove of winning the general election, not against Hillary, not against Biden, not even against Sanders. He's so damaged the other candidates in the field, especially poor ole Jeb, that they'll have a hard time recovering, if someone else wins the nomination.

[KeithE]

[Ed Pettibone]

Ed; Keith I think you have good points re Sandy's view on Clinton and Trump. I think perhaps Sandy has read some pundits who have already discounted several of the Democrat Candidates and put most of their counts in Clinton's column rather than in Sander's.

And the fact that Trump still has only 25% in the polls means 75% prefer one or more of the other Republican Candidates but does not mean they do not support Donald. As a Republican if I where asked in a poll I would say Chris Christie is my preference among republican candidates. And if Trump got the nomination I would support him over Bernie Sanders, But if the choice should be Christie and Clinton, right now I would vote for Clinton. However between now and November of 2016 I might give up on her and stick with Christie except I do not expect him to be the Republican candidate. But that election is more than a year away. Any thing to-day is pure SPECULATION.

[Sandy]

I'm sure there will be Republicans who will hold their nose and vote for Trump if he is the nominee, simply because they've bought into monolithic partisanship and won't vote for a Democrat. However, I think that among the 75% of Republicans who now have another preference, there are relatively few who will wind up supporting Trump in the long run, should he manage somehow to capture the GOP nomination. Those who are simply politically oriented, and believe that candidates are bound to stick to the party platform no matter what may vote for Trump, though he won't come anywhere near the GOP platform on almost any issue. Those who are discerning enough to listen, and realize that Trump falls a fair bit to the left of Hillary Clinton on many issues, including his health care, energy, and tax policy, may have more of a problem with it. For over a month now, Trump's poll numbers have been slowly dropping, or showing no increase, while the increases have been with Carson, Fiorina and to a lesser extent, Cruz and Rubio.

And while it is early, and a lot of the polling numbers are speculative rather than solid, there are a couple of things to keep in mind. National polls don't really reflect the ability of a candidate to draw well and collect the necessary electoral votes to win the Presidential election. Those mostly red Southern and Midwestern states make an impressive swath of red on a political map, but the bulk of the population lives on the coasts, in the Northeast, and the Upper Midwest. Seven of the ten most populous states have been reliably blue in the last five presidential elections, and the margins for the Democrats have increased in those states in each of those elections, except 2004. Some former "swing states" like Colorado and Nevada, have produced large enough vote majorities for Democrats in the last couple of election cycles to actually no longer be considered swing states. Sanders, BTW, polls very high against Republicans in most of those states as well. That's a much different race than the multi-candidate primaries, where everyone gets a small share of attention.

[Tim Bonney]

I'd never be able to vote for Trump, not because he is a Republican, but because he is a birther and a bigot. I wouldn't care if I agreed with all of his policy views. Anyone who buys into the types of conspiracy theories he buys into and anyone who just flippantly says the stuff he says about latinos and women has no business being President.

[Sandy]

[Tim Bonney]

Sandy,

I can't think of much that could cause me to vote for anyone on the current slate of Republicans other than the Dems adding someone new to the ticket that I couldn't stand to support. That doesn't seem likely.