SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Hillary Clinton Won the First Debate. What If That Doesn't Move the Polls?
So, after immense anticipation and much back-and-forth argument over the standards for judging the candidates' performance, the winner of the first presidential debate of the general election was not -- well, debatable.
Sep 27, 2016
So, after immense anticipation and much back-and-forth argument over the standards for judging the candidates' performance, the winner of the first presidential debate of the general election was not -- well, debatable. Hillary Clinton exceeded the very high bar the news media set for her and won on style (smooth versus incoherent), on substance (on stop-and-frisk, on ISIS, on birtherism, on tax returns, on tax policy, on NATO, on Trump's business record), on endurance, and on visuals. It's hard to find a topic on which Trump scored a clean point.
He did nothing to help himself. The topics didn't favor him -- little on the economy (other than trade), and virtually nothing on immigration -- but he didn't steer the discussion in a more advantageous direction. He gave Clinton a pass on potentially damaging allegations involving her Wall Street ties and the financing of her campaigns.
The big question is how much an effect this will all have on the state of the race. The butt-kicking Clinton administered to Trump ought to move some votes. CNN's snap poll of debate-watchers (which skew about ten points more Democratic than representative samples of voters) showed Clinton "winning" by a 62 to 27 margin. That's actually not as impressive a showing as Mitt Romney after the first debate in 2012, when CNN showed the Republican "winning" by a 67 to 25 margin. Romney did pick up some points in the polls.
At the time though, Romney was not remotely as well-known as Clinton is today, and a similar performance might not pay off as abundantly for her in the two- and four-candidate polls that are conducted immediately afterward, that we should begin seeing late this week. That outcome -- depressing as it might be to her supporters -- would be evidence that the degree of partisan and ideological polarization in this electorate is so powerful that debates, and perhaps even other forms of persuasion like campaign ads, just don't matter this year.
If Clinton does not make significant gains, we will have strong evidence that the best remaining strategy for her campaign is to focus on base mobilization -- making sure her supporters get to the polls. That would be bad news for Clinton, but not devastating, because she has an advantage in the field operations and voter-targeting that are essential to getting out her vote.
There is also a weird dynamic at play with younger voters that might be hurting her, especially after tonight: Many left-leaning millennials seem to think Clinton's already wrapped up the presidency, and are planning not to vote, or to cast a ballot for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. Media gabbing about Clinton's big win at Hofstra won't exactly galvanize such voters to make a stand for HRC.
As for Trump, he obviously needs to raise his game, and deal forcefully with a potential morale problem among his supporters. What he should pray for is that polarization is so powerful that he cannot possibly lose this race in 90 minutes.
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
© 2023 New York Magazine
So, after immense anticipation and much back-and-forth argument over the standards for judging the candidates' performance, the winner of the first presidential debate of the general election was not -- well, debatable. Hillary Clinton exceeded the very high bar the news media set for her and won on style (smooth versus incoherent), on substance (on stop-and-frisk, on ISIS, on birtherism, on tax returns, on tax policy, on NATO, on Trump's business record), on endurance, and on visuals. It's hard to find a topic on which Trump scored a clean point.
He did nothing to help himself. The topics didn't favor him -- little on the economy (other than trade), and virtually nothing on immigration -- but he didn't steer the discussion in a more advantageous direction. He gave Clinton a pass on potentially damaging allegations involving her Wall Street ties and the financing of her campaigns.
The big question is how much an effect this will all have on the state of the race. The butt-kicking Clinton administered to Trump ought to move some votes. CNN's snap poll of debate-watchers (which skew about ten points more Democratic than representative samples of voters) showed Clinton "winning" by a 62 to 27 margin. That's actually not as impressive a showing as Mitt Romney after the first debate in 2012, when CNN showed the Republican "winning" by a 67 to 25 margin. Romney did pick up some points in the polls.
At the time though, Romney was not remotely as well-known as Clinton is today, and a similar performance might not pay off as abundantly for her in the two- and four-candidate polls that are conducted immediately afterward, that we should begin seeing late this week. That outcome -- depressing as it might be to her supporters -- would be evidence that the degree of partisan and ideological polarization in this electorate is so powerful that debates, and perhaps even other forms of persuasion like campaign ads, just don't matter this year.
If Clinton does not make significant gains, we will have strong evidence that the best remaining strategy for her campaign is to focus on base mobilization -- making sure her supporters get to the polls. That would be bad news for Clinton, but not devastating, because she has an advantage in the field operations and voter-targeting that are essential to getting out her vote.
There is also a weird dynamic at play with younger voters that might be hurting her, especially after tonight: Many left-leaning millennials seem to think Clinton's already wrapped up the presidency, and are planning not to vote, or to cast a ballot for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. Media gabbing about Clinton's big win at Hofstra won't exactly galvanize such voters to make a stand for HRC.
As for Trump, he obviously needs to raise his game, and deal forcefully with a potential morale problem among his supporters. What he should pray for is that polarization is so powerful that he cannot possibly lose this race in 90 minutes.
So, after immense anticipation and much back-and-forth argument over the standards for judging the candidates' performance, the winner of the first presidential debate of the general election was not -- well, debatable. Hillary Clinton exceeded the very high bar the news media set for her and won on style (smooth versus incoherent), on substance (on stop-and-frisk, on ISIS, on birtherism, on tax returns, on tax policy, on NATO, on Trump's business record), on endurance, and on visuals. It's hard to find a topic on which Trump scored a clean point.
He did nothing to help himself. The topics didn't favor him -- little on the economy (other than trade), and virtually nothing on immigration -- but he didn't steer the discussion in a more advantageous direction. He gave Clinton a pass on potentially damaging allegations involving her Wall Street ties and the financing of her campaigns.
The big question is how much an effect this will all have on the state of the race. The butt-kicking Clinton administered to Trump ought to move some votes. CNN's snap poll of debate-watchers (which skew about ten points more Democratic than representative samples of voters) showed Clinton "winning" by a 62 to 27 margin. That's actually not as impressive a showing as Mitt Romney after the first debate in 2012, when CNN showed the Republican "winning" by a 67 to 25 margin. Romney did pick up some points in the polls.
At the time though, Romney was not remotely as well-known as Clinton is today, and a similar performance might not pay off as abundantly for her in the two- and four-candidate polls that are conducted immediately afterward, that we should begin seeing late this week. That outcome -- depressing as it might be to her supporters -- would be evidence that the degree of partisan and ideological polarization in this electorate is so powerful that debates, and perhaps even other forms of persuasion like campaign ads, just don't matter this year.
If Clinton does not make significant gains, we will have strong evidence that the best remaining strategy for her campaign is to focus on base mobilization -- making sure her supporters get to the polls. That would be bad news for Clinton, but not devastating, because she has an advantage in the field operations and voter-targeting that are essential to getting out her vote.
There is also a weird dynamic at play with younger voters that might be hurting her, especially after tonight: Many left-leaning millennials seem to think Clinton's already wrapped up the presidency, and are planning not to vote, or to cast a ballot for Gary Johnson or Jill Stein. Media gabbing about Clinton's big win at Hofstra won't exactly galvanize such voters to make a stand for HRC.
As for Trump, he obviously needs to raise his game, and deal forcefully with a potential morale problem among his supporters. What he should pray for is that polarization is so powerful that he cannot possibly lose this race in 90 minutes.
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.