Who won the Democratic debate? Depends on whether you ask pundits or people. (image: CNN)
A New York Times article (10/14/15) by Alan Rappeport about who won last night’s Democratic presidential debate reported today that “Hillary Rodham Clinton was the clear victor, according to the opinion shapers in the political world (even conservative commentators).”
The Times quoted National Journal columnist Ron Fournier (“Hillary Clinton won,” 10/13/15), Slate writer Fred Kaplan (“She crushed it,” 10/14/15), New Yorker staffer Ryan Lizza (“Hillary Clinton won because all of her opponents are terrible,” Twitter, 10/13/15), Red State blogger Leon Wolf (“Hillary was (astonishingly) much more likable and personable than everyone’s favorite crazy socialist uncle,” 10/13/15), pollster John Zogby (“Mrs. Clinton was just commanding tonight,” Forbes, 10/13/15) and conservative radio host Erick Erickson (“I’m still amazed the other four candidates made Hillary Clinton come off as the likable, reasonable, responsible Democrat,” Twitter, 10/13/15). If these so-called “opinion shapers in the political world” declare Hillary the winner, then Hillary must be the winner, according to the Times.
What the Times and these pundits failed to mention is the fact that every online poll we could find asking web visitors who won the debate cast Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders as the winner—and not just by a small margins, but by rather enormous ones.
Seventy-one percent of participants in Slate’s online poll, for example, favored Sanders, while only 16 percent preferred Clinton. Time’s web poll of nearly 235,000 had Sanders at 56 percent and Clinton at 11 percent (Webb: 31 percent).
At Daily Kos, which caters to hardcore partisan Dems, 56 percent of nearly 22,000 participants said that Sanders won, vs. 38 percent for Clinton. MSNBC’s poll of 18,000 had Sanders at 69 percent and Clinton at 12 percent.
Sanders also showed appeal among the visitors to right-leaning sites: The conservative Drudge Report found that of more than 315,000 people, Sanders polled at 54 percent and Clinton at 9 percent (former Sen. Jim Webb got 25 percent). A poll by KSWB-TV, Fox’s San Diego affiliate, found that 78 percent of 45,000 respondents thought that Sanders won, as opposed to 15 percent who favored Clinton. The Street, a financial news website, found that 80 percent of 13,000 respondents dubbed Sanders the winner, while only 15 percent thought Clinton won.
Although these polls only represent the views of these sites’ visitors who volunteered to participate, the consistently high share saying that Sanders prevailed in the debate, across a range of websites with wildly varying audiences, is striking.
Adam Johnson, associate editor at AlterNet and frequent FAIR.org contributor, pointed out (AlterNet, 10/14/15) that not only had Sanders won every online poll “by at least an 18-point margin,” he also was picked as the winner by various media-convened focus groups: “Sanders won the CNN focus group, the Fusion focus group and the Fox News focus group; in the latter, he even converted several Hillary supporters.”
Another, more rigorous gauge of Sanders’ debate performance came from an analysis of Google searches. According to Google, Sanders was the most-searched candidate for almost the entire debate. After the debate was over, he was the most-searched candidate in all 50 states.
There is one outlier in the data about the Democratic debate, but it’s one that should carry some weight, given that it’s the only poll so far ask a random sample of respondents about debate performance. This poll, conducted via automated telephone calls by research firm Gravis Marketing (One America Network, 10/14/15), found that 62 percent thought Clinton won, while 30 percent gave it to Sanders.
The poll, however, is described as a “random survey of 760 registered Democratic voters across the US”—not as a survey of people who actually watched the debate. Given that there are some 43 million registered Democrats in the country and 15 million people who watched the debate, not all of whom are Democrats, it’s highly likely that a large majority of the poll’s respondents got their impressions of who won the debate secondhand.
If they relied on corporate media to tell them about the debate, as no doubt many of them did, it’s no wonder that most of them thought Clinton won.
Gunar Olsen is an editorial intern at FAIR and a student at Fordham University. Follow him on Twitter at @GunarOlsen.
I didn’t watch the whole debate, but I did see Sanders get a lot applause from the house–and that was an invite only audience.
The Google searches during the debate is impressive.
Hillary lied well (I’m a progressive) but it is lying.
Well, now we know who the corporate masters want to win the Dem primary.
Here are even more polls showing Bernie won, followed by even more lockstep corporate media saying “it was Hillary and it wasn’t even close”. http://www.burnplan.org/HillaryWins.png Maybe this is what people mean with they talk about going with someone “electable”.
Please note that there’s another very important selector: the debate was pay-to-play–that is, it was broadcast on CABLE. Those of us who do not have cable and tried to watch via computer kept losing the feed…and not being able to get right back in. Does that perhaps indicate an economic bias to data gathered later? In addition, as a lifelong Democrat, I wonder why Wassermann-Schultz did not choose to make it available to anyone with a TV…too much influenced by the candidate of the 1per cent??
Who gives a rat’s ass to anything these potential puppets have to say? They, as any U.S. politician; all they are doing is talking out of their anuses. If “elected” they are simply feces covered ass lickers to oligarchs and an oligarchy.
‘US Is an Oligarchy Not a Democracy, says Scientific Study’ http://www.commondreams.org/views/2014/04/14/us-oligarchy-not-democracy-says-scientific-study
Miracle of miracles, finally our mainstream public has some affection for the truth.
Problem is, if there is to be health care socialism for all, the voting majority must pay the full cost, for they are the educated upper half of society, they own all the wealth and only they pay income tax.
This is an excellent piece. I’m struck by the dishonesty of Daily Kos on this, pumping our emails like this: “Clinton wins the first Democratic debate … and it wasn’t even close.” I see they are backing off a little now, but …..
On-line polls are not a representative sampling. Younger people are more likely to support Sanders Claus, and rush to fill out an on-line poll. In 1948 most newpapers declared Dewey the winner based on telephone polling. Problem was that many poor people still didn’t have pribate phones in 1948, and Truman won.
On-line polls are not a representative sampling. Younger people are more likely to support Sanders Claus, and rush to fill out an on-line poll. In 1948 most newpapers declared Dewey the winner based on telephone polling. Problem was that many poor people still didn’t have private phones in 1948, and Truman won.
Do we know if the Gravis poll only called people with landlines, or if it included cell phones as well? Because that’s another factor that could skew the data.
Bernie Sanders did a much better job of getting the points across. Hillary has had so much controversy in the past that I had a hard time believing anything she said. She is backed by special interests groups and Bernie is mostly backed by individual mainstream voters. It’s hard to really choose right now but it is still early in the debates.
Could the reason Sanders is winning is these polls, across various websites, be due to an organized and concerted effort by Bernie’s supporters to skew the polls? Even Donald Trump thought Hillary won!
I think Bernie goofed up there, in saying nobody cares about her damn emails. Looks like he’ll give her a pass on her own criminal trespass against federal employee regulations, too. (As well as common sense, in today’s “cyberwar” intelligence environment.) And a lot of people do care about them, and a lot of people are still scratching their heads as to why her most erstwhile and well-positioned opponent would roll over and play dead so well. Brought a smile to her face, knowing she’ll never have to face the music under Prez Bernie, it did.
Bernie — Socialist smokescreen hiding a paradise for the rich
For the fiction that a 1% rich nobility owns most all of our Empire’s wealth, this blinds the public to the reality that High Society is part of a Country Club class, a 25% rich ruling class that collectively owns 75% of our wealth in the richest empire the world has ever known.
For the last thing the rich want the public to grasp is the reality that the educated upper half of society owns all the wealth, that the upper half is the voting majority that always keeps minimum wage low and wars of aggression and plunder the Empire’s highest priority. For then the lower half would see that Bernie could not change a thing if his life depended upon it and that change would come only by nationwide strikes and total rebellion by the laboring class.
Sanders was presidential and forceful in his statements, no preprogrammed sound bites but speaking from the heart.
Hillary was somewhat boasting and affected an air of superiority. But what I really noticed was the nasty looks on her face when others were speaking. They unconsciously revealed the actual authentic state of her mood. It reminded me of my wicked stepmother, eyes just dripping jealousy and loathing. It was like looking into the eyes of her soul.
In contrast, her smiles were not believable, they were forced and preprogrammed, it was clear she preened in the mirror for hours in preparation to appear unconcerned and happy.
I visited the cnn.com to vote soon after the debate. At that point Sanders was polling about 83% with Hillary far below.
Cooper deliberately favored Clinton throughout the debate, and afterwards.
The media has an agenda, the objectivity in journalism disappeared when Walter Cronkite retired. Too many of us have been around too long, and we won’t get fooled again.
Fox did the exact same thing after the first Republican debate. They pretended that Jeb won even though he was only scoring about 4% in polls asking about debate performance.
Pundits also think that Trump is dropping out. The people have spoken and used their free speech. This is all about Free Speech. After all the gov’t (and their corporate cronies) ban books like “America Deceived III”.
Last link:
http://www.amazon.com/America-Deceived-III-E-Blayre/dp/1517571243/
Long live Bernie and Trump.
There is no doubt whatsoever that the media is in the tank for sHIllary. I watched the debate and thought she came off as contrived and pandering. Made me nauseous. Even the right wing pundits on Fox have it all wrong. We the people do not want sHillary!!!
I find it disconcerting that everyone is concerned about who won the debate but no one is mentioning that all they talked about was redistributing income from one American to another. They tripped over each other promising that everything would be free. Please, try this with your own kids, providing them with everything and then be prepared to bank roll them their entire lives. Rather than prepare them for the future, you are making helpless human beings. The same is true for what Democrats want to do with us.
For those that think these online polls are not accurate, Trump’s online polls after the GOP debates were a clear indicator of what America thought.
The pundits also said that Trump would last as long as Hermann Cain.
They crown Hillary because she was more alive than expected but her performance is irrelevant because her credibility has been destroyed, making all her arguments moot.
Interesting that a website that claims to promote “fairness and accuracy in reporting” would misrepresent what Drudge actually is; unbiased. (WaPo, the daily kos, UCLA, et al). Seems only the lefties think Drudge is a conservative site.
I guess the American people didn’t get the memo!
Too bad for Hillary the pundits don’t elect the nominee!
At least Bernie is honest about his socialism…which is 100% more than can be said for Gramma Cankles.
If all the polls show Bernie why are the talking heads trying to mislead the American people?
CNN has deleted its poll and is deleting any pro Bernie Sanders comments. This is so fucked up!
You guys are just a bunch of sore losers. I watched the debate on a free CNN app on my phone, and my reception was fine. Hillary was poised and confident. It was clear that she was the most experienced in foreign policy, by far. It just would kill you BOYS to admit that she ran over your favorite GUY. Have you really convinced yourselves that the American public will elect a President who doesn’t believe in capitalism? Give me a break.
The difference cam be explained by the fact that the mainstream mass media is owned by the 1%.
Hillary said she went to Wall Street and told them, “Cut it out!”
She made another absurd statement about her and Obama chasing the Chinese contingent around at the climate summit. Obviously this is another fabrication. Remember her ducking sniper fire?
The American people do not feel Hillary is truthful. She reinforced that perception once again. She did not win the debate.
She was as fake as ever.
JUST ADMIT THAT HILLARY WON, you sexist liberal smartypants. “Oh, but she had a mean look on her face,” you say. Admit it, you don’t like assertive women!
I wish this were true, but what about
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/huffpost-yougov-poll-democratic-debate_56203935e4b06462a13b8449
What the hell are you people talking about? Hillary is hated by every organization listed. You tell me that the Drudge report showed that Sanders won the Oct. 13th debate? Are you kidding? Drudge? Daily Kos has had an anti-Hillary bias long before this debate you’re referring to. MSNBC? There is not “one” news media professional, show host, news show, professional guest, etc.on MSNBC, that does not hate Hillary,
Pundits, believe it or not, are also “viewers.” Say what you will, Pundits are probably just as biased as, no more biased than, any other artificially designated group of viewers.
In any case, I have a different impression here. I’ve always found, that you have to look far and wide to find pro-Hillary pundits (whether or not they’re viewers). Your comments list, reads amazingly, like the other 90% of the right-wing press. Read over these comments the resemblance is remarkable.. I fear, that what distinguishes these two candidates, and motivates Fair, to a far greater extent than they can admit, is misogyny. And I would advise, that you not be so quick to deny the presence of what is almost certainly a skillfully concealed, in some, and a sloppily concealed, in most, unconscious bias. Unless you think that we can constantly be trained to “feel” this tension between the sexes, this “battle” between the sexes, this, also unconscious, presumption of superiority that men “feel,” as something that exists in all areas, “except” the political arena. Hillary needs someone to tell her how important it is, that she stop calling attention to this problem, posing it as if it was an advantage, and making such poor wardrobe and cosmetic choices.
Sanders supporters watched the debate and have looked into the candidates and their values. Clinton supporters “oh look, I recognize that name”
FAIR tells us, that Sanders won the debate. ASTONISHINGLY,in their comments section, FAIR readers agreed. I couldn’t believe it! I’m amazed. Hillary is the devil. Hillary is evil. Hillary is dishonest. Hillary lies constantly.
Media are in the pocket for Hillary.
These are all “eternal truths.”
Please online polls are neither scientific not fair. Anyone can vote whether eligible voter or not, and same person can vote 2 or more times Using different devises. Hillary supporters don’t participate in this. I know I don’t! And btw – Hillary won!
If FAIR believes the simpleminded comments on this page, I don’t know what I’m doing here. You can certainly exchange this crap between yourselves without intrusion from me.
Believing that Pundits, as was said at the head of this piece, are not “people,” is a comment so inherently absurd it leaves any reasonable person breathless. Not only are Pundits just ordinary people, they are almost entirely in favor of Sanders. This is so obvious that it’s laughable. Just listen to them trying desperately to find any way they can to get Sanders more time, more attention, more accolades. Just listen to the way they describe his recent “win” in Michigan. A 1.5% win for Sanders, so absurdly small, considering that it was in a State that allows republicans to vote for or against the candidate. A State that won for Sanders by a sliver, but where she won Flint, by a landslide.
On line polls are not a representative sample, except of who’s on the internet. You should note that the pundits are experts at looking at style, substance and overall ability. They actually fact check messages in there analysis.This has been the pattern throughout this election attributable to one factor: Sanders voters on line. We’re not buying it.#ImWithHer
Bernie received a standing ovation at the end. And the “experts ” think hillary won?