Huffpost Poll release on the Democratic Presidential Primary debate.
A 55 percent majority of registered Democratic voters who watched the debate said Clinton won. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), who saw a surge in online interest and fundraising, was a distant second, with only 22 percent saying he was the best of the night.
Clinton also saw an uptick in the proportion of Democrats who say they want her to be the party’s presidential nominee. Before the debate, 44 percent of registered Democrats said they wanted Clinton to be the nominee. After the debate, the figure had risen to 52 percent.
Please share widely!
OAN sponsored
Clinton 62%
Sanders 30%
NBC/YouGov had a poll out as well that had it at 56-33. And if you compare that to their “Which candidate do you prefer?” question and redistribute Biden’s votes to Hillary, the numbers are nearly identical.
“Who won the debate?” in most cases just means “Which candidate do you like most?” Because you don’t “win” a presidential debate as you can a high school forensics tournament. The Republican debates are somewhat different in this regard, though, because of how many people there are on stage and how comparatively weak the preferences are.
I think there are a lot of people whom haven’t made up their minds. It’s early, but I think you can have some takeaway by performance. In this case polling matched the eyeball test, coverage was spot on.
Plus I’m not so sure I would move Biden’s votes to Hillary either.
The “who won?” question doesn’t do much to tell us who a voter my choose to actually support. I thought Romney beat Obama in the first debate, didn’t change my vote. I thought Hillary won this debate, hasn’t changed my primary vote for Sanders. Not to mention the media declared her a winner and that may have an impact on how responders answer the question. Though I would imagine a strong correlation and admit my own take is an outlying one for sure.
The other poll you cited johnk is more helpful, unfortunately OAN is to the right of Fox News and is an overtly racist network in a way the former could only dream of being. Not discounting it’s poll commissioned from a non-partisan third party, but it’s not a source I’d be comfortable linking from.
A week from now we should have better polls, hopefully state based polls, and ideally polls that include O’Malley who I believe will get an uptick and exclude Biden-who lets be honest-ain’t running for this thing.
we use them all the time.
Yes, now the next question is how did it impact support. Next round of polls will provide that. Please don’t compare different polls to mean the same thing. Plus please don’t compare different pollsters. Also, as we’ve learned a poll average gives better results.
HuffPost pollster nailed ’08 election.
OAN didn’t conduct the poll. You should instead evaluate the performance of the pollster. They are just ok, in ratings. Geeze people, get it together.
take the pretend polls, print them, rip them in strips and use as TP. That’s the best use for them.
Use actual performance/opinions of registered democrats who are voting and learn from that data. Where was he strong, where was he weak. Come back in Nov a kick some a**. Show people what you got and how you respond.
I wouldn’t compare them to truthers or birthers, they are passionate about their candidate and an asset to the party. On this issue they selected data sets that confirm their biases, and one could argue Clinton supporters are doing the same thing with these polls. You said it yourself that we will see the full impact the debates have on support in the next round, so it’s better to wait and see rather than argue definitively one way or the other.
I definitely reject Rye’s logic that Sanders was the clear winner, and reject a presumption that my subjective opinion that Clinton was the clear winner speaks for all undecided voters.
Does he want to win the nomination or does he want to get his particular message out? It’s not necessarily an either/or question, but in order for them to be mutually inclusive he has to develop a better understanding of foreign policy questions, a better answer to the gun question, and he has to prevent Hillary from co-opting his responses. Reciting his stump speech is a great way to keep his base happy, but not a great way to expand his support beyond it, he has to be the Clinton alternative as well.
His best hits against her during the night were in the last half hour on Wall Street reform and he got a few shots across her bow, but she always responded with ‘we fundamentally agree on what needs to be done’ and then dovetailed into her proposals which are substantially different than his. It was a brilliant way to look like she shares his values but simply has more experience in government and recognizes the limits of his approach. Tom was convinced on both points, that she shares his values but has a better approach. I am convinced her approach is better in the short term legislatively, I remain undecided on the values since she
Was there more to your last sentence?
“I am convinced her approach is better in the short term legislatively, I remain undecided on the values since she”
That go beyond simply representing it’s locality in the US Senate. Close financial ties, post-crash. It’s her right as a private citizen to make money, but it can alter how you approach governance. Obama has admitted that being exposed to the donor class changed his perspective on a few issues and he had to get distance from it to regain his footing. Sanders will never have that problem since he tells the donor class to screw, but it’s doubtful Dodd-Frank would’ve passed had either of those two done the same thing.
Sanders was fine with his LA fundraiser where max donors or those who bundled 10k “Co-Hosts”, there were 14 “Co-Hosts” accounting for $140,000 of what his campaign expected a total of $150,000 in this intimate setting and access.
There was a healthy amount of Dems who thought he won. But there was a 2 to 1 ratio that thought Clinton performed best. So it’s a positive for both candidates. NBC poll, shows a Clinton bounce back from September, but it also shows Sanders gaining support. But Clinton did better. They unfortunately include Biden, which could be used as Undecided (I guess). Both candidate have a net positive for the debate.
What she often proposes are small bore tweaks to large problems. They aren’t solutions so much as patches. I understand that the legislative process traditionally walks forward rather than leaps forward, but I fear she may use minor gains to strike items off her checklist. Look, we did financial reform. Look, we addressed the environment. Look, we did immigration reform. Bill kind of took that approach.
I share this concern about Hillary Clinton.
On the other hand, I think your last sentence is worth exploring. In my view, we made more progress pretty much across the board during the Bill Clinton administration — despite unprecedented (at the time) GOP hyper-partisan attacks — than pretty much any president in my lifetime (only LBJ comes close, and Bill Clinton did not have Vietnam).
While we may differ on various aspects of the Bill Clinton agenda, in my view he accomplished a historically significant advance of progressive values. In particular, he absolutely demolished the aspects of GOP obstructionism that had been so effective at blocking progress on our safety net.
It’s what I was referring to. I think there is a balance between idealism and outside advocacy and knowing how to play inside baseball to move the ball forward. Barney Frank’s book really is a great instruction on how a big outsider (introverted, gay, hyper liberal in a period of conservative ascendancy) actually got a lot accomplished working with what he had.
I think Congresswoman Clark deserves a lot of credit for pursuing a similar strategy in the House, she is finding ways to pass meaningful bills that improve real lives working through the Republican majority. Sanders has a lot of experience with this as well, but he also values his role as an outsider over his experience as an insider. But the Presidency is more than just a bully pulpit, and I think articulating a governing strategy with the Congress we have is essential for all our candidates.
In spite of the failed impeachment attempt, here are some things that Bill Clinton did NOT do:
– He did not create a constitutional crisis remotely comparable to Richard Nixon’s long list of abuses of presidential power
– He did not sell weapons to Iran or launch an explicitly illegal war, like Ronald Reagan did
– He did not participate in nearly destroying the banking industry and housing market, while protecting family members, the way George H. Bush did in the S&L crisis and with Silverado.
– He did not commit arguably the worst foreign policy blunder in modern US history by invading a foreign nation based on lies, like George W. Bush did.
– He did not commit war crimes, like George W. Bush and his administration appear to have done.
– He did not cause the worst US economic crisis since the Great Depression, the way George W. Bush did.
Sadly, an important measure of modern US presidents seems to be what blunders, crimes, and abuses of power they do NOT do.
and I find your observations of what President Clinton did NOT do ironic in light of comments the Speaker made when asked what his Republican majority had actually accomplished legislatively. He answered by saying he was more proud of what they had NOT done. LOL Go figure.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Although it was a knock on HW not W, I’m not so sure that is true for Clinton given the changes put through by Rubin and Summers. W’s lack of oversight let things come crashing down, but the problems in the architecture happened on Clinton’s watch, and it should absolutely be part of his legacy, even though it’s so often overlooked by Dems (because they want to remember him as great) and by Repubs (because they liked those changes). It’s also one of the things I am most nervous about with another Clinton administration – will the economic team be from the Rubin and Summers camp or more from the Warren and Stiglitz side of things?
It was George H. W. Bush who caused the near-collapse in the late 1980s. He also ensured that Neil Bush (his son) escaped prosecution in spite of his role in Silverado.
I’m not sure I’m ready to conflate a legislative decision to allow a practice with an industry decision to abuse the resulting discretion. After all, it was Jimmy Carter who signed the 1980 act that allowed S&Ls to get themselves into trouble. Should we blame Jimmy Carter for the disaster that greedy banks brought on themselves a decade later?
The fact that I can buy an automobile capable of going 110 MPH does not, in my view, mean that GM should be held responsible if I choose to drive that vehicle at that speed through downtown Boston.
I know that you were referring to the S&L issues, but I think Clinton deserves significant blame for what happened related to unregulated derivatives trading – even more than Bush. Decisions made in the Clinton administration all but ensured a catastrophe. And they had a clear warning that they actively pushed aside. I don’t know if Carter had a similar warning.
As far as your GM analogy, yes, I would hold GM responsible if their car was some sort of device that was only incredibly beneficial to a few institutional investors and if misused in a very obvious and expected way would bring down the economy.
The economy was in the best shape in my lifetime anyway at that point, but I’ve always thought that Bill Clinton was smart and compassionate enough to take a different tack if/when it was shown that policies needed to be modified.
A strong economy is never an invitation to regulatory self-destruction.