NBC News/SurveyMonkey poll on who "won" the debate

[brooklynite]

Clinton 56%
Sanders 33%
Martin O'Malley 1%
Lincoln Chafee 1%

I'm willing to accept any of the following responses:

1. Online polls are incredibly inconsistent, so we should ignore them

2. Online polls are all meaningless, so we should ignore them

3. This is clearly an EVIL CONSPIRACY by corporate media to distract attention from the "real" online polls

[Android3.14]

1. "willing to accept"

&annotation_id=cf7714c5-7853-4864-b7a7-1e3caa692fde&feature=cards&src_vid=kF810x88YS0

[Perogie]

5. We concede she won one poll as long as you concede Bernie won the rest.

[Bubzer]

74. This poll and the online Bernie supporting polls used the same methodology.

NBC-SurveyMonkey methodology:

Because the sample is based on those who self-selected for participation rather than a probability sample, no estimates of sampling error can be calculated. All surveys may be subject to multiple sources of error, including, but not limited to sampling error, coverage error, and measurement error. Polls conducted in one day may include additional error due to the limited time period that panelists have to respond to and complete the survey.

Meaning Hillary supporters cannot accept this poll and reject the polls supporting Bernie... at least not with any level of reasonability.

[moobu2]

2. How about

Online polls are incredibly inconsistent unless they show Bernie Sanders ahead?

[riversedge]

4. Chuckle.

[daleanime]

56. Or incredibly accurate only when.....

Hillary wins?

[Bubzer]

63. There's no shortage of Hillary supporters who say the same when a poll favors her.

[Vinca]

3. So how do you account for all those other polls and focus groups?

Was it all a hallucination?

[workinclasszero]

41. Not to mention a group can be manipulated by republicans like Frank Luntz for instance

to benefit his stinking party.


Frank I. Luntz (born February 23, 1962) is an American political consultant,[2] pollster, and "public opinion guru"[3] best known for developing talking points and other messaging for various Republican causes. His work has included assistance with messaging for Newt Gingrich's Contract with America, promotion of the terms death tax instead of estate tax and climate change instead of global warming, and public relations support for pro-Israel policies in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Luntz's most recent work has been with the Fox News Channel as a frequent commentator and analyst, as well as running focus groups during and after presidential debates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Luntz

[Bubzer]

66. Would you be willing to agree that the pundits claiming hillary won lack credibility as well?

[Bubzer]

78. Fair enough!

[72DejaVu]

77. Are they all the same?

Do you contend that ALL pundits are, by nature, lying puppets of some nefarious corporate overlords?

[Bubzer]

79. No, they're not all the same.. but lets keep some context here.

This is about the debate, not a question of the integrity of pundits... which, frankly, should always be questioned.

I contend that, if weight is going to be given to a very small group of people (the pundits) who're weighing in on this debate, equal weight should also be given to those who voted on the online polls.

We already know without a shadow of a doubt that most pundits serve the ideologies to which they're attached. We've all seen tons of examples of that, and new ones happen everyday. In example;

http://www.democraticunderground.com/1017301162

[riversedge]

13. ...

[workinclasszero]

44. HAHAHA!

GO HILLARY!!

[Fred Sanders]

17. "Hallucination" is the probably the best explanation I have heard yet for the embrace of non-science

Note to OP writer...see comment 7...that is on your acceptable
response list!

[workinclasszero]

47. Someone should study the mass hysteria that has broken out here

since the last debate when all of America failed to swoon at the feet of Bernie as all of his followers predicted would surely happen.

They have thrown science right out the window and many progressives under the bus. Its kinda fascinating.

[Fred Sanders]

60. Bernie, in my opinion as Co-Ghost Campaign Manager, I would announce a young VP pick now.....

Who are the candidates?

Quid pro quo for the "fuck the emails" shout out!

And a word or two to the folks out there to take an introductory course in statistics, high school or college level, or talk to someone in the dorm majoring in that area.

[Bubzer]

68. We all know (or should know) statistics are easily and frequently malleable.

At the same time, ignoring a burgeoning trend without being able to reasonably explain why it should be disregarded, is sticking one's head in the sand, and pretending there is no sky.

[brush]

37. Both Hillary and Bernie won

Bernie got the national spotlight with his strong, strong performance and Hillary's equally strong performance showed that she's an exceptional candidate, especially well versed on foreign policy and not the wounded-by-the-email-scandal ogre that many Sanders supporters have made her out to be.

The Democratic Party won also by finally showcasing our great candidates discussing actual serious issues instead of name calling and mud slinging the other candidates like was done in the repug debates.

[KingCharlemagne]

67. Good response. Each did what she or he set out to

Accomplish.

[brush]

69. Yes!

And the debate was collegial, except for Webb whining about equal time.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

6. That is the third scientific poll to show Hillary winning the debate...

That is the third scientific poll to show Hillary winning the debate.., Gravis, YouGov, and Survey Monkey show Hillary winning the debate by roughly equal margins. Granted, YouGov and Survey Monkey are non traditional random samples as they draw their respondents from the internet but they do employ controls to ensure that all the demographic groups are equally represented.

The irony is that some of the pundits were beginning to second guess the winner because of Bernie's strong showing among focus groups and simple online polls where anyone can participate and there is no attempt to see who is participating and then to match the participation to demographics. The pundits should have remained resolute. Hillary won the debate and that is what the objective evidence indicates,

[workinclasszero]

29. Let's say that again, and again, and again! Scientific poll not BS internet clickbait poll!

That is the third scientific poll to show Hillary winning the debate.., Gravis, YouGov, and Survey Monkey show Hillary winning the debate by roughly equal margins.

Thank you sir and that PROVES that Hillary was the big winner of the debates!

[thesquanderer]

59. There are also (at least) two comparably scientific polls that say Bernie won

See...

http://www.ijreview.com/2015/10/445621-ignore-the-media-pundits-bernie-sanders-won-the-first-democratic-debate/

and

http://mic.com/articles/126749/viewers-of-the-first-democratic-debate-thought-bernie-sanders-was-the-clear-winner

both done by Google Consumer Surveys, though for different clients, with presumably some difference in methodology (even wording of the questions can make a difference).

None of these (on either "side&quot are from the typical well-known (and presumably more rigorously controlled) sources, we're still waiting for that.

Interesting, though, that (as pointed out elsewhere) most people in the Survey Monkey poll hadn't actually seen the debate... and interesting to think about how much that matters. If indeed people who did NOT watch the debate think HRC won (and most of the population did not see the debate), well, perception is reality. But even then, how significant is it? Let's say that someone read numerous reports that said HRC won and/or saw a greater number of clips that favored her. So on a poll that asks who they think won, they would say Hillary. But, especially if they didn't see the debate themselves, does the mere perception of her as the winner have any bearing at all on whether they would be more likely to vote for her? Because in the end, that's what most of us are really concerned about when we're talking about who won a debate... has the needle moved on who people are likely to vote for.

[Skwmom]

7. How to manipulate poll results. It's not brain surgery.

The Corporate Media online and on tv said Clinton won, Clinton won, Clinton won, Clinton won,Clinton won,Clinton won,Clinton won,Clinton won,Clinton won,Clinton won,Clinton won,Clinton won,Clinton won,Clinton won,Clinton won !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

A poll of people who watched OR followed debate coverage - Debate coverage brought to you by CORPORATE media - Clinton won!

Plus even if you watched the debate, if you where repeatedly told Clinton won - it could influence a voter to think Clinton won (even if they were unsure or first thought someone else did).

I been watching for years the corporate media repeating a theme and then polling on said theme and saying the American public agrees! No duh! I think I even posted about this propaganda tool years ago.

"Just 3% of Democrats who watched or followed coverage of the debate said she did worst, giving her a net performance score of +53. "

http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/nbc-online-poll-clinton-wins-debate-reenergizes-core-backers-n445546

[Dawgs]

40. ********************THIS********************

[workinclasszero]

50. Science my friend

That is the third scientific poll to show Hillary winning the debate.., Gravis, YouGov, and Survey Monkey show Hillary winning the debate by roughly equal margins.

Do you think the world is flat? Do you think the whole universe revolves around the earth? Do you think Bernie won the debate?

Theses are question you should ask yourself!

[Skwmom]

81. You call that science? Really? I think you need to brush up on

scientific principles.

The principles of validity and reliability are fundamental cornerstones of the scientific method.

[workinclasszero]

84. Ok so you believe in magic

[Jan Bunson]

8. 75% of respondents DID NOT watch debate

75% of the respondents did not watch the debate...

they based their decision on the COVERAGE of the debate.

http://www.scribd.com/doc/285352517/NBC-SurveyMonkey-methodology

These results show important it is to have a compliant media.

[moobu2]

10. 100% of the people in my house thought Hillary Clinton won.

[DCBob]

11. A big part of winning a debate is convincing the media and pundits you won the debate.

Because any campaign knows most people dont watch the debates but most do read the reports about it later.

Hillary convinced most everyone, except the Bernie faithful, that she won.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

12. Good morning, Bob

This is the opposite of what happened after the first Gore-Bush debate. In the first Gore-Bush debate Al Gore handed Bush* his ass and that was the immediate reaction of the pundits and the viewing public as expressed in the snap polls taken immediately after it. It wasn't until the spinners spun Gore's sighs and turned him into a caricature did the public's view of who won the debate change. In this case there is no spinning, Hillary was the clear and convincing winner, there was nothing in her performance to be spun, and that is what all the scientific polling indicates.

[DCBob]

14. Morning.. I vaguely remember that debate but do recall something like that.

I know the media enjoyed bashing Gore.

Yes, this situation is different.. no one can rationally spin that Hillary lost this debate.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

15. Bob, do you know what is also ironic ?

If you look at the non scientific polls floating around the internet and on this board there is a poll taken before the debate and only eight percent of the people who took the poll predicted Hillary would win as if the graduate of Yale Law School , the former First Lady of Arkansas and the United States, the two term senator from New York, and the Former Secretary of State was some ditz.

Online popularity polls with no controls and focus groups are straight up cacka.

If you want I will elaborate on why most focus groups are cacka.

[Jan Bunson]

18. On-line polls are popularity contests

They are not relevant in terms of winning the nomination, because they don't distinguish between the respondents. It hardly matters to the race who 13 year old Becky or GOP Voter Bill thought won the debate.

It does speak to the overall popularity of the candidate, and their potential ability to cross party lines in the general election.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

25. I will take a landline/cell phone random survey with the proper controls over any other method...

What speaks to any candidate's ability to cross party lines in the general election and win it is a random survey with the proper controls.

Focus groups are cacka or guano because they are non-random, compromised by the observer effect, and highly susceptible to group think.

I will take a landline/cell phone random survey with the proper controls over any other method of social science surveys.

[Fred Sanders]

20. You would think it would be easy to explain science on a liberal website that has a lot of

scientific OP's and reader posted science news.

[DCBob]

22. Interesting but not surprising.

[Jan Bunson]

16. I'd say that the media convinced most everybody

and I would say that the media had already decided on the post-debate narrative, and that is why they neglected to even report on the focus groups and their own on-line polling.

It does appear to be a Clinton victory in the sense that the post-debate coverage was all her.

The Sanders camp will have to adjust to this for the next debate.

[Fred Sanders]

21. Easy to do. Accept science! "Sanders camp will have to....." - embrace science!?

Embrace gun control, fully?

Embrace putting gun control to public ballots?

Embrace the Brady bill for another attempt at passage into law?

[Jan Bunson]

26. I don't follow

If the people who were chosen as respondents to the poll did not actually watch the debate

and if those people made their choice about who won the debate based on post-debate coverage

were those people making an informed choice about the debate

or were they giving their reaction to the coverage of the debate?

Ironically, I have observed a great deal of Conspiracy Theory on the part of the Clinton people here
suggesting that their was some sort of organized effort to spam the on-line polling
and while it is certainly possible that something like that was done
there has been no evidence produced to support the allegation
instead just some "it could have happened, therefor it did happen" explanation.

So tell me about science.

[Fred Sanders]

28. How can you say there is a "Conspiracy Theory", and also say "it may be true"? Logic, man, logic!

You said:

"Ironically, I have observed a great deal of a Conspiracy Theory on the part of the Clinton people here
suggesting that their was some sort of organized effort to spam the on-line polling
and while it is certainly possible that something like that was done
there has been no evidence produced to support the allegation
instead just some "it could have happened, therefor it did happen" explanation."

[Jan Bunson]

38. So much for "Welcome to DU"...

anyway

Some people here think that because Sanders won so thoroughly in the post-debate polling
that there was some sort of effort to manipulate the polls

am I okay so far?

I haven't found any evidence that there was such an effort.
Do you have any?

But some people insist that the post debate polling is meaningless
ON THE BASIS that it could have been manipulated

is that alright?

The people who think the results were manipulated by some coordinated effort have yet to produce evidence of coordination.

It should be easy to produce. An email or something or a Facebook post...anything PRE-DEBATE that suggests for people to spam on-line polls.

In the absence of such necessary evidence, it is easy to conclude that there was no coordinated effort to rig the post-debate polling.

Anyone who clings to the idea that "it must have happened" is engaging in Conspiracy Theory.

Now it is still possible that there was a vast independent UNcoordinated effort to spam the polls, but it would rank as a major coincidence in my book.

And so we are left in having to SCIENTIFICALLY explain why the post-debate online polling was so one- sided.

So while you are explaining away something
don't forget to explain why you have a mountain of it to explain away.

[Fred Sanders]

45. Jumped right into GD: Primaries? Welcome to the shark tank rules, new minnow!*

*sarcasm - please do not hide!

[TM99]

52. Welcome to DU.

When 'they' say science - they mean only statistics, math, and the 'hard sciences'.

Ironically enough, the soft sciences of sociology and psychology are the driving forces behind propaganda, wait, I mean marketing and advertising.

If you mention those, these extremists will just scream conspiracy theory, science (always a little louder!), and well Sanders supporters did it too, so why can't we.

Dive right in and have some fun!

[StevieM]

86. Welcome to DU from a Hillary supporter.

The reason why I reject on-line polls is that they don't involve scientific sampling methods. So they don't provide a snapshot of the broader public.

That doesn't mean that Bernie's tremendous on-line presence is unimportant. The passion of his fan base has helped him a lot, and will no doubt continue to help him. It may prove pivotal to the campaign.

It just doesn't properly reflect the sentiments of the broader American public. And I absolutely would say the same thing if those polls showed Clinton on top.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

42. I don't believe the Sanders supporters deliberately spammed the polls...

I do believe you did have two things in play that heavily slanted the non scientific online polls in the Vermont senator's favor. His supporters are infinitely more likely to participate in online polls and a lot of Republicans voted that Hillary lost the debate to make her look bad.

[Fred Sanders]

58. Scientific polls would surely show the on-line Sandernista clickers were mostly split between

hipsters and LW college students.

If Sanders can some how awake the college students again as in the '60's, street protests versus on-line petition "protest".....then no one will need the hipsters, so I am all for that.

Sanders should announce a young VP pick soon.

[DCBob]

24. The media reports only impacted the people who didn't watch it.

Those who actually watched it and didnt have a massive bias should have been easily convinced Hillary won the debate.

[Skwmom]

82. The coporate media and pundits immediately went to bat for Clinton. No convincing was required. n/t

[nxylas]

57. Meanwhile....

[DemocratSinceBirth]

88. Hmmm/nt

[stonecutter357]

19. K&R!

[Ed Suspicious]

23. Outlier.

[workinclasszero]

53. See post 6

That is the third scientific poll to show Hillary winning the debate.., Gravis, YouGov, and Survey Monkey show Hillary winning the debate by roughly equal margins. Granted, YouGov and Survey Monkey are non traditional random samples as they draw their respondents from the internet but they do employ controls to ensure that all the demographic groups are equally represented.


3 outliers? Really?

[Bubzer]

71. Sorry to burst your bubble, but this isn't a scientific poll.

NBC-SurveyMonkey methodology

Because the sample is based on those who self-selected for participation rather than a probability sample, no estimates of sampling error can be calculated. All surveys may be subject to multiple sources of error, including, but not limited to sampling error, coverage error, and measurement error. Polls conducted in one day may include additional error due to the limited time period that panelists have to respond to and complete the survey.

Translation; If you think this poll is legitimate, you must accept the polls that favor Bernie since they use the same self-selected participation method.

[CoffeeCat]

27. Who gives a shit?

I think at this point, the MSM has made the debate a joke. By their galvanizing around Clinton and shamelessly declaring her the winner--they've tainted all of the polls.

The media did their job for Hillary--spin like hell and convince the American public that Hillary won the debate. So, now as these post-debate polls are taken, many Americans say that YES, she won.

But seriously...So what if most people believe that Hillary "won" a debate. Does that translate into votes? I think she did a fantastic job in the debate, but who in the hell cares? She's still a warmonger. She's still owned by the corporations. So, many people think she won a debate. Does it really matter?

And furthermore, the corporate media's blatant marketing of Hillary's "win" has made a mockery of the debate process and the post-debate analysis. It's a joke now.

Time Warner is one of her biggest campaign contributors and CNN certainly took care of their investment by acting as Hillary's PR arm. This whole thing is such a laughing stock.

At this point, who really gives a shit. Sanders supporters think that Bernie won and they can point to countless polls in which he beat her by as much as 50 points. Clinton supporters tout the MSM articles--and now these polls that have the media bias baked into them.

Something bigger than both campaigns is happening in America. The American people are so fed up with corruption, lies, DC-bullshit and the rest of the kabuki theater. That's what they care about, now who is better at arguing or one-upping their opponent. We don't want to vote for a great performer. We want a President who can bust up their sick stranglehold that corrupt politicians, warmongers and corporate kow towers--have on our government. We want the bullshit to end. The corporations run our government. Our politicians no longer serve us. They serve their corporate masters. "We The People" be damned.

I think debates have become less and less important. They're part of the bullshit, staged theater. With the media in the tank for Hillary and providing her with unlimited spin--who the hell believes in this crap anymore?

If we wanted to elect a great debater--Romney would be President. He clearly kicked Obama's ass in most of the debates, especially the first two. When Romney trounced Obama, how many Obama fans converted to Romney. NONE.

Who cares who takes the debate trophy home? Does it really mean anything anymore? If people think you won a debate, does that translate into votes? I highly doubt it, especially when our system has proved to be so blatantly corrupt--and another glaring example of corporations infiltrating our government and screwing with our system.

[Fred Sanders]

31. Obama whipped Romney in all but half of one debate ..if you did not conclude that then....whatever.

There actually are real debates held throughout the world in real colleges and high schools and are keenly contested and of high prestige, and do folks know how those debates are judged and who gets to "hoist the trophy"? As in literally hoist the trophy?

Debate judges....the issues being debated are almost irrelevant, the judging is on "who was most persuasive and likely to have net changed in their direction a neutral audience ...so let me ask...are we judging who is the better debater - or who won the issues, because they are not the same?

As a debater Romney won the first.

Obama won the second as the debater and on everything related to the issues in both debates.

[CoffeeCat]

35. You're forgetting, big time...

Romney wiped the floor with Obama, especially the first debate. Democrats were crestfallen with his poor performance.

Obama didn't fight back. Romney was clearly the winner. That's not a partisan statement. I can't stand Romney. I was in the tank for Obama. However, that first debate was a disaster for Obama. Obama was humbled by that first debate and he even admitted that mistakes were made.

The final debates were killer for Obama. He schooled Romney.

[stevenleser]

51. We're not forgetting. Romney won the first debate but lost the rest. The polls showed it. nt

[brooklynite]

32. I see---the average voter is too STUPID to see through the plot?

The news outlets gave analysis, as they have for decades but only YOU were able to see their clear intent?

[CoffeeCat]

43. The news outlets wrote articles...

News outlets wrote articles. They supposed to engage in journalism.

You call this CNN subheadline, "Hillary's Rivals Compete to Lose" a healthy analysis? That's not even remotely close to journalism. Don't forget, CNN is one of her top campaign contributors!

If she had slaughtered Sanders, those headlines would make sense. She did not.

If the American people understood that Clinton slaughtered Sanders, it would make sense. They overwhelmingly agreed that Sanders won.

The chasm is the problem. The truth is that both performed well in the debate, with Clinton's supporters believing that she won and Sanders supporters believing that he won. That's the reality.

The problem--is that the media had to spin on steroids in the other direction--and their blatant kow towing to her camp is so obvious now, that it is beyond ridiculous.

[brooklynite]

64. Newspapers have been analyzing the news since they invented newspapers...

...and TV news have been analyzing and pontificating since the cable news era started decades ago.

And as for saying "the American people" overwhelmingly agreed that Sanders won, I'd call that analysis, wouldn't you?

FWIW - I've NEVER said that Clinton won; my issue has always been people who've said that Sanders "won" based on flimsy data points. I think Sanders and Clinton both did well, but Clinton did slightly better because she didn't get tripped up on the email issue the way Sanders did on the guns issue (reminder, the biggest hit he took came from O'Malley), AND because she had the most to lose if she didn't do well. But that is solely my opinion.

[DCBob]

34. MSM conspiring to help Hillary??

You sound like someone on RW loon radio.

[yodermon]

61. against a socialist? the corporate media? um yah.

[OilemFirchen]

70. Bernie's not a Socialist!

So stop saying that.

[workinclasszero]

36. So now that all the scientific polls are coming out that prove Hillary won

Last edited Fri Oct 16, 2015, 10:15 AM - Edit history (1)

"Who gives a shit?" The debates mean nothing, is that it?

All rightie then.

[CoffeeCat]

46. It's become obvious that our process...

...has become completely tainted by corporate money and media outlets like CNN--who contribute to candidates and then take care of their investments with sparkly headlines.

This degrades our processes. Makes them almost meaningless.

[OilemFirchen]

72. That's why we should have more!

[workinclasszero]

73. Exactly!

[lunamagica]

80. "I think debates have become less and less importat"

Then why the outcry for more debates?

[Renew Deal]

30. I think the arguments about who won, online polls, etc have gotten silly

[Gothmog]

33. This polling just confirms what everyone knew

HRC won Tuesday's debate

[Fred Sanders]

39. Romney WAS the better formal debater in debate one...everyone admitted it...and it mattered

a point or two in the polls....which was almost enough....unlike the second debate....so debates nationally televised by the controlled American media having to give direct access to THEIR controlled public figures - not what they want to do much - does matter.....a lot, and a lot more the bigger the uncontrolled audience allowed unfiltered access to the politicians.

[CoffeeCat]

49. Some think she won the debate

So, ok, Hillary Clinton is a fantastic, poised debater.

She's still a warmonger and she's still owned by the corporation and swimming in Superpac funds. She's still the wrong person to be President.

The debate is the shiny object of the day, I guess.

[workinclasszero]

62. Yes everyboby knew

especially the Bernie followers which explains the sudden outbreak of anti-science hysteria and magical thinking around here since Tuesday.

[Honeylies]

54. The majority of people in this poll didn't even watch the debate

It was based on what they heard or assumed. So yeah, I'm sure they heard she won from CNN and the rest of MSM.

[LiberalArkie]

55. I have a question. If the polls are all wrong, I accept that. What about counting the

number of contributors a candidate has? I have no idea of how many HRC or the others have. But if individuals contribute to a candidate it seems to me to be a certain level of support.

[d_legendary1]

87. Now a days money is speech

So Sanders having some cash from average joes vs. Hillary's campaign dinners with the wealthy means that America likes HRC a lot more than Sanders. Therefore we peons need to know our place and vote for HRC: The best candidate money can buy!

[floriduck]

65. Had you shared the survey link with us,

it would also show a 6 point drop for HRC and a 6 point bump for Bernie since August. The September numbers were skewed since Biden's numbers fluctuated for the 3month time frame. All in all, not much change resulting post-debate.

[Bucky]

75. intriguingly close to the national polling numbers... which is probably a coincidence

[zappaman]

83. I vote #3!

[ThePhilosopher04]

85. This nation is clearly rigged if you believe those poll

results. I could buy a narrow lead for Clinton but no way in hell is it 20 points. And I don't believe Clinton supporters believe that either.

[TheFarseer]

89. it's easy to win a debate

When all you do is act like everyone else's idea was your idea first but you'd do even more. That's what I felt like she was doing the whole time and everyone is so damn gullible it works.