As the old song goes, people hear what they want to hear and disregard the rest. We've had multiple years of these vomit inducing presidential campaigns. Anybody still undecided after all the media hype and hoopla ought to never be allowed to vote for anything... not even dogcatcher. Trump appealed to his base; Clinton appealed to hers. Nobody won anybody over. Let's just vote already and put this nightmare behind us.
On Tuesday, September 27, 2016, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:05 AM, Bob Jersey <[email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');>> wrote: > >> I had a burgeoning sore throat. Like many in the fourth estate, I saw no >>> clear winner. B >>> >> > Wait - what? I am working on a little project, and would seriously be > interested in seeing some of the sources you are reading that led you to > conclude that many journalists saw the debate as essentially a tie (I am > not counting Breitbart and Hannity here, both of which by this point have > to be considered as part of the Trump campaign). Everything I read last > night and this morning suggest that Clinton was the very clear winner. That > includes the Fox News web page, which has as their first story that the > media consensus was that Hillary won (to set up a rather suspect claim that > that "real" voters thought Trump won, based on a few online insta polls, > and ignoring the polls that found the opposite) - see: > http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/09/27/online- > polls-declare-trump-debate-winner-despite-media-consensus-for-clinton.html > > A WaPo article (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/ > daily-202/2016/09/27/daily-202-why-even-republicans- > think-clinton-won-the-first-debate/57e9b033e9b69b3019a1e037/) concluded > that "even Republicans think Clinton won the first debate". Some of the > most strident criticism I read last night was from conservative - even hard > and alt right conservatives, bashing Trump for doing so poorly. And the > Trump spinners themselves, as noted in the article above, were clearly > depressed and frustrated when they came out to try to make the best of it. > The the betting markets moved 5 - 6 points in Hillary's direction in the > four hours after the debate last night, and 7 points total in the last 24 > hours (https://electionbettingodds.com/). > > Now, to be clear, I am focused here on how the news media and political > class perceived the debate, not the electorate. It is possible that, > especially this year, a perceived "win" by the media and political classes > has little or no effect on voters. Trump supporters in particular are > almost impossible to predict, as they seem to like the very things that > mainstream observers detest, while Hillary seems to irritate a large > fraction of even those people who agree with her (though I thought she was > more "likable" last night than I have ever seen her, going back to the late > 1980s). The insta polls (some very positive for Hillary, some for Trump) > are meaningless as accurate samples of the population of voters - though > Nate Silver wrote this morning that the much attacked CNN insta poll has > been reliably predictive of shifts in post debate polling numbers for many > years now. We will not have real polling data on the effect of the debate > until Thursday at the earliest, and it will be until Sunday before we get > most of the better polls in. Given the clear consensus that Hillary did > better in the debate, she will be expected to show at least a 2 point bump > in the polls (she was 1.6 ahead in the 538 model just before the debate > started). The nightmare scenario for the Clinton campaign is that the polls > do not change significantly (or even worse, that Trump continues his gain > on Hillary), despite his debate disaster; this would suggest some kind of > monster movie situation in which there is nothing a conventional (perhaps > too conventional) candidate like Hillary can do to stop him. > > -- > -- > TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "TV or Not TV" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','[email protected]');> > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en > --- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "TVorNotTV" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','tvornottv%[email protected]');> > . > For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout. > -- Kevin M. (RPCV) -- -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
