IMO, The Iowa Debate Was a Wash

[MineralMan]

in terms of how it will affect the polls. Even here on DU, those who supported one or another candidate still do. They can point to some things their favorite said or how he or she handled something. Nobody's shifting their support.

The same is going to hold true in the polls. All three candidates did pretty much what their supporters expected. So, nobody did anything dramatic that will change anyone's opinion. Nobody's opinion was changed last night.

My prediction is that the upcoming poll numbers next week will closely resemble the last set of polling figures. A point or two difference that can be explained by almost anything. It will all remain in the 60%/30%/5% range for Hillary, Bernie and Martin. Failing any major gaffe on any of their parts, that is likely to hold right through the first caucuses and primaries.

One thing's certain, though: The Democratic debates are so far superior to the performances turned in by the GOP clown car riders that there is really no way to compare the two. We should all be proud of all of the Democratic candidates. We should not expect this debate, though, to change the course of the primary campaigns. It simply won't.

And that is my opinion, based on over 50 years of following Presidential races. Other people's opinions might differ from mine.

[enid602]

1. 50

God, I just realized it's been over 50 years for me as well. Thanks for ruining my morning.

[MineralMan]

4. Scary, isn't it?

I went to my 50th HS reunion a couple of years ago. Where did all those old geezers come from?

[mcar]

2. I agree

But I think you mean "Martin" not "Walter."

[MineralMan]

3. Fixed it. I guess I keep thinking of Walter Mondale

when I hear Martin O'Malley speak. Silly error. I need to repeat that a few times so I don't make it again.

[randome]

5. I didn't watch the debate but that's the impression I have from the reviews.

I don't see why some want even more debates when no one's preference is going to change. Fewer and quality-laden debates set us apart from the usual GOP clown show.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"Everybody is just on their feet screaming 'Kill Kill Kill'! This is -hockey- Conservative values!"[/center][/font][hr]

[MineralMan]

7. I actually listened to it on WCCO AM830 here in St. Paul.

So, I didn't see the candidates. I just heard them. I like listening to debates rather than watching them. It seems to give me a clearer line on what they're saying.

Anyhow, that was my take on this one. It's not going to affect the primary outcomes at all. Other things will be far more important.

[KingCharlemagne]

8. GOTV isfar more important than infomercials, imo - nt

[MineralMan]

13. I agree, but TV ads still have an impact on

voter decision-making. GOTV for primaries is pretty useless, I've found. Only the most dedicated bother to vote. In Minnesota, anyhow, presidential nominee delegates originate from our precinct caucuses and the straw vote taken there. Turnout is abysmally low at those.

[KingCharlemagne]

16. I meant that these so-called debates are little more than infomercials. On an

Icy cold Feb 1 night in Iowa, whose supporters will be most likely to caucus? GOTV will go a long way to answer that question.

[Rose Siding]

9. Good choice. There were some distracting graphics behind them.

They had a light moving constantly in the words on the backdrop that kept stealing my attention.

[randome]

12. Heh. Mitch Hedberg is funnier when you listen and not watch him. He had a nervous presence.

I can see the same advantage to listening to the debate instead of watching it.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]"Everybody is just on their feet screaming 'Kill Kill Kill'! This is -hockey- Conservative values!"[/center][/font][hr]

[sufrommich]

6. I agree. nt

[Agnosticsherbet]

10. Voter impressions about what happened in Paris

Will be impossible to separate from any minor change caused by this debate.

Fear is the mind killer.

[MineralMan]

14. Real events of major consequence always have

a huge influence, but opinions of candidates' positions are based on impressions of candidates that people already have formed, mainly. The debate focused on Paris, but nobody's mind was changed by what the candidates said, I think.

[Agnosticsherbet]

15. With that I agree.

[DCBob]

11. Agreed.

Plus the fact few watched it and the media is mostly ignoring it today.

[MineralMan]

18. Until we have some rating numbers, it's hard to say.

However, clips from the debates will show up on broadcast network news for a few days, and the three major networks have about 22.5 million viewers collectively for national news programming. The cable news networks don't even come close. The selective presentation of clips does have an influence of voters' opinions.

Another factor is that network national news viewers are overwhelmingly regular voters, too. People who poo-poo broadcast network news as an influencer of elections are simply wrong. That's why campaigns spend much of their budget on advertising on those broadcasts. People who watch the news on TV vote.

[Gothmog]

17. Unless there is an oops moment, debates rarely change races

[MineralMan]

19. That's especially true during primary campaigns.

I think the debates are far more important during Presidential general election campaigns. They can cause swing voters to shift opinions. Interest in primaries is generally only from people who are more or less politically savvy anyhow. Most of those have already formed their opinions. I suspect the debates change fewer than 5% of viewers' minds, really, and the first debate is probably the most influential. My opinion, of course.