Enough of the “Obama by a Hair”
OK, so I’ve watched the debate, I’m reading different analysis of it, etc. and I cannot help but wondering how in the world networks like CNN can claim that ‘objective’ viewers believe that Barack Obama won the debate, 31% against 58%.
I’m terribly sorry but those numbers are utterly insane. McCain did objectively spoken very well, it was quite possibly Obama’s worst performance of all three debates, while McCain was probably at his best. Considering that the first one went to Obama “by a hair,” the second a tie (some say again to Obama by a hair), it’s literally impossible to conclude that Obama won… again by a hair.
Something is off here. There are some seriously strange things going on in the U.S. media with regards to opinion polls of debates. They are constantly pushing the “Obama won by a hair” meme, which, strangely, is exactly what Obama can use.
Here’s my verdict: McCain won, on the whole by a hair, on the economy quite easily even. The first part of the debate went to McCain fair and square, in the second part Obama made a comeback, but he did not erase the shabby performance of the first, say, 40 minutes.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
Most people don’t seem to know what “winning a debate” really means- judging it by who raised a point which wasn’t countered, who’s points were backed by facts to support a conclusion vs. someone else who made unsubstantiated claims, and who controlled the overall message of the debate and played offense rather than defense.
Obama played good defense last night, but in normal terms that does not ‘win’ anything.
Unfortunately though, presidential debates aren’t real debates, they’re popularity contests. As such, the rules almost work in reverse- the guy who controlled the debate and scored on points is said to have been ‘too mean’ and ‘made ugly facial expressions’ while the guy on defense is seen as the winner because he was ‘cool’.
Its not the media..its a POLL. They simply called people who watched the debate and asked them who do you think won. Im sorry most people dont agree with you but a majority of voters thought Obama won. What you need to do is analyze why your take on the debate is so far off from what average people observed.
Maybe a majority of voters thought Obama won by a hair.
Well, Wayne, I’m not sure if you were including me in that “you” but if you read my comment you’d have seen that my complaint was that voters base their decision on emotional connections with the candidates rather than logic which is what debating is all about. My beef is with voters, not the media, in this case.
I do think the rush to publish instantaneous reaction is a bit of a problem though. Historically it often happens that voters’ first reactions differ from what they later decide after reflection. The way the deluge of immediate polls hits now, though, the momentum to call it one way or the other builds so quickly that people don’t really seem to rethink their first impression.
Look, I’m quite willing to admit that this sticks in my craw at least partly because I support McCain and I know he needed a win. I’m not going to whine about how these things go down…it is what it is, and the tendency for voters to vote on emotion in some ways helps the GOP too so maybe it’s all a wash anyway.
A majority of the SAMPLE that was selected by the pollsters supported Obama. If the sample is bad, then the inferences drawn are bad. Some polls are better than others in achieving valid measurements.
I also “love” how they had the “men” “woman” “+, -” reaction lines. Was that an attempt to “normalize” people’s reactions? Meaning “oh, maybe I shouldn’t’ be thinking that was a good point, if nobody else did” To me, it seemed like it was there to keep your reactions in line with “everyone else”.
I agree though, if according to the analysts, if Obama barely pulled it off in the last 2, and without a doubt, McCain did better in this one, how did he win by a hair again?
voters base their decision on emotional connections with the candidates rather than logic which is what debating is all about.”
exactly…The Men, woman lines led me to that conclusion as well. On issues that had nothing to doe with men or women specifically, Men and women differered in their responses.