Home | About | Donate

Pundits Thought Clinton Beat Sanders–but Did Viewers?


Pundits Thought Clinton Beat Sanders–but Did Viewers?

Gunar Olsen

A New York Times article (10/14/15) by Alan Rappeport about who won last night’s Democratic presidential debate reported today that “Hillary Rodham Clinton was the clear victor, according to the opinion shapers in the political world (even conservative commentators).”


Clinton crushed expectations for her performance. I would concede to that.

Bernie spoke with clarity and remained consistent in his message. He took the high road, as expected. In my opinion he won--damn the opinion shapers and the invisible "government" they represent.


What do you think is the biggest problem the US faces?

Bernie was a clear thinking adult who answered — global climate collapse.

All the others pointed to some vague area of endless war.


Of course the pundits stated Hillary won. The elites have pre-ordained Hillary as the next President. The pundits were just doing their jobs and following orders.


This is the clearest example of MSM pushing a patently false narrative in recent memory. It isn't the usual neocon slant that ignores historical fact or just presents Israel's side of anything to do with Palestinians, they clearly ignored every available metric to arrive at the conclusion that the corporate candidate won the debate (Note: The pundit's declaration of Clinton's victory came out before the Gravis poll).

CNN actually took down their online poll showing Sanders was the clear winner and replaced it with a declaration of victory for Hillary.

As for the outlier telephone poll, IT'S BASED ON A SURVEY OF LANDLINES.

Polling firms like to claim there's no difference between landline and cell phone responses.

From Gravis, the firm that did the LANDLINE phone poll showing Hillary won:

"Due to the shifts in technology, and the fact that many are opting to lose their landline and go wireless, many fear that it will result in a bias between those who are accessible through landlines and those who are cell phone users only. Many studies conducted have demonstrated that there is no inherent difference between those who use cell phones and those who use landlines. There is no observable bias resulting from the technological shift. When comparing the two groups, and their opinions, no disparities have been found."

How many millennials do you know with landlines?

And of those, how many answer calls from unknown callers?

So, regardless of the claims of Gravis Marketing, there's clearly a bias in their phone polling. It's based on the responses of people with landlines who answer calls from unknown numbers i.e. older people.

Why do polling firms use landline surveys instead of cell phone ones? Money:

"If there does come a time when landline and cell phone users appear to be creating a bias, there is no law or regulation against using cell phone numbers for opinion polling. The reason they are currently not being used is because using cell phones for telephone surveys is much more expensive than using the standard landline. Although not illegal to use cell phones, it is illegal to operate an automated dialing system. That means that each number would necessarily have to be punched in by hand. That leads to more resources and man hours, which equate into time and expense."


So keep this in mind when viewing polls results. If a poll doesn't specifically say they used cell phones for responses there's a good chance they didn't - and if they did there's still a bias based on those who answer calls from unknown callers and those who don't.

So, MSM and phone polls are both biased - and that's very evident in the case of the Democratic debate.


My major and dismaying takeaway was how Bernie allowed HRC to wiggle out of trouble on so many vulnerable issues. Here's only one of many examples: When Libya came up, Bernie should have forcefully pointed out that Clinton enthusiastically supported an eight month long U.S. bombing campaign which created a failed state and produced a horrific refugee crisis. If she responded that Qaddafi was a brutal dictator, Bernie could have replied, "Yes, but he posed no threat whatsoever to the United States. The intervention that Sec. Clinton strongly endorsed made the situation immeasurably worse. Libya's living condition are desperate, armed militias are battling one another and ISIS has gained a strong foothold there. Sec. Clinton was intimately involved in this decision and has much to answer for." Alas, she was allowed to skate without challenge. Next time?


Thank you Gunar for putting the numbers down as to how much Bernie won the debate, and for demonstrating the corporate fabrications that pass for the "news fit to print." CNN's running poll through the debate told the story, Bernie crushed it winning favorability rating of 83% to Hillary's 15% and the other three candidates about 1% each. As CNN co-sponsored the debate, their withdrawal of those results speaks to straightforward corporatist mendacity. Bernie isn't surprised and neither should we be. As he says and said on Tuesday, only when millions of Americans get in the street and demand the end of oligarchy will and can such change happen. The Sanders political revolution is on the table, and in the hands of we the people. Time to stand up.


Hillery is a consummate political character. A text book example of how to shuck and jive while astutely prevaricating an issue with a teflon excuse for her own conduct. In short, Hillery is everything her Wall Street benefactors demand.

The future with Bernie offers progressive principles serving the nation vs. Hillery and her status quo.


That's because he was being "collegial", putting the wellbeing of his political opponent above ours. We need plainspeaking, but how often do we get it compared to how often politicans toss nerf balls even to their nominal opponents?


Just as Dewey's victory over Truman in '48 was based on a telephone survey - and thus missed out the proles.


These debates should be an exercise in every progressives understanding of corporate control of our media and how they shape public opinion. All MSM depends on corporate subsidies (advertisements) to exist. The corporations play the MSM against one another to see which news media conglomerate is the most effective at promoting the corporate State. CNN, in its quest to be corporate America's favourite source of propaganda, eagerly lobbied the Democratic Party to stage this debate to show their sponsors that they can do a more effective job than their competitors at promoting Wall Street's choice (HRC) for the next government. Despite every poll suggesting that Sanders won by a landslide, the media pundits declared HRC as the "clear winner" in the debate. Though most Americans did not watch the debate (only 15 million bothered to tune in), the rest of the country will read and hear over the next few days how HRC "crushed" her opponents on stage. No mention will be made of the polls that showed otherwise (much to the delight of corporate America) and no mention will be made how the studio audience was stacked with HRC supporters. In other words the debates served their main purpose which is to sow doubts into the idea of electing someone outside of the box.
Sometimes the best laid plans go awry though and this may be one of those times. For the fifteen million who did bother to watch the debate, at least half of them had never heard of Bernie Sanders before, much less his politically charged message. This may very well energize the Sanders camp, but the corporate goal of marginalizing, demonizing and ignoring Bernie will not fade away until after next years election.
Stay tuned for the next episode of "corporate propaganda" brought to you by every network near you!


It's perfectly consistent with an effort to show Secretary Clinton in the best light, but how do you know the audience was stacked with her supporters?


Her name is spelled Hillary. You wrote Hillery, twice.


I just want to compliment you on realizing this--and pointing it out.

Another positive prospect is that the younger people being drawn to Mr. Sanders--and that includes some from Black Lives Matter--probably are gifted in the use of Social Media. That 15 million can contact another 60 million... easily.

Very strong analysis today. Thank you.


Speaking of showing Mrs. Clinton in "the best light," is it my imagination or did she have a recent facelift done... in order to "present better" in front of media cameras? Our country's citizens (not unlike those conditioned by mass media in other lands) are programmed to respond to packaging, often over and above actual content. The Actor must "look the part," and Americans are taught to like "pretty."


The poll was also done using only registered Democrats. No independents, Greens, or Republicans, just registered Dems with landlines. Older registered Dems. No wonder they showed Hillary as the winner.

"Gravis Marketing, a nonpartisan research firm, conducted a random survey of 760 registered Democratic voters across the U.S. regarding the performance and opinions of the Democrats that took place in the first Democratic Primary debate. The poll has a margin of error of ± 3.6%. The total may not round to 100% because of rounding. The polls were conducted using automated telephone calls (IVR technology) and weighted by party voting characteristics. The poll was conducted for One America News Network."



By every standard, Clinton is a war hawk. She voted for, or was involved in, every war and military action since first elected to the senate right through to her service as Sec of State.


Bernie is the only candidate that would legalize recreational pot, which gets my vote. Hillary tried to triangulate that one, meaning pot busts, the Black Holocaust and the WOD/private prison complex would persist during her watch.

Chafee was the only one that would pardon Snowden. Sanders might I think, if he was not forced into political correctness.


(This post is a thinking-out-loud exercise and I may wish I had never posted it but here I go.)

Note: Please keep in mind that I am a socialist. Hence, my thoughts naturally lean in that direction.

This whole concept of having one winner troubles me. It closely resembles the "winner take all" system we have in our elections. The winner is the conqueror. Those who didn't "win" are the defeated losers. As such, all the "spoils" are taken from the defeated by the conqueror for his/her pleasure or for destruction.

The base concept is to gain dominance over another ... or others. Ultimately, a person's "life value" is continuously being measured and determined by one competition after another.

Why can't we see that this type of thinking and behavior is identical to that of the economic system of capitalism.

There is a dominant winner (conqueror) and all the competitors that did not win are deemed to be subordinates of the winner/conqueror. As such, the winner/conqueror has eliminated any competition and stands alone in his/her "class". In other words, the conqueror has no equals.

It seems to me that most of us from infancy are indoctrinated and trained in the principles of competition rather cooperation.

Is it any wonder that continuous war/conflict seems like the natural order of relationships and that peace and cooperation are unfamiliar concepts that are so foreign to one's ingrained instinct that it cannot be real ... or trusted?


I agree.
Hillary was polished and articulate, likable and funny. She was presidential.
Bernie was Bernie: a little rambling, a little pedantic. But he won hands down because he has a message that the American people can relate to, he is unfailingly honest and he spoke for many of us when he said he was sick of her damn emails.