Originally posted by Bashar Teg
hmm i thought bernie won, as did all the majority of popularity polls and focus groups...but cnn told me that hillary won. i'm sure the fact that time warner is one of her top contributors has NOTHING TO DO WITH IT.
Online polls did- but those are fairly unreliable (little in the way of cheat prevention) and hit mostly the younger crowd, Bernie's people. Focus groups had variable responses- CNN's had the majority raise their hand when asked if Bernie won... and about as many when asked if Hillary did, including lots of overlap.
Frankly, I think insisting only *one* won is splitting hairs. They both did really well.
psmith81992
You do realize the Republican debate was the exact same, with one or two Trumpisms?
Not from what I saw. Almost everyone went after Trump the first debate, and lots of going after Jeb too. The second debate was a bit more restrained, but still involved them going after each other a lot, and the policy talk didn't get into much details- part of that was because there was more there, but a lot of it was just difference in approach.
Lucius has been known to be a nutjob. He would make you seem far right.
It's not like he's the only one to say this, I've seen a number of news sources note it. Depending on if they're left or right they phrase it differently (boringness vs policy focused/trying to sell on ability to govern), but it has been mentioned in my earshot fairly often. Fivethirtyeight had Nate Silver specifically mention that one of the things the debate did was... well, I'll just quote another 538 writer and him:
"Farai Chideya: The lovefest/party unity between Sanders and Clinton is also a marked difference from the GOP race. The GOP race is like MMA and last night’s debate was more like badminton.
Nate Silver: Yeah, the debate did real damage to another bullshit meme, which is linking the Democratic and Republican races together under the same narrative umbrella. "
As far as the Democratic debates, it was pretty clear the 4 were moving out of the way for hilary.
Sanders wasn't moving out of the way, and I wouldn't say the others were either. There was a lot of highlighting distinct policy difference and contrasting takes on what the best options were- the key being, the main targets tended to be policy with a lot of discussion as to the material differences as to how, rather than going after the people.
There's a difference in saying "the republican debate was a little more combative" and "the republican debate was insane while the democrat debate was a bastion of sanity." That's completely ignoring what actually transpired in favor of your own personal psychotic biases. I agree the democrat debates were less combative but I do believe they were more or less letting hilary take the reins.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
can't quote today because this POS site is broken.@Q99 "Frankly, I think insisting only *one* won is splitting hairs. They both did really well."
the point is that CNN labeled hillary the winner, which is pure BS corporate sponsorship propaganda.
I'm surprised that you're surprised.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
can't quote today because this POS site is broken.@Q99 "Frankly, I think insisting only *one* won is splitting hairs. They both did really well."
the point is that CNN labeled hillary the winner, which is pure BS corporate sponsorship propaganda.
Yea then deleted Sanders supporters comments on Facebook.
Originally posted by Bashar Teg
can't quote today because this POS site is broken.@Q99 "Frankly, I think insisting only *one* won is splitting hairs. They both did really well."
the point is that CNN labeled hillary the winner, which is pure BS corporate sponsorship propaganda.
Mnn. It depends on who's being measured.
The early internet polls went Sanders... who has a young net-heavy base. Polls of wider demographics may very well provide different results.
Huffpo's poll said among Democrats, both Hillary and Sanders were rated as having gained a lot, but Hillary more[/url].
I stand by me 'it doesn't really matter who got first, they both did excellent.'
psmith81992
There's a difference in saying "the republican debate was a little more combative" and "the republican debate was insane while the democrat debate was a bastion of sanity." That's completely ignoring what actually transpired in favor of your own personal psychotic biases. I agree the democrat debates were less combative but I do believe they were more or less letting hilary take the reins.
Psychotic? *Raises eyebrow*
They were definitely disagreeing with Hillary a lot, on substantiative matters. That's not letting her take the reigns, that's just clashing with her on those terms.
And that a national party debate has so much infighting is... fairly noteworthy, historically speaking. One of Reagan's commandments was Republicans shouldn't attack each other directly.
The different between the two was quite substantial, whether or not one considers either approach reasonable.
And that a national party debate has so much infighting is... fairly noteworthy, historically speaking. One of Reagan's commandments was Republicans shouldn't attack each other directly.The different between the two was quite substantial, whether or not one considers either approach reasonable.
And I disagree that the difference was that substantial.
Originally posted by Q99I stand by me 'it doesn't really matter who got first, they both did excellent.'
yes, i agree. but let's not be obtuse about what's going on with cnn. i'm now even blaming hillary, but her sponsors need to calm down.
i need no more proof than the blatantly biased endorsement i saw the following morning on cnn:
http://i.imgur.com/tZrsD02.png
I watched the debate in a hotel room while on vacation, and I thought Sanders won pretty handily. I was very surprised to hear so much about Clinton having an easy win, I didn't think she came off very well. Seemed overly phony, especially next to the extremely genuine Sanders. Plus Sanders had the most memorable moment of the night with his "I'm sick of your damn emails" quip.
If CNN is actually doing the things people are saying, then that's absurd and they should be ashamed of themselves.
For polling, I want to point to this-
This is the most formal, non-self selected poll that I know of that has posted the results in detail, and it puts Hillary in the win- though again, both doing very well. Though it is a poll using calls on landlines, which do tend to skew a bit old, so they may aim Hillary a bit like the net ones leaned Sanders, though not by as much I'd think.
For ones that have less detail but are also non-self selected, Yougov and Surveymonkey, got similar results.
The professional political analysts, aside from polling, also tend to lean her, based on how she argued the issues or such.
It's not some conspiracy to discredit Sander's win or such- it's just the networks are going with the professionally done poll over the informal internet ones that are fairly unreliable.
To quote that second article,
"Pundits quickly surmised that Clinton had won the debate, though Sanders generated a lot more online interest throughout — and a pair of focus groups and a few non-scientific online surveys indicated that he might have gotten the best of her. But this trio of more calibrated, scientifically rigorous polls show that Clinton likely did the most good for herself with her performance."
Originally posted by psmith81992
As we discussed in PMs, Webb comes closer to Reagan republicans than these guys.And I disagree that the difference was that substantial.
Well, commentators like FiveThirtyEight and news commentators on different stations, be it CNN or Fox, seem to have found it substantial, and I thought it was too.
The problem is, she didn't add a lot of substance at all. For all the talk of the republican debates, there was substance. Her entire monologue consisted of "i have a plan", "i have a 3 point plan", or "something something republicans". I believe people already gave her the victory before the debate.
I think Sanders had the most substance out of them all (aside from Webb who could have, had they given him a modicum of respect). However, a lot of Sanders' ideas were really out there. He's a left wing Ron Paul, basically. That doesn't resonate with the mainstream voter.
Well, commentators like FiveThirtyEight and news commentators on different stations, be it CNN or Fox, seem to have found it substantial, and I thought it was too.
Originally posted by BackFireShame is for the poor.
I watched the debate in a hotel room while on vacation, and I thought Sanders won pretty handily. I was very surprised to hear so much about Clinton having an easy win, I didn't think she came off very well. Seemed overly phony, especially next to the extremely genuine Sanders. Plus Sanders had the most memorable moment of the night with his "I'm sick of your damn emails" quip.If CNN is actually doing the things people are saying, then that's absurd and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Originally posted by psmith81992
The problem is, she didn't add a lot of substance at all. For all the talk of the republican debates, there was substance. Her entire monologue consisted of "i have a plan", "i have a 3 point plan", or "something something republicans". I believe people already gave her the victory before the debate.
Just say it, "the smartest thing to have ever come out of Hillary's mouth was Bill's dick."
Originally posted by Robtard
Just say it, "the smartest thing to have ever come out of Hillary's mouth was Bill's dick."
Nah that's childish and there's no proof that she ever went down on him either so..
I watched the debate in a hotel room while on vacation, and I thought Sanders won pretty handily. I was very surprised to hear so much about Clinton having an easy win, I didn't think she came off very well. Seemed overly phony, especially next to the extremely genuine Sanders. Plus Sanders had the most memorable moment of the night with his "I'm sick of your damn emails" quip.If CNN is actually doing the things people are saying, then that's absurd and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Originally posted by BackFire
I watched the debate in a hotel room while on vacation, and I thought Sanders won pretty handily. I was very surprised to hear so much about Clinton having an easy win, I didn't think she came off very well. Seemed overly phony, especially next to the extremely genuine Sanders. Plus Sanders had the most memorable moment of the night with his "I'm sick of your damn emails" quip.If CNN is actually doing the things people are saying, then that's absurd and they should be ashamed of themselves.
Considering that CNN tried their darndest to make people think that the guy who shot up that school in Oregon was white it wouldn't surprise me one bit if they actually did something like this. CNN can no longer be trusted as a reputable news source, imo.
Originally posted by psmith81992
The problem is, she didn't add a lot of substance at all. For all the talk of the republican debates, there was substance. Her entire monologue consisted of "i have a plan", "i have a 3 point plan", or "something something republicans". I believe people already gave her the victory before the debate.
Except she specifically talked about what was in her plans and her differences in policies, things she'd do to address X rather than Sander's approach Y... one of the things that most pundits have been noting is she had a lot of answers for policy. That she uses the word plan doesn't change that she talked about policy a lot, be it college vouchers, gun control, or so on. Minute for minute, she spent more time talking policy, and so did her opponents.
Also, this complaining that 'Hillary points out she does something better than the Republicans' as if it's somehow making excuses or unfair is pretty silly ^^ "You can't draw comparisons to the party that was in power less than 10 years ago, that's too long ago!" may work in some forum discussions, but it doesn't hope up too well in serious debates or the big campaign.
In serious debates, that 'Something something Republicans,' people focus on the policy in the 'something something,' and take note how it compares to the Republican's attempt at the same thing. They don't go, 'oh, she mentioned Republicans again, that means I can put it aside because I think she does that too much.' "How can anyone still blame Bush for anything?" is a question that doesn't compute to the media and a lot of undecided voters- that's the latest time the party was in charge so a natural point of comparison. Let alone Republicans in general, because it's not like they've ceased to exist or do stuff that things can be said against in the interim! You not liking something being used and something being an invalid form to use in a debate are two very different things.
And here's a question- Do you think a lot of people here would give her the victory regardless?
Sure, some people would give her the win before it began... but plenty do the same for Sanders, and a lot of people definitely won't give her credit. Note how the media message going in was that her campaign was in disarray- these weren't media people looking to crown her, these were media people looking to pounce on failure, who had to change their tune.
You've got diehards for every major candidate, but Hillary doesn't exactly have half the lineup sewed up no matter what- and it's not like the results slag on Sanders either, rather they say both did well but noted a few tactical advantages Hillary made, like on gun control. She's Hillary Clinton, she is not surrounded by giant love fests, she's not Obama, but she does handle herself quite tactically well in a debate and extensively talked about the issues and polices she'd do.
