Support NeoGAF

[Snake]

Chafee is well poised with that strategic 1%. His ideas will soon echo across America like the sound of sweatpants rubbing together on a dry summer day. Feel the Chafe.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

I'm still voting for Bernie, but those poll numbers don't surprise me. This was always gonna be an uphill climb. I was never expecting an 08 Obama situation.

 

[giga]

I'm still voting for Bernie, but those poll numbers don't surprise me. This was always gonna be an uphill climb. I was never expecting an 08 Obama situation.

What about the general election?

 

[Frog-fu]

I just finished watching the debate and it was pretty clear by the end that Sanders won, but O'malley did much better than expected and Clinton did good too.

 

[shinra-bansho]

I would assume CNN removed the dumb Facebook poll/stopped reporting on it so as not to look dumb by highlighting the dumb Facebook poll as if it meant anything substantial given it doesn't. Particularly given they and their real polling partner ORC have a pretty good reputation.

That their various pundits opined that Clinton won or not is really neither here nor there. It's just pundit opinions.

I don't really know why there's still any talk of Facebook polls now given some data of more credible methodology is coming out now like the Suffolk poll.

 

[B-Dubs]

I would assume CNN removed the dumb Facebook poll/stopped reporting on it so as not to look dumb by highlighting the dumb Facebook poll as if it meant anything substantial given it doesn't. Particularly given they and their real polling partner ORC have a pretty good reputation.

That their various pundits opined that Clinton won or not is really neither here nor there. It's just pundit opinions.

This is what I assumed as well, but apparently it just makes too much sense.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I just finished watching the debate and it was pretty clear by the end that Sanders won, but O'malley did much better than expected and Clinton did good too.

If it's so clear why do Democratic voters disagree? Are you calling them ignorant?

 

[JustenP88]

This is what I assumed as well, but apparently it just makes too much sense.

Then why the hell did they ever put up a poll? I don't care about what the poll "means" but I don't get the logic behind this or why this rationale doesn't sort of prove the point opposite the one you're trying to make.

If it's so clear why do Democratic voters disagree? Are you calling them ignorant?

Are you calling Frog-fu ignorant?

 

[B-Dubs]

I saw a meme on Facebook that said Hillary Clinton personally called her crony-servants at CNN and requested that they remove the post-debate poll while cackling and stroking a cat for good measure. Anyone else heard about this?

It's all over Facebook, it's bullshit.

Then why the hell did they ever put up a poll? I don't care about what the poll "means" but I don't get the logic behind this or why this rationale doesn't sort of prove the point opposite the one you're trying to make.

If it were me, and I saw that the poll was essentially being hijacked I'd pull it too. Especially if we were seeing that the real polls would say the exact opposite.

Are you calling Frog-fu ignorant?

That isn't even close to what he said dude.

 

[Frog-fu]

If it's so clear why do Democratic voters disagree? Are you calling them ignorant?

I'm not calling anyone ignorant.

That the frontfronner is still the frontrunner doesn't mean she won, and going by the reaction online I don't think she did.

In respect of winning the debate, Bernie fumbled a bit in the first 30-45 minutes, particularly on the topic of guns, but he was otherwise earnest, honest and made strong points. He is the only politician - the way I see it anyway - that is speaking to and aiming to tackle the real problem, i.e. "Congress does not regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress." His electability may be in question, but he is making bigger gains as time goes by and I'm hoping that pulls Clinton more to his side on the left.

Hillary had her moments but otherwise stayed the course and gave a politician's answer too often to my liking. She didn't nearly come across as genuine and had worse stumbles.

O'Malley really surprised me and was the most consistent of the bunch. He didn't give a single bad answer and a had strong moments. His closing was especially strong and probably resonated with a lot of people.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I'm not calling anyone ignorant.

That the frontfronner is still the frontrunner doesn't mean she won, and going by the reaction online I don't think she did.

In respect of winning the debate, Bernie fumbled a bit in the first 30-45 minutes, particularly on the topic of guns, but he was otherwise earnest, honest and made strong points. He is the only politician - the way I see it anyway - that is speaking to and aiming to tackle the real problem, i.e. "Congress does not regulate Wall Street. Wall Street regulates Congress." His electability may be in question, but he is making bigger gains as time goes by and I'm hoping that pulls Clinton more to his side on the left.

Hillary had her moments but otherwise stayed the course and gave a politician's answer too often to my liking. She didn't nearly come across as genuine and had worse stumbles.

O'Malley really surprised me and was the most consistent of the bunch. He didn't give a single bad answer and a had strong moments. His closing was especially strong and probably resonated with a lot of people.

There's polls out that specifically ask who do you think won and Clinton is the runaway favorite. Even in NH where she actually gets less voters but more people saying she won.

 

[Frog-fu]

There's polls out that specifically ask who do you think won and Clinton is the runaway favorite. Even in NH where she actually gets less voters but more people saying she won.

I don't buy that for a second.

 

[B-Dubs]

I don't buy that for a second.

So you're going to fly in the face of scientifically conducted surveys of registered voters? That went so well for the de-skewers.

 

[NeoXChaos]

I don't buy that for a second.

Buy it.

Fifty-four percent of poll respondents said they thought Clinton won the debate to 24 percent for Sanders. Another 16 percent were undecided.

https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/16/clinton-sanders-tied/5uI3lKwEfib4uifxrOlkPI/story.html

and this:

Fifty-two percent of poll respondents said Clinton has the best chance of winning the general election. Just 16 percent said Sanders’ had the best chance.

and finally this:

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Buy it.


https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/16/clinton-sanders-tied/5uI3lKwEfib4uifxrOlkPI/story.html

and this:



and finally this:

Never seen someone get #rekt like this.

 

[SmokeMaxX]

Bernie supporters hurt my head because they live in a different reality than the rest of us. This is coming from someone who was a huge Kucinich supporter (although obviously he had no shot either). I honestly don't even think Sanders wants to be President. He sure as hell wouldn't be able to get anything done if he became President. Hell, we'd probably lose even more seats in the House and Senate if he became President since the Republicans would cause further gridlock, play the "but he's a socialist with a socialist agenda!" card to justify their gridlock (which would actually work), and then blame the President when the country turns to shit. It'd be a bit like the last 8 years but worse.

If you're an independent, I'm not gonna tell you how to vote, but do realize that who we elect makes a HUGE difference on everyone's lives. If you don't know a lot about politics, at the very least get educated. You don't have to align yourself with a party or whatever, but get educated and then vote for who you think represents your best interests. For example, I have a lot of student loans and while I'm not sure they'll improve that much under a Democratic President, I know for a fact that they'll go to shit under a Republican President with the backing of Republican congress AND Republican Supreme Court.

 

[Inuhanyou]

I think its really unfortunate how easily people can be deceived. As long as the pundits repeat a narrative, people can be swayed any way the media wants them to be swayed. That's a real issue in a supposed democracy.

And its even worse when its people who don't pay attention.

I think you have to be really naive to think that Time Warner who already has donated over half a million to Hillary's campaign has no dog in the fight they want to see installed.

 

[Joe Shlabotnik]

I think its really unfortunate how easily people can be deceived. As long as the pundits repeat a narrative, people can be swayed any way the media wants them to be swayed. That's a real issue in a supposed democracy.

And its even worse when its people who don't pay attention.

I think you have to be really naive to think that Time Warner who already has donated over half a million to Hillary's campaign has no dog in the fight they want to see installed.

I tried guys

Just promise not to go with "I guess the public fell for the media narrative" if it doesn't go bernies way ok

 

[blackw0lf]

The debate actually lowered my opinion of Hillary pretty substantially I think. Honestly to win over someone like me even more she had one job: don't sound like a ducking weather vane. What did she do? Sounded like a weather vane.

Don't get me wrong, I'm fully prepared to vote for her versus any of the clown republicans, but I'm still disappointed.

Where did she sound like a weather vane? Please give examples

Here's the transcript if you need help remembering something specific http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-first-democratic-debate-full-rush-transcript/

 

[RibMan]

Buy it.


https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/16/clinton-sanders-tied/5uI3lKwEfib4uifxrOlkPI/story.html

and this:



and finally this:

Allaccordingtoplan.jpg

Excellent results.

 

[Macam]

Incidentally she also didn't beat Chafe and Webb. Pretty sure those two beat themselves up.

Chafe is the most milquetoast candidate in a long while; he could barely grow half a testicle and announce his candidacy openly on Real Time w/Bill Maher some months ago, and just kept blatantly hinting at it, as if anyone was even remotely excited by the prospect. I'd rather party with Gore and Carson taking shots of NyQuil.

Webb, I appreciate as a Senator because he's a legit legislator. I don't agree with him on many things, and he's always been a stiff military lifer, but he's thoughtful and does decent work in the Senate. He's effectively an old school, moderate Republican, but he's running a meaningless campaign that is way out of step with the Democratic base (and the Republican one). He's as far as he'll ever go politically.

O'Malley's passable, but a bit weak in making coherent arguments. Sanders is rock solid on the issues, and did great in debate, as did Hillary.

And I can't believe I'm even saying it, but CNN did a great job with it. I haven't seen a good, proper debate on that level in ages, and I watch these things.

 

[AnotherDayAnotherDollar]

I saw this guy, Lawrence Lessig (I think that's how you spell his name), on Bill Maher. I really liked what he had to say, why was he not in the debate? He might not have much of a chance, but I would have liked to see him up there. He should have had a chance to expose his ideas, much like Chafee, who even though bombed pretty bad, still has his heart in the right place in terms of anti-war and metrication of America.

 

[lednerg]

^^ Lessig didn't have enough support in the polls to qualify for the debate.

Obama lost his first debate with Romney. It was pretty much unanimous in the press and in polling. Then came "please proceed, governor" and it was like that first debate never happened. We've got five more of these between now and the Spring. O'Malley could totally knock our socks off in those for all we know.

 

[DeadPhoenix]

^^ Lessig didn't have enough support in the polls to qualify for the debate.

I've heard he was in one poll, and at the time had enough percentage to qualify for the debates at the time, but then was left out of future polls, making it hard for him to stay there. Do we have a list of polls that they used to decide who would qualify or not?

https://cdn2.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/ig...rus_asset/file/4169462/Who won the debate.png

Interesting thing about the NBC Poll... apparently only 24 percent of the people in it actually watch the debate.

15. Did you happen to watch the debate among the Democratic candidates for president that was held on Tuesday night, or not? 10.13-15.15
I watched the debate live 24
I did not watch the debate live, but followed coverage of it in the news 36
I did not watch the debate and haven’t really followed news coverage about it 38
No answer 2
(from their survey methodology page)

IDK that seems off to me. Or am I reading this wrong?

 

[pigeon]

Interesting thing about the NBC Poll... apparently only 24 percent of the people in it actually watch the debate.


IDK that seems off to me. Or am I reading this wrong?

No, I think that's probably accurate. But why does it seem off to you? The primary impact of the debate isn't necessarily directly on people who watch it -- it's also on people who discuss it with others who did watch it, or people who read about it in the newspapers, or watch cable news talking about it.

 

[DeadPhoenix]

No, I think that's probably accurate. But why does it seem off to you? The primary impact of the debate isn't necessarily directly on people who watch it -- it's also on people who discuss it with others who did watch it, or people who read about it in the newspapers, or watch cable news talking about it.

I think it would be better for people to come to that conclusion for themselves then based on what other people are telling them. If they think Hilary won because that what was posted on their website they saw the next morning, that doesn't really tell us who won the debate, just that people can parrot the answer of others. There are probably plenty of people who have talked about it in length with friends who did watch it, but the poll doesn't ask anything like that. And that's not even getting into the number of people who pick someone despite apparently knowing almost nothing about the debate at all.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

I think it would be better for people to come to that conclusion for themselves then based on what other people are telling them. If they think Hilary won because that what was posted on their website they saw the next morning, that doesn't really tell us who won the debate, just that people can parrot the answer of others. There are probably plenty of people who have talked about it in length with friends who did watch it, but the poll doesn't ask anything like that. And that's not even getting into the number of people who pick someone despite apparently knowing almost nothing about the debate at all.

I don't know what to tell you, that's just the way it is. By it, I mean democracy and US politics.

Perception is reality and politics just revolves around what pluralities and majorities believe. Not how or why they believe those things.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Interesting. We have our second debate poll, from GCS / IJreview. They have it as a Sanders victory, by 43.7% to Clinton's 28.7% (4% MoE) [tabs]. But this poll doesn't contradict the YouGOV one - they actually had an important difference. The YouGOV poll asked people who won the Democratic debate if they a) watched the debate in full, b) watched clips or highlights of the debate, or c) read or watched analysis of the debate. People who watched the debate in full were only just over a quarter of the sample. Meanwhile, GCS only polled those who reported watching the debate in full, and discounted those who only saw highlight clips or analysis. In other words, people who only saw clips or read analysis of the debate were *much* more likely to think Clinton won, whereas those who watched the debate in full thought Sanders won - this also explains at least some of the racial disparity, as black Americans reported themselves much more as being in groups b) or c) than they did a) [which as an aside is pretty sad, because it hints at how poorly America engages with its black community].

It also shows you just how much influence pundits have! You write the headlines, you write people's perceptions.

 

[SamVimes]

Interesting. We have our second debate poll, from GCS / IJreview. They have it as a Sanders victory, by 43.7% to Clinton's 28.7% (4% MoE) [tabs]. But this poll doesn't contradict the YouGOV one - they actually had an important difference. The YouGOV poll asked people who won the Democratic debate if they a) watched the debate in full, b) watched clips or highlights of the debate, or c) read or watched analysis of the debate. People who watched the debate in full were only just over a quarter of the sample. Meanwhile, GCS only polled those who reported watching the debate in full, and discounted those who only saw highlight clips or analysis. In other words, people who only saw clips or read analysis of the debate were *much* more likely to think Clinton won, whereas those who watched the debate in full thought Sanders won - this also explains at least some of the racial disparity, as black Americans reported themselves much more as being in groups b) or c) than they did a) [which as an aside is pretty sad, because it hints at how poorly America engages with its black community].

It also shows you just how much influence pundits have! You write the headlines, you write people's perceptions.

This also explains the focus groups in favor of Sanders. While i don't believe major media has as a bias in favor of Clinton the pundits might have a different set of priorities compared to the average american. Their opinions color the perception of people that didn't watch the debate who then go on to talk about who won what.

 

[JustenP88]

Interesting. We have our second debate poll, from GCS / IJreview. They have it as a Sanders victory, by 43.7% to Clinton's 28.7% (4% MoE) [tabs]. But this poll doesn't contradict the YouGOV one - they actually had an important difference. The YouGOV poll asked people who won the Democratic debate if they a) watched the debate in full, b) watched clips or highlights of the debate, or c) read or watched analysis of the debate. People who watched the debate in full were only just over a quarter of the sample. Meanwhile, GCS only polled those who reported watching the debate in full, and discounted those who only saw highlight clips or analysis. In other words, people who only saw clips or read analysis of the debate were *much* more likely to think Clinton won, whereas those who watched the debate in full thought Sanders won - this also explains at least some of the racial disparity, as black Americans reported themselves much more as being in groups b) or c) than they did a) [which as an aside is pretty sad, because it hints at how poorly America engages with its black community].

It also shows you just how much influence pundits have! You write the headlines, you write people's perceptions.

538's take on GCS' accuracy during the 2012 election: http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...best-and-worst-in-the-2012-presidential-race/

 

[shinra-bansho]

It's technically the fourth or fifth post-debate poll, although the Suffolk poll was just for NH. (I don't know how seriously one is supposed to take OANN despite using an external pollster in Gravis.)

The sample seems disproportionately male? Although I suppose a disproportionate number of men may have been watching the debate.

EDIT: Also, this poll doesn't indicate respondents watched the debate in full, although the subsample answered yes to question 1 (so they at least watched the debate in some form).

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I mean, it's kind of irrelevant at this point. The aim of the debates for the candidates is to get a boost to your poll numbers. Sanders did that, but Clinton got an even bigger bounce, so by the most important sense she 'won', even if people who actually watched the debate in full prefered Sanders. However, it does show that Sanders is going to have to train for future debates in very different ways - he does need to appeal to the pundits in order to get the buzz that brings votes. I'm just worried about how well he can do that as a career-long anti-establishment figure.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

It's technically the fourth or fifth post-debate poll, although the Suffolk poll was just for NH.

The sample seems disproportionately male? Although I suppose a disproportionate number of men may have been watching the debate.

One of the others was for Idaho only; this is the third, you're right I missed the NBC one (used the same methodology as YouGOV with more or less the same conclusion).

And sadly, you are very correct about your supposition. The average debate watcher is much more likely to be white, male, and wealthy than the American norm.

 

[Condom]

If it's so clear why do Democratic voters disagree? Are you calling them ignorant?

Lol @ thinking voters are not ignorant. That's the reason why democracy doesn't work.

 

[Glorified G]

Where did she sound like a weather vane? Please give examples

Here's the transcript if you need help remembering something specific http://www.cbsnews.com/news/the-first-democratic-debate-full-rush-transcript/

Clinton's answer on Wall Street

You know, I -- I respect the passion an intensity. I represented Wall Street, as a senator from New York, and I went to Wall Street in December of 2007 -- before the big crash that we had -- and I basically said, "cut it out! Quit foreclosing on homes! Quit engaging in these kinds of speculative behaviors."

Clinton's answer on being different than President Obama, and had to be questioned again for an actual legitimate answer (which btw, wasn't in the transcript you posted for some reason)

COOPER: “Secretary Clinton, how would you not be a third term of President Obama?”

CLINTON: Well, I think that’s pretty obvious. I think being the first woman president would be quite a change from the presidents we’ve had up until this point, including President Obama.

COOPER: Is there a policy difference?

I don't know what a 'weather vane' is exactly but she definitely lacked substance in some of her answers. She's the front runner so it is expected for her to play it safe, but these quotes definitely jumped out when watching the debate.

 

[Jzero]

Every link i see keeps getting taken down. Anyone have a link to the whole thing in non 360p?

Edit: Nevermind, got it.

 

[Sagroth]

I know the big issue at hand is who won the debates according to polls, etc, but I have another question to ask:

Can anyone elaborate for me the response to this debate and how(or if) the public is reacting to it differently? Because in my circles(and I typically have rather liberal friends, being one myself), the Republican debates came off as a bit of a circus, memes, and all, whereas the Democrat debate seems to be regarded as more substantial and somehow reaffirming.

So I guess my other question is: did any of the debates thus far help their respective sides on the presidential(not primary) elections next year?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I know the big issue at hand is who won the debates according to polls, etc, but I have another question to ask:

Can anyone elaborate for me the response to this debate and how(or if) the public is reacting to it differently? Because in my circles(and I typically have rather liberal friends, being one myself), the Republican debates came off as a bit of a circus, memes, and all, whereas the Democrat debate seems to be regarded as more substantial and somehow reaffirming.

So I guess my other question is: did any of the debates thus far help their respective sides on the presidential(not primary) elections next year?

It's difficult to tell because Presidential polls this far out are close to meaningless. On average, opinions of the Democratic candidates improved amongst Republicans more than they decreased (substantially in Sanders' case, moderately in Clinton's), so it's probable but not certain that they had an overall good effect.

 

[blackw0lf]

Clinton's answer on Wall Street


.

That was only a small snippet, and more had to do with showing that in 2007 she was trying to pressure wall street. However let's look at her full explanation

CLINTON: Well, my plan is more comprehensive. And frankly, it's tougher because of course we have to deal with the problem that the banks are still too big to fail. We can never let the American taxpayer and middle class families ever have to bail out the kind of speculative behavior that we saw.

But we also have to worry about some of the other players -- AIG, a big insurance company; Lehman Brothers, an investment bank. There's this whole area called "shadow banking." That's where the experts tell me the next potential problem could come from.

CLINTON: So I'm with both Senator Sanders and Governor O'Malley in putting a lot of attention onto the banks. And the plan that I have put forward would actually empower regulators to break up big banks if we thought they posed a risk. But I want to make sure we're going to cover everybody, not what caused the problem last time, but what could cause it next time.,..

You know, I -- I respect the passion an intensity. I represented Wall Street, as a senator from New York, and I went to Wall Street in December of 2007 -- before the big crash that we had -- and I basically said, "cut it out! Quit foreclosing on homes! Quit engaging in these kinds of speculative behaviors."

I took on the Bush administration for the same thing. So I have thought deeply and long about what we're going to do to do exactly what I think both the senator and the governor want, which is to rein in and stop this risk.

And my plan would have the potential of actually sending the executives to jail. Nobody went to jail after $100 billion in fines were paid...

So she talked about:

Going after shadow banking, which Sanders still doesn't address, and Elizabeth Warren says is crucial to stop the next crisis
Strengthening regulator authority so they can break up big banks if necessary
Rewriting current rules so that it allows more in the financial industry to be criminalized

How is that not substantive?

 

[teruterubozu]

So I guess my other question is: did any of the debates thus far help their respective sides on the presidential(not primary) elections next year?

Statisticians have studied whether debates really affect voters - i.e. whether they ultimately sway people - but results show that debates rarely matter in the end. They are not the "game changers" political pundits like to believe. They're fun to watch and argue about though.

 

[Manmademan]

Statisticians have studied whether debates really affect voters - i.e. whether they ultimately sway people - but results show that debates rarely matter in the end. They are not the "game changers" political pundits like to believe. They're fun to watch and argue about though.

Rick Perry wishes that were true

 

[blackw0lf]

Statisticians have studied whether debates really affect voters - i.e. whether they ultimately sway people - but results show that debates rarely matter in the end. They are not the "game changers" political pundits like to believe. They're fun to watch and argue about though.

General debates don't. Primary debates certainly do though

 

[teruterubozu]

Rick Perry wishes that were true

Well he was asking whether it affected people's thinking for the presidential elections. Idiots going bust in the primaries is a different story.

General debates don't. Primary debates certainly do though

Yup. Basically, people don't change their political alignments because of a debate.

 

[Clefargle]

Lol @ thinking voters are not ignorant. That's the reason why democracy doesn't work.

That's right, democracy never works. It's a futile exercise where the dummies control everything./s Do you even hear yourself? Democracy doesn't always work, but it does sometimes. And if it doesn't, we can vote a bad candidate out. That's the point.

 

[CDX]

Buy it.


https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/10/16/clinton-sanders-tied/5uI3lKwEfib4uifxrOlkPI/story.html

and this:



and finally this:

add another one

http://opinionsavvy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Dem-National-10.14.15.pdf

Voting preference:
Clinton: 47.8%
Sanders: 25.2%
Biden: 12.0%

African-American breakdown for the above:
Clinton: 69.0%
Sanders: 3.9%
Biden: 15.3%



Winner of the debate:
Clinton: 55.2%
Sanders: 31.7%

African-American breakdown for the above:
Clinton: 76.2%
Sanders: 11.9%

Age 18-29 breakdown for the above:
Clinton: 13.8%
Sanders: 81.9%

 

[Condom]

That's right, democracy never works. It's a futile exercise where the dummies control everything./s Do you even hear yourself? Democracy doesn't always work, but it does sometimes. And if it doesn't, we can vote a bad candidate out. That's the point.

Democracy is more than only voting, it has also to do with research, activism and participation in society. The reason Clinton is more 'electable' than Sanders is precisely because people are ignorant and don't know what democracy really means.

 

[GnawtyDog]

Democracy is more than only voting, it has also to do with research, activism and participation in society. The reason Clinton is more 'electable' than Sanders is precisely because people are ignorant and don't know what democracy really means.

How can people seriously say this in a country such as the United States? Dem voters don't have an "overwhelming" majority over GOP voters on the popular vote side, not to mention far left voters are only but a subset of the DEM voting bloc. Ever been to a college campus with libertarian econ professors? You'll be surprised how much they can sway opinions over the course of 2 years, out of 4............ from hip and cool, iPad loving libs to centrist to far right anarchist by the end of their college degree. It's remarkable - and they'll vote GOP.

Point being, research, education... that's all relative to exposure (and the kind of exposure, among many competing) and is only but a small part of what makes voters chose a candidate over the other. Strong held beliefs, electability (personality etcs) play a much, much bigger role.

The U.S is not by any stretch of the imagination as liberal as Europe. Just that simple.

The reason she's more electable than Bernie is that she appeals to more people than Bernie - or has the potential to. That's what candidates labeled as "moderates" tend to be.

 

[Wall]

add another one

http://opinionsavvy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Dem-National-10.14.15.pdf

Voting preference:
Clinton: 47.8%
Sanders: 25.2%
Biden: 12.0%

African-American breakdown for the above:
Clinton: 69.0%
Sanders: 3.9%
Biden: 15.3%



Winner of the debate:
Clinton: 55.2%
Sanders: 31.7%

African-American breakdown for the above:
Clinton: 76.2%
Sanders: 11.9%

Age 18-29 breakdown for the above:
Clinton: 13.8%%
Sanders: 81.9%

The age breakdown is interesting. People in the 18-29 demographic face dramatically different economic circumstances than those in older cohorts. They also came of age in a drastically different media and cultural environment than those older than them. Whether Sanders wins or loses the primary, I will continue to maintain that those numbers are important for the future direction of this country and the Democratic party.

 

[pigeon]

The age breakdown is interesting. People in the 18-29 demographic face dramatically different economic circumstances than those in older cohorts. They also came of age in a drastically different media and cultural environment than those older than them. Whether Sanders wins or loses the primary, I will continue to maintain that those numbers are important for the future direction of this country and the Democratic party.

I totally agree -- and that's why it's so important for Sanders to run and pull the country to the left, by exposing socialist ideas and by trying to energize younger voters.

 

[Cipherr]

add another one

http://opinionsavvy.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Dem-National-10.14.15.pdf

Voting preference:
Clinton: 47.8%
Sanders: 25.2%
Biden: 12.0%

African-American breakdown for the above:
Clinton: 69.0%
Sanders: 3.9%
Biden: 15.3%



Winner of the debate:
Clinton: 55.2%
Sanders: 31.7%

African-American breakdown for the above:
Clinton: 76.2%
Sanders: 11.9%

Age 18-29 breakdown for the above:
Clinton: 13.8%
Sanders: 81.9%

Holy crap at the demographics. He has next to NO AA support at all, and Hillary just towers over him in that area.