Who won the debate?
- Thread starter stinkynuts
- Start date
I'm not a Hillary fan, but she managed to rally in this one. Stayed largely on topic and didn't descend into the condescending.
Vote: Who won the first presidential debate?
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/26/vote-who-won-the-first-presidential-debate.html
Trump 66%
Clinton 34%
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/09/26/vote-who-won-the-first-presidential-debate.html
Trump 66%
Clinton 34%
Online polls generally just reflect the make up (Dem/Rep, con/lib leaning) of that particular media outlet. Also, as I've discussed in another thread, "winning the debate" means different things to different people, and also does not necessarily translate into votes. I'm not surprised by the CNBC poll results given their viewership and given the question.
In a week we'll know if the polls have shifted significantly. We won't know if the shift, if any, is sustainable until just before the election.
In a week we'll know if the polls have shifted significantly. We won't know if the shift, if any, is sustainable until just before the election.
After the first 30 minutes or so, it will go down as one of worst performances, by any candidate in modern history. They will probably teach his performance in school, as a prefect example, of what not to do.
Now to Trump's base, he could come out there fart and read from 'Mien Kampf,' and they would say he won.
Now to Trump's base, he could come out there fart and read from 'Mien Kampf,' and they would say he won.
Trump did pretty good considering he has relatively no experience. I think he will be much better in the next debate. Hillary has a lot of experience, this wasn't her first BBQ, and it showed. I like how she was the first to throw the shots out, I was wondering who it was gonna be. The father comment was a low blow. Trump should have hammered home on the emails more. He let a lot slide because she was getting under his skin a bit and he was losing focus. Can't wait for the next one. I have to give Hillary the edge for the win on this one.
Trump won and practically every online poll, including ones on liberal sites like cnbc, times, etc all have him leading. Quite a different narrative than the pundits are sticking to. It makes sense for them at this stage to be in full scale all-out Hillary supporting mode. This is the last stand.
Same result at other major online polls
Times, Washington Times, Slate, Fortune
http://www.washingtontimes.com/polls/2016/sep/26/who-won-first-presidential-debate/results/
http://fortune.com/2016/09/26/presidential-debate-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-poll/
http://time.com/4506217/presidential-debate-clinton-trump-survey/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._debate_of_2016_who_won_vote_in_our_poll.html
The media's biggest nightmare is in full swing:
Majority of snap polls show Trump won debate by a landslide despite CNN's overwhelming victory for Hillary in biggest official survey
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809204/Most-snap-polls-Trump-winning-debate-landslide.html
Majority of snap polls show Trump won debate by a landslide despite CNN's overwhelming victory for Hillary in biggest official survey
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3809204/Most-snap-polls-Trump-winning-debate-landslide.html
"Clinton had to meet two objectives: 1) make Trump unacceptable. 2) improve her likeability ratings. She managed neither. That is what the polls are reacting too. The media is focusing on "points". She won on that measure but lost on the two important factors she needs to win the election. Winning the battle but losing the war is the old saying. In her ongoing frontal assault on Trump she managed to make confirm opinions about her unlikeability. The creepy smug smile didn't help."
The bar was so low for Trump, just showing up, made him the winner in many eyes. Many people excuse Trump for flat out lies, or just wild stuff, that doesn't make any sense. Meanwhile, if Hilary isn't perfect, she is viewed with any negative term you can think of.
Like this TERB 'poll', they're just call-ins, not statistically valid polls that reflect the electorate with any sort of accuracy. All they tell us is that viewers who favoured Trump were more moved to call in.
Disappointment at how poorly he did, and fear of two more repeats easily accounts for that sort of 'rush to the barricades'.
True however the results do appear to parallel the Republican primaries. In every primary debate, the media scored Trump as the loser, while online polls had him way ahead. Later, the ballot box reflected the online polls rather than the media's scorecard.
That may not end up being the case here, but you can bet it's little comfort for the Clinton camp.
As if anyone cared what comforted them. Like your phone-ins, elections are won by voters plain old walking through the door and why and how they do, only they know. If Trump can get enough of them to walk in as well as call in, it wouldn't matter if he'd spent the whole debate swinging from the lectern and gibbering like Bonzo the Chimp. Considering how close his effort often came to that, clearly his Diehards were all Trump was trying to reach last night.
But winning a popularity phone in and winning a debate are two entirely different hurdles. The number you — and Donny and Hilly — want when picking your so-called 'winners' is 'How many non-supporters did each win over?'.
None of those polls even asked that. So, for all your over-blown font sizes, they tell us nothing we didn't know already.
You will find the same poll results if Trump shit his pants and cried through the entire debate. You will find Trump supporters are impervious to his lies, bankruptcies, fraud, law suites, admitted attempted bribery of public officials, using charitable funds for personal expenses , etc, etc, ad nauseum ... but you have to admire their Hitler Youth blind enthusiasm for support. I'm guessing the same Trump supporters voted numerous times to support their führer - hell I bet Trump was one of them !
Just to be clear: What the Mail meant by "…official survey" was actually a properly conducted, statistically useful survey of 521 methodically selected individuals, who formally agreed they would actually watch the debate, then answer a number of questions about what they saw, heard and thought about it. The published results run to 23 pages and are considered accurate within 4.5%. Since it was conducted by a commercial polling company and paid for by a for-profit TV company only the Daily Mail could tell you what makes it 'official' in their eyes. I think they were groping for 'respectable', 'reliable', 'conventional' or something similar.
What the Mail called "…snap" polls are simple counts of calls received from anyone who chose to phone after the debate and say who they liked best. Presumably they meant 'snap' as a descriptor of the worth of such casual popularity exercises.
Maybe we should take a closer look at those polls, Trump even said, he won a poll that didn't exist!
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-donald-trump-won-the-debate-hell-endorse-it/
An interesting analysis said that one difference between the primaries and this debate was the presence of other candidates. When it came to tough policy questions Trump would sort of stay quiet, then at some point come out with a zinger.
In this way he could hide his weaknesses by letting others speak to the hard stuff. It wasn't as apparent that he couldn't respond because he'd let others talk until he had an opportunity for a zinger.
In yesterday's debate he had nowhere to hide, and while he still came out with some zingers, he also spent a lot of time sputtering.
In this way he could hide his weaknesses by letting others speak to the hard stuff. It wasn't as apparent that he couldn't respond because he'd let others talk until he had an opportunity for a zinger.
In yesterday's debate he had nowhere to hide, and while he still came out with some zingers, he also spent a lot of time sputtering.
