2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumYes, Bernie Won Every Poll on the Internet. Hillary Still Won the Debate.
So, what gives? Were my fellow journalists and I watching a different debate than everyone else?
Let me start with the polls. As I explained after the first GOP debate when there was a similar difference in opinion between the chattering class and online respondents, instant online polls are informal and unscientific. The results rely on a self-selecting group of respondents with no regard to political affiliation, age, country, or even whether the person doing the responding actually watched the debate. Respondents, meanwhile, dont have even the slightest motivation to be objective; its hard to imagine a Hillary supporter casting an online vote for Bernie or vice versa, regardless of what he or she saw onstage. Like tracking new Twitter followers or Google searches, the online surveys provide an interesting snapshot of the mood of a particular slice of the Internet, but theyre mostly for entertainment (for the reader) and traffic (for the outlet). No one should mistake them for the scientific surveys done by professional pollsters.
They also tend to favor those candidates with active and impassioned fanssomething that Bernies fundraising numbers and campaign crowds suggest he clearly has in spades. When Slate and a number of other established media outlets declared Hillary the winner, we gave that same fan basewhich has long felt, not unjustifiably, that their mans not getting a fair shake in the mediaone more reason to reload the page and vote again. In online polls, like elections, its all about turnout. In online polls, unlike elections, you can vote as many times as you want.
Which brings us to what I saw on Tuesday: As I wrote then and still believe now, Hillary was confident, poised, and unexpectedly aggressive. That, I concede, is a subjective opinionas is any that calls a winner in a contest where there is no agreed-on metric to actually score the participants. But its also an informed one. She entered the night up nearly 20 points on Sanders when pollsters included Joe Biden in the race, and by even more when they didnt. In other words, she didnt need to win converts, only to preach to her choirand from where I was sitting, she did just that. If absolutely nothing else, her email scandal was effectively eliminated as a primary issue thanks to Bernies benevolencea massive pickup given the topic has been by far Clintons single biggest vulnerability this year.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/10/14/bernie_won_polls_not_the_debate_hillary_won_the_debate.html
longship
(40,416 posts)Pbpbppbt!
Abject silliness.
The winners were the USA!
Anything other is abject rubbish.
Jan Bunson
(35 posts)Every factor that makes them unreliable should have made them evenly unreliable for all the candidates.
Are Bernie supporters simply more enthusiastic about their candidate?
uponit7771
(93,524 posts)LostOne4Ever
(9,747 posts)[font style="font-family:'Georgia','Baskerville Old Face','Helvetica',fantasy;" size=4 color=teal]The real winner of the debate is the one who walked away with the most converts at the end of the night and that will only become apparent at the polls once the voting begins.
Till then a curse on the house everyone trying to claim victory like doing that will matter one iota...[/font]
Tierra_y_Libertad
(50,414 posts)That Guy 888
(1,214 posts)As has been pointed out, winning is subjective. "Preaching to her choir" isn't going to make me vote for her in the primary.
uponit7771
(93,524 posts)calguy
(6,139 posts)because Bernie's supporters probably voted dozens of times on every polls they could find.
Kinda like the American Idol voting goes.
The actual scientific polls conducted after the debate tells a far different story.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Not sure why Bernie supporters put so much stock into them.