FiveThirtyEight - What Went Down At The Democratic Debate

[Alfresco]

Last edited Mon Jan 18, 2016, 07:19 AM - Edit history (1)

2016 Election Updated 12:40 AM Jan 17, 2016
http://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/nbc-democratic-debate-presidential-election-2016/
Excerpt:
Harry Enten 12:40 AM
Clinton And Sanders Stick To Their Game Plans

Sunday night’s Democratic debate in South Carolina was certainly a vigorous one between Hillary Clinton, Bernie Sanders and Martin O’Malley, but was there a clear winner? It didn’t seem so to me or the FiveThirtyEight staff. As we do with every debate, our live blog team graded the candidates’ performances on an A to F scale, based on how well each improved (or hurt) their chances of winning the nomination. The result: Clinton and Sanders both averaged a B+, while O’Malley was well back with a C.

Clinton and O’Malley seemed to be playing to their respective bases, and they did so, in large part, successfully. Clinton made numerous appeals to black Democrats. She opened up the debate mentioning Martin Luther King Jr. (the debate was held on MLK Day weekend) and positioned herself as the defender and champion of President Obama’s legacy. Clinton notched a 57-percentage-point lead among black Democrats according to the latest YouGov poll, and Clinton wants to keep it that way. (She also probably knows that 93 percent of all definite Democratic caucus-goers in Iowa have a favorable view of Obama, according to the latest Des Moines Register poll).

Sanders, on the other hand, didn’t stray far from the economic populism that got him here, working inequality into every answer he could. It’s a message that has earned him a 32-percentage-point lead among Democrats under 45 years old in Iowa, according to the Register poll. Sanders’ theme also plays well with independent voters who are sick of the status quo and favored him by 41 percentage points in the same poll.

Nothing in tonight’s debate is likely to change any of these numbers much, and it didn’t seem like the candidates were that interested in changing them. Sanders knows his message has narrowed Clinton’s massive leads in both Iowa and New Hampshire, and he’s perhaps hoping that winning those states will reset the race. Clinton is hoping she can hold on in Iowa thanks to Obama’s popularity in the state, and, if all else fails in New Hampshire, can count on black support in South Carolina, where African-Americans made up 55 percent of the Democratic electorate in the 2008 primary.

[Eric J in MN]

1. The debate isn't 'likely to change (Iowa) numbers much.'

True. But Clinton and Sanders are so close in Iowa that changing the numbers a little could mean a different winner there.

[GreydeeThos]

2. Bernie Sanders needs a long series of clear victories to be successful

Outside of social media, Bernie is not fairing well in the victory column. Unless Hillary crashes and burns in the near future, Bernie is going to be another footnote in history.

[draa]

3. The problem seems to be we haven't seen enough polls taken after Clintons shift on single payer.

We need to see polls for the last 3-5 days and it will be a day or two before they come out.

80% of the base supports single payer. So, either part of that 80% that was voting for Clinton just gives up on that idea and votes for her anyway, or they get pissed and leave for Sanders. I seriously doubt polling will stay the same. In fact I'm sure it won't given how dear single payer is to most of us.

You don't just turn your back on the party and what's it's worked for over decades. This is bigger than Sanders or Clinton and she wants to set us back, again.

A multi-generation struggle that she just tossed away for $2.8M cash. It's almost certain she'll suffer from this shift, it's only a matter of how much.

[BlueMTexpat]

4. IMO only,

to the extent that Bernie did not make a clear breakthrough, he lost to Hillary.

He certainly played to and pleased his base, but she didn't alienate hers at all. In some respects. he made some think seriously about whether they want someone who can lose his composure somewhat and who lectures a lot representing them on the international stage.

There is also this from your OP:

Sanders, on the other hand, didn’t stray far from the economic populism that got him here, working inequality into every answer he could.

Yes, all sane people can agree that "inequality" is something that MUST be addressed effectively and soon. But "inequality" is also vague. In and of itself, "inequality" certainly does not address specific problems such as police brutality/racism, women's access to reproductive choice, immigration concerns, etc., so it cannot be the be-all and end-all.

Also, how does one address "inequality" without including the rest of this globalized world? It's not simply "Wall Street" that's the problem. What happens on Wall Street not only resounds on but is affected by events around the world. IMO, Clinton understands these complex nuances much better than any candidate. We just don't have the time for Bernie to get up to speed.

[Gothmog]

5. I love Nate Silver and 538