Debate Helps Clinton Solidify Lead*

Data from the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll shows that on the two nights following the debate (Wednesday and Thursday) Clinton held a 45% to 18% lead over Barack Obama. For Clinton, that’s an improvement from Monday and Tuesday nights when her lead over Obama had been 40% to 24%.





http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/debate_fallout_has_no_immediate_impact_on_clinton_poll_position



*My header is based on an interpetation of the results...That's what the data is there for; to make inferences from it...

==Caution must be used in interpreting these results for several reasons.

First, the sample sizes are very small—447 Likely Primary Voters on the first two nights and 435 on the second two nights. The margin of sampling error for each set of data is +/- 5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. So, Clinton’s gain and Obama’s decline may be nothing more than statistical noise. However, it is fairly safe to conclude that Obama did not immediately gain any ground.

Second, while there was no immediate impact, it is possible that Obama and Edwards will find a way to capitalize on the Clinton stumbles between now and the Iowa caucuses on January 3. In fact, general public awareness of the debate performance may continue to grow on its own over the coming weeks. Additionally, there may be a general election impact as Senator Clinton’s answer supported two enormously unpopular concepts (drivers licenses for illegal immigrants and the comprehensive immigration reform that failed in the Senate).

Third, while there is little or no national fallout from the debate, the impact may be different in early voting state. Clinton currently leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire, Rasmussen Reports will conduct additional polling in these states over the next two weeks.==

==Separate survey data shows that political pundits and junkies are likely to overestimate the immediate impact of Clinton’s debate performance. Much of the nation was simply not paying attention. A Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey of 800 Likely Voters nationwide found that just 56% knew that the Democrats were the party with a Presidential debate this week. Thirteen percent (13%) thought it was the GOP’s turn while 31% are not sure.

Just 38% could pick immigration from a list of four issues as the topic that caused Clinton to stumble near the end of the debate. Eleven percent (11%) picked the War in Iraq, 5% health care, 4% the economy, 6% “some other topic”, and 36% admitted they didn’t know.==

of a debate is in the one thought, one liner aftermaths even for the people who actually watched the debates. For most people it is like hearing about a sports game they are mildly interested in. Who won, how did they do and what interesting things were said or happened. IF there is a heated media discussion in the days after, the people might tune into that.

If debates mattered critically then Nixon would have been overwhelmed instead of just losing a squeaker, Bush would have been finished by ANY of his debate performances. Bush's disasters were always given a pass or just went away. A feeding frenzy orchestrated against Gore or anyone else the media wants you to think of as a "loser" will have more effect than one person watching the debate themselves.

The candidates know this and get into the game. First do a good, safe debate. Then capitalize after where the real action is. The one who STILL is able to conduct a good, bold debate and have the spin to work with after is indeed a marvel. Usually a frontrunner cannot risk even trying to have it both ways.

I am more interested at how many and who are interpreting Clinton so as to determine the why. Gingrich says she is toast in his blunt, self-important sort of way because he wants her out so the GOP can get clobbered and turn to him once more? That Clinton is truly getting too far ahead as in NY and they need a three way split to take the steam out of the party. So pile-on is the media game? It takes time to even see what the picture is much less to analyze its effect.

I would guess, in the non-existent logical world, that the polite drubbing of Clinton will be neutralized by her mild, sidelong defense. Essentially she is falling back on herself and people will get to judge what that means, fairly or otherwise with the steady interference of the other campaigns and the press.

Saying she is toast because of any debate is only true if most of the people think it is- without any factual knowledge necessary to support it. We know how she would fare vote-wise on DU, win a few lose a few. By the same dramatic pronouncements, aha! Bush would be swinging from the Hague gallows by now. The ripples becoming waves take a lot more time to discover and everything lately except autocratic war gets less and less potent.

DSB

no one said it would

it is just seeping into the water supply now... give it time

But she will pivot it by then...Great strategy...Great tactics...The Clintons are to politics what Bill Belichik is to the NFL and Gregg Popovich and Phil Jackson are to the NBA...

Do you mean a cheater and absolutely classless?

You notice since that incident the Pats have been beating their opponents by a margin of twenty or more points...

She reminds me of my other hero, Muhammad Ali...He literally let himself be a punching bag for eight rounds to the most feared fighter of his generation, George Foreman,so Foreman could waste all his energy... And then when Foreman was sapped of his energy, Ali knocked him out and recaptured the championship belt that the U S government and the boxing commission stole from him...


Hillary let herself be a punching bag to her eight opponents and she did it for us...

The simple fact is she let herself being a punching bag, took the blows, in service of a higher cause; winning the presidency for us...

Nice try though.

Look at the polling done after the debate...Her numbers are rising...

1) The shift is entirely within the margin of error;

2) Correlation is not evidence of causation.

At worst the evidence suggests the debate didn't hurt her at ALL, and at best it suggests the debate actually HELPED her.

If it's any consolation Barack Obama can look at himself in the mirror after the debate ...I can't say that for the other guy...

But, positioning is important. The primary contest is a process, not a series of independent events.

Now the seed of doubt has been planted in people's minds. No doubt that some immediate sympathy for her followed--thanks in part to her pleas for it--but that will wear off just like the Edwards bump from the cancer announcement wore off.

The doubts, however, will remain.

Those seeds gave us only one of three full two term Democratic presidents in the entire twentieth century...

The Clintons are to politics what Bill Belichik is to the NFL and Gregg Popovich is to the NBA...They are masters of strategy, planning, and execution and are unsurpassed at responding positively to negative events...

They are professionals among amateurs...

Not even close.

Her mind is every bit the equal of his, but he can pull of evasion a lot better than she can.

If the polling firm didn't interpret the results that way you should not either. They know how the data was collected and didn't come to that conclusion, at least not unequivocally. You could have used the original headline and added a "but" or something like that to suggest there MAY be a trend in Hillary's favor. That would have been a more accurate reflection of what the story was.

On edit: The authors of the story were careful to note that the results are not all that reliable so caution should be used.....

Caution must be used in interpreting these results for several reasons.

First, the sample sizes are very small—447 Likely Primary Voters on the first two nights and 435 on the second two nights. The margin of sampling error for each set of data is +/- 5 percentage points with a 95% level of confidence. So, Clinton’s gain and Obama’s decline may be nothing more than statistical noise. However, it is fairly safe to conclude that Obama did not immediately gain any ground.


Saying "Obama did not gain any ground" is not the same as saying "Clinton solidified her position."

The Hill increasing her lead in the wake of the debate can be attributed to one of two factors; she has (really) increased her lead or the increase in her lead is the result of statistical noise. Based on a careful review of the evidence I chose the former as is my right...

If you are going to do that then you ought to also at least present the alternative interpretation. You say, "Don't just read the headline." but all you presented as an interpretation of the story was your headline which contained your subjective interpretation of the data. That seems a little misleading, to say the least.

On edit: And I would note - you presented the raw data without reporting the margins of error. You really can't defend that.

I try to avoid the limit...

And I provided a link...I can not be responsible for the indolence of the readers...

The bottom line is Senator Obama and John Edwards are losing, and losing rather spetacularly...

it applies to posting copyrighted articles - the limit is 4 paragraphs. Secondly that limit in no way prevented you from providing an accurate summary of the story, including the margin of error, in your own words. And finally, how does that limit have anything to do with substituting your own headline with quite a different meaning for the original headline of the story - my original objection to your OP? I am not trying to be a hardass here, but your explanations are getting a little silly. If you disagree with me, just say it, don't offer up these lame excuses.


From the forum rules.....

Copyrights: Do not copy-and-paste entire articles onto this discussion forum. When referencing copyrighted work, post a short excerpt (not exceeding 4 paragraphs) with a link back to the original.

I linked the article...It is there, in all its glory, for anyone who wants to investigate...

The bottom line is Senator Obama and Senator Edwards are trailing and trailing rather badly...

bottom like - Obama and Edwards continue to trail Clinton by a long shot. But that was not what you posted in the OP, was it? Nice goalpost shift, that. You won't win any debating points, that is for sure.

You miss the forest for the trees or is it the trees for the forest... The larger narrative is the debates didn't help Edwards and Obama and quite possibly may have hurt them; your obscurantist tactics nothwithstanding...

Touche

And one cannot "touche" one's own argument. It is normally awarded by the opponent or an independent observor. At least that has been my experience...

And I noticed that in your cliche slinging you have still somehow failed to defend your use of a misleading headline. Silence implies what? Only you know.

We can maintain this mano a mano on to infinity if you so desire.

My header was based on my analysis of the data, nothing more and nothing less...


Oh, touche!

Of course some might call it something else. And Bush likes to heap accolades on himself also. And you are apparently more patient than I am because this is starting to repeat. That is where I get off.

“Nothing in this world can take the place of persistence. Talent will not; nothing is more common than unsuccessful people with talent. Genius will not; unrewarded genius is almost a proverb. Education will not; the world is full of educated derelicts. Persistence and determination alone are omnipotent."

-Calvin Coolidge

great quote, lousy pres...

I don't know about you but if we are going to start dueling quotes I will take Emerson over Coolidge any day. Of course there is always the possibility one thinks it is a wise consistency......

Congratuations, though, you kept me on this with an interesting quote even if it was Coolidge. Says a lot about why he was such a lousy president, by the way. A tinge of anti-intellectuallism there and modern history has plenty of contrary examples, including Coolidge himself, Hitler, Joe McCarthy, Nixon, and of course, George Bush and his determined neocon backers.

When nothing seems to help, I go look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before.”

- Jacob Riis

it is also knowing where to place the blows and how hard to strike each time. I know. I have cut stone by hand. To an observor it may appear that the stone cutter is striking the stone the same way everytime but he isn't. Yes it takes persistence but not blind persistence. And contrary to Coolidge's little bromide, it takes a great deal of knowledge also - knowledge of the stone, knowledge of how to use the tools effectively.

I just think my simple post and spin contained therein has been deconstructed six ways to Sunday...

PEACE

DSB

any fallout probably will not be known right away. it may be a few weeks.

11 point drop....ouch.

No
No
No