Polls: Clinton Wins Second Debate by Narrower Margin than First

[Acim]

I'm still trying to understand what makes for a scientific poll. Truly seems to impact credibility of science to use that terminology.

And why poll results to debates matter so much. My guess it has to do with (perceived) momentum. Which given where Trump was entering the race, seems like he would've won. But IMO, who cares who wins debates? Especially since 'winning' is seemingly barely related to anything quantifiable.

 

[Scott C.]

Thoughtful Comments? Trenchant Opinions? Regurgitated Political Rants?

Trump decisively won IMO. I doubt that he won many new converts, but I believe he kept some on-board who were ready to jump ship.

 

[columbus]

I'm still trying to understand what makes for a scientific poll. Truly seems to impact credibility of science to use that terminology.

This.
There may be a question more subjective than who won such a debate, but not much more.
Tom

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

.....Let the mutually assured destruction begin!

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

Trump decisively won IMO. I

So much for opinions.

 

[tytlyf]

Hillary won, but the Trump supporters will say he won. He was playing to his base during the debate. Most of America saw him lose. Especially when comparing who lied the most.

 

[idav]

So much for opinions.

For some people facts actually matter in a debate. Problem there is people have to be informed to know the difference. Counter punches in a debate won't likely matter when a person has already decided who is lying.

 

[columbus]

I doubt that he won many new converts, but I believe he kept some on-board who were ready to jump ship.

If he was already losing, how does "not losing even more supporters" qualify as a decisive win?

Trump needs a bunch of new supporters, to stay even. He has been hemorrhaging them all weekend. People like Romney are looking prophetic and Pence is looking the fool.

Tom

 

[Penumbra]

So far as I know, there were only two scientific polls (as opposed to numerous straw polls) taken immediately after the second debate Sunday night. These polls should be taken with a grain of salt because they are likely to be less accurate than the regular tracking polls that will be out in a few days (which themselves may be subject to error). Nevertheless, the two scientific polls are likely to be far more accurate than straw polls.

[Source: Clinton wins, Trump exceeds expectations, but few move]

[Source: Post-debate poll: Clinton 47%, Trump 42%]

Thoughtful Comments? Trenchant Opinions? Regurgitated Political Rants?

Depends on which measure.

I of course agree with Clinton over Trump on most points in the debate, including her positions on energy and the environment, religious freedom, supreme court nominees, Trump's statements and treatments towards women and racial and religious minorities and veterans and disabled people and so on. Trump also made a few good points about carried interest and healthcare.

Trump was ripped apart by independent fact-checkers far more than Clinton after the debate. He simply lies more frequently and more blatantly.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/oct/09/fact-checks-second-presidential-debate/
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...the-second-clinton-trump-presidential-debate/

But subjectively watching the debate, it seems to me to be a neutral outcome, compared to the first debate that Clinton pretty clearly won. His defense for what he said about women in the beginning of this second debate was pathetic. But after that, it was mostly them exchanging policy ideas, without either of them landing any sort of debate-winning moment. A boring, flawed, sketchy candidate vs an unqualified ridiculously ignorant candidate.

 

[fantome profane]

I'm still trying to understand what makes for a scientific poll.

Interesting question.
http://www.politicalconsulting.info/polling

And why poll results to debates matter so much. My guess it has to do with (perceived) momentum. Which given where Trump was entering the race, seems like he would've won. But IMO, who cares who wins debates? Especially since 'winning' is seemingly barely related to anything quantifiable.

I agree. I don't care where the polls are, I don't care who won the debate. Someone can be up in the polls and still lose the election. Someone can be up in the polls and still be a bad candidate. And someone can go into a debate and be wrong on the issues, lie, make mistakes and still win because of style. That does not mean I don't find debates useful, I do. But it shouldn't matter who "won".

 

[Akivah]

I'm not sure if either candidate won this debate. It didn't change my mind, but it did enforce my choice. My thoughts on it:

1. I think Hillary was channeling her husband. She approached many of the questioners and tried to empathize with them, as Bill did.
2. Both candidates went over on time frequently. Clinton interrupted Trump once, but Trump interrupted Clinton frequently. Despite the moderators asking Trump to respect her two minutes, he mostly didn't.
3. I think Trump's sniffing got louder went he went on the attack. It reminded me of a snorting bull about to charge.
4. Both candidates stayed true to their websites. Clinton gave abbreviated versions of her plans, but was pretty definite on what she wanted to do. Trump also never stated any plans for what he wants to do, despite the moderators and audience members begging him to answer the question asked. At most he gave a sentence. He devoted 95% of his time to attacking Clinton.
5. I thought Trump's whining about everyone (Clinton and the moderators) being against him and not allowing him to respond got tiresome. He frequently interrupted the moderators and got to speak his piece.
6. I didn't care for Trump's frequent ramblings away from the topic asked. If you listen to Trump's responses first, you'd never guess at the actual question asked.
7. I noticed that Trump contradicted himself at least once. At one point he said he paid millions in federal income tax and at another point said he paid nothing in federal income tax.
8. I thought Clinton was more direct in her attacks, attacking Trump specifically. But Trump blamed Clinton for everything, such as the war in Iraq that Bush II started, or things that her husband had done, or things that Obama has done, or things that Clinton's millionaire friends have done.
9. I thought Trump did better on the last question than Clinton. That was where they were asked to say one positive thing about the other candidate. Trump gave a direct positive answer directly related to Clinton. Clinton praised Trump's family, not Trump himself, then went off on a commercial about herself.
10. Lastly, I didn't like that Trump was threatening Clinton with arrest if he won the election.

 

[Acim]

Interesting question.
http://www.politicalconsulting.info/polling

So much of the key points in the link are backed up by (only) opinion. Again, what this is conveying I think (clearly) impacts credibility of science. Since it's not really actual science being done, then not really impacting credibility of science. More like impacting the beliefs of 'what makes for scientific.'

 

[fantome profane]

So much of the key points in the link are backed up by (only) opinion. Again, what this is conveying I think (clearly) impacts credibility of science. Since it's not really actual science being done, then not really impacting credibility of science. More like impacting the beliefs of 'what makes for scientific.'

This may be one of those situations where it is easier to define what is not scientific than it is to define what is scientific. If the sampling is non-random, that is not scientific. If people can vote in the poll more than once, that is not scientific. Some of the online polls are clearly not scientific and should not be considered seriously. I think those polls are for entertainment purposes only.

I do think the scientific polls are different. But as to their actual value, I think I agree with you.

 

[ShivaFan]

There is nothing "scientific" about such polls. Actually, considering the huge numbers of responders to the internet polls, while all polls are suspect, they in many ways have more legit punch and vision of trending then these "call a land line when most never will answer such a call anymore" so-called "scientific" polls.

All the polls are showing clearly, Trump won. You can see the wave. And in the faces of the Bush and Hillary mouthpieces. Everyone knows the internals just looking at their faces. And especially among the independents.

How dare we challenge 20 more years of CLINTON-BUSH, BUSH-CLINTON.

They are not just archiving anything they can use, and have been, about Trump. They are archiving you as well using computer technology, and the IRS and other agencies are politicized agents of repression.

Against you.

Do Plutocrats also sometimes fight among themselves?

Of course they do. That is also their history.

But they all come together when Plutocracy itself is challenged.

Do you still think there are not, probably legions, of just "average folk" who in a much larger way were part, and are part, of "building the internet" than some Al Gore?

So do you really think these Plutocrats are all so wise - and more to the point, full of ability?

And the other legions who are not part of the Washington Insiders are not?

Hmmmm.... maybe if it is about dirt, there is a lot of dirt out there. We can all live in a Hollywood dirty R rated movie, now. Why not? It might be so fun.

Right, Paul Ryan?

 

[Acim]

This may be one of those situations where it is easier to define what is not scientific than it is to define what is scientific. If the sampling is non-random, that is not scientific. If people can vote in the poll more than once, that is not scientific. Some of the online polls are clearly not scientific and should not be considered seriously. I think those polls are for entertainment purposes only.

I do think the scientific polls are different. But as to their actual value, I think I agree with you.

I disagree that delineating non-scientific makes for understanding what is scientific.
Especially if the criteria for non-scientific is questionable. I question understandings of "randomness" and then how that relates to correlating ideas.

When you say "some of the online polls are clearly not scientific" it just begs the question.

Really what you, and the link are doing, is using opinion to make a case for "what is scientific." It routinely comes across, if closely looked at, as circular reasoning. While not this blatant (in what is being said), it comes across often, to me, as "scientific polls are scientific, and that's how we know they are scientific."

 

[tytlyf]

Scientific polls are the only ones to trust.

 

[McBell]

... i see
Trump more rational than Hillary.

So you have not been paying attention then?

 

[metis]

Unless one ignores much of what was said last night and even image, one has to give at least the edge to Hillary. Trump never really gets close to citing specifics, plus his stage presence was bizarre to say the least. Granted he did better than the first debate, so guess that's a victory of sorts for him.

But where Hillary really won the debate is because Trump did better. Ya got that? You see, had he done absolutely terrible, the droves of Republicans leaving and denouncing him would have been like a stampede, so the Republicans would then try and replace him. Now most that haven't denounced him are more likely to stay, at least for now, and Donald has proven to be the gift that doesn't stop giving-- and I think there's likely more to come.

 

[ShivaFan]

The CNN poll is worthless, because on THEIR OWN ACCOUNT that 311 of the 537 participants declared themselves SUPPORTERS of Hillary Clinton...

I am at lunch and we notice this article -

Link on details:

http://www.poletical.com/news-alert-october-10-cnn-debate-poll.php

"Out of the poll's 537 participants, 311 declared themselves supporters of Hillary Clinton. CNN made no attempt to hide the poll's heavily skewed numbers, as they reported on their website:

"The results Sunday also track closely with watchers' pre-debate preference. Fifty-eight percent of debate watchers said they were supporting Clinton before the debate."

... therefore if you apply the math to actual demographics, it would be closer to the mean, Trump won the debate 54% to 46%.

 

[FearGod]

So you have not been paying attention then?

And some other millions too!