That’s really only a refutation of my argument if the polls are limited to two options, or you’re assuming “Independent” is a coherent political party, and neither one of those are true. Only one poll identifies the political composition of their sample, which is CNN. Shockingly, they polled more Republicans, and SHOCKINGLY, Ryan came across as the winner of the debate in that poll.
If you watched the manic post-debate babbling that was CNN and ABC’s coverage, you would’ve seen that among their small, in-studio samples, there was a clear division among those who thought Biden won and those who thought Ryan won, and that division clearly broke along party lines.
Well, then, who *are *you going to let decide who won?
You claimed polling would fall on party lines. But lots of people aren’t affiliated with either party. And if your thesis is correct, why didn’t the polling break that way for the Obama/Romney debate?
I really hope to see:
That’s simply not true. A, Band C cites state …
On xx date you said, yy date you said and today you’re saying… Which is your true position?
The unaffiliated voters don’t belong to a party. They’re unaffiliated. If all the Republicans said Ryan won and all the Democrats said Biden won, it doesn’t matter how the unaffiliated voter chooses to answer the poll. They could all say Biden won, or they could all say Ryan won, and I still think it would be fair to say that the poll broke evenly along party lines.
You’re saying that a tie is a meaningful way of describing the debate, and I’m saying it isn’t, because in the case of this debate, both parties thought their candidate won. I don’t think that’s an objective way to measure who came out ahead, and I don’t think it’s a fair assessment, that given both their performances, they both came out equally. I provided evidence toward that end. The ABC poll said that undecided voters gave the debate to Biden. Whether that evidence is convincing, I don’t know. I don’t believe it’s a super reliable measurement, but I think it’s as close as you’re going to get to having an objective assessment of who won.
It’s not entirely accurate to say that this phenomenon is absent in the polls that followed the first presidential debate. If you look at the Oct. 3rd Gallup poll, which categorizes the respondents by their political party, you’ll see that nearly forty percent of Democrats polled thought that Obama won. That’s absurd. Obama clearly didn’t win. He didn’t even come close. But out of loyalty for their candidate, forty percent of responding Democrats said that Obama did better than Romney.
I think that is a bit misleading. They simply agree with Obama on the issues, and dislike Romney and therefore thought more highly of what Obama had to say. It’s loyalty to their beliefs not the candidate.
It’s one way to say how won, but not the generally accepted way.
You’re assuming Romney won and saying the Obama supporters are biased. Maybe they were looking for something different than the ones who said he lost. I don’t think we can read their minds.
Obama lost the first debate, but the bump was 4 points instead of the typical 2 because the media virtually unanimously declared Romney the winner. That happened for three reasons: (1) Romney did better; (2) Liberals like MSNBC felt comfortable doing so for various reasons; and (3) a comeback story was narratively interesting.
These factors will not coincide again. There’s a little of (3) for Obama tonight. But Fox News would never say Obama won, not matter what happens. So the reverse of (2) will not repeat. And the disparity will not be as bit on (1) was it was before.
So I predict a rough tie, with no appreciable effects on the polls against the current trend.
I assume Crowley knew what she was getting herself into before she agreed to moderate the debate. I think it’s a dick move for her to try to inject herself into what was billed as a conversation between the presidential contenders and undecided voters. I guess her ego is bigger than the agreement between the candidates.
That reminds me of the other question I’d like asked, which is what they plan to do to clean up military culture, to get rid of the bad apples who do things like desecrate corpses or have rape victims diagnosed with “personality disorders” to get rid of them.
Do you think Obama is going into this debate with the intention of getting a tie and then winning the final debate? And for those who scoff, ridiculous - remember, there is such a thing as trying too hard. Obama can always change his intention from tie to win during the debate; the opposite, from win to tie, is, obviously, much harder.