Did The Democratic Debate Change The Odds?
Nate Silver's Slack Chat on 538:
natesilver: I think she was somewhat undervalued before the debate. The fundamental reason being that, if Clinton doesn’t win the Democratic nomination, someone else has to, and it’s not quite clear who that person might be. I’m not convinced that Tuesday night changed much about the reality of the race, however. Clinton was winning before. She’s still winning.
natesilver: Micah, I’m not sure if the “narrative is now right but for the wrong reasons” so much as that it was wronger before and had to overcorrect to get back on course. A lot of the political science view of debates is that they bring the race more in line with “fundamentals,” which favor Clinton.
natesilver: Farai makes an important point, which is that the Clinton campaign has been reasonably good about not overreacting to the media narrative, at least as far as I can tell. They’re not trying to “win the morning”, so to speak, which is a trap a lot of campaigns fall into.
natesilver: Yeah, the debate did real damage to another bullshit meme, which is linking the Democratic and Republican races together under the same narrative umbrella. The Democrats are quite … arrayed right now. The Republicans aren’t.
As always,Nates chat group makes some very interesting points:
http://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/did-the-democratic-debate-change-the-odds/