The On Line Response to the Democratic Primary Debate

Spread the love

Here, without comment, is a handful of screen grabs showing the results (at the time I grabbed them, Wed AM) of several on line polls asking who won last night’s Democratic Party presidential debate in Las Vegas.

Screen Shot 2015-10-14 at 10.42.45 AM

Screen Shot 2015-10-14 at 10.43.12 AM

Screen Shot 2015-10-14 at 10.43.43 AM

Screen Shot 2015-10-14 at 10.44.04 AM

Screen Shot 2015-10-14 at 10.44.25 AM

Screen Shot 2015-10-14 at 10.44.49 AM

Screen Shot 2015-10-14 at 10.45.08 AM

Screen Shot 2015-10-14 at 10.45.28 AM

Screen Shot 2015-10-14 at 10.45.56 AM

Note: For most polls, I needed to vote first to see the results. I voted alternately for Sanders and Clinton in doing so.

Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:

In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.

Spread the love

36 thoughts on “The On Line Response to the Democratic Primary Debate

  1. FD: I didn’t watch the debate.

    It’s striking that Webb does much better among people who vote in the online polls of national news sites (NR, MSNBC, Time) than people who vote in the online polls of local news sites. I’m not sure what that is supposed to mean, but it is curious.

  2. Yes, good point. Generally, his numbers seem to vary the most. Like there is some internal patterning to it all. Caused by something.

  3. Ms Clinton has spent many millions of dollars more than Mr Sanders. I personally find Ms Clinton intellectually and morally and ethically repugnant, and I would like everyone on the planet to know I do. Hee.

    The youtube videos her campaign produced are beyond merely insulting to people’s intelligence; they are designed to sway four-year-olds, and are designed to provoke emotional responses instead of intellectual ones.

  4. I think Bernie won, largely for his upholding, and partial description of, “democratic socialism.”

    Hillary probably ran a close second, largely for all the applause she garnered for her email and Benghazi scandals.

  5. they are designed to sway four-year-olds, and are designed to provoke emotional responses instead of intellectual ones.

    You have just summed up political advertising as we now know it.

  6. Except, sn, scandal doesn’t really fit, unless you are talking about the tiny mind of folks like you.
    There are plenty of reasons to dislike her: the fact that you and others are pushing reasons that have no basis in reality simply reflects your laziness.

  7. “… largely for all the applause she garnered for her email and Benghazi scandals.”

    Okay, I give up: what email and Benghazi scandals?

  8. Me: “I think Bernie won, largely for his upholding, and partial description of, “democratic socialism.” Hillary probably ran a close second, largely for all the applause she garnered for her email and Benghazi scandals.”

    Desertphile: “Okay, I give up: what email and Benghazi scandals?”

    Sorry. I forgot there are no such things as “scandals” in the Dem party. Allow me a word substitution:

    Hillary probably ran a close second, largely for all the applause she garnered for her email and Benghazi *issues*.

    1. “Desertphile: “Okay, I give up: what email and Benghazi scandals?” Sorry. I forgot there are no such things as “scandals” in the Dem party. Allow me a word substitution:”

      You mentioned two scandals connected to Ms Clinton. What “what email and Benghazi scandals?” Have you any evidence that there is any scandal connected to Ms Clinton?

  9. sn, if you can’t summarize why you believe what you claim are scandals actually are scandals, why should anyone believe your assertion?

    Is it really that difficult for you to deal with facts?

    1. “sn, if you can’t summarize why you believe what you claim are scandals actually are scandals, why should anyone believe your assertion?”

      I would *LOVE* to see evidence that Ms Clinton is connected to scandals: I would work to get her ass kicked out of the presidential campaign, and put in prison.

      So, “SN:” what email and Benghazi scandals?” Please step forward with evidence of a scandal. Thank you in advance.

  10. Clearly, Sanders is the favorite among people who were interested in the debate and like to vote in Internet polls.

    I wonder how this compares to voters as a whole.

  11. Please step forward with evidence of a scandal.

    I’m sure he has reams of it in his gun safe – resting on the proof he has that President Obama is not a citizen but a “Moooslem” liberal communist plant.

    I have a feeling his “proof” for the scandals will be as long in coming as the “proof” a fellow faculty member has for why same sex marriage in Michigan has rendered existing marriages worthless has been.

    1. “I have a feeling his “proof” for the scandals will be as long in coming as the “proof” a fellow faculty member has for why same sex marriage in Michigan has rendered existing marriages worthless has been.”

      Yeah, now that all marriages are null and void and meaningless, the country will be filled with bastards. Oh…. wait…. that happened already.

  12. Another thing Hillary has going for her – “flexibility”.
    She’s evolved on marriage since this in 2004:

    And maybe on gun control since this in 2008:
    “You know, my dad took me out behind the cottage that my grandfather built on a little lake called Lake Winola outside of Scranton and taught me how to shoot when I was a little girl…Some people now continue to teach their children and their grandchildren. It’s part of culture. It’s part of a way of life. People enjoy hunting and shooting because it’s an important part of who they are, not because they are bitter.”

    1. “I submitted three other comments on Wednesday and they still haven’t been posted.”

      Oh, is that were your evidence for ” email and Benghazi scandals” went? The evil scientist cabal censored it?

  13. Oh, is that were your evidence for ” email and Benghazi scandals” went? The evil scientist cabal censored it?

    Or were they full of links and so held in moderation as happens to everyone? Why am I reminded of a snotty toddler stomping a foot when an appropriate gift does not immediately appear during potty training?

    (Of course there is no intended comparison, implied or otherwise, between the typical sn post and the typical result of a toddler’s trip to the potty. None at all. Nope. Not even considered.

    /snark)

  14. (Of course there is no intended comparison, implied or otherwise, between the typical sn post and the typical result of a toddler’s trip to the potty. None at all. Nope. Not even considered.

    /snark)

    Of course not. Fortunately most toddler’s can’t read because if they did reading SN’s shit nonsense would send them rushing to the toilet.

    1. “Perhaps the email scandal…..”

      We’re still waiting for your evidence of that. Ah… what seems to be the hold-up on that?

    1. “For those who are perplexed about my referring to the Hillary email situation as a scandal….”

      Heh! The Republican Party’s claim is that Ms Clinton violated a law that didn’t exist at the time. Hilarious!

      There is no evidence Ms. Clinton, or her staff, committed any “email scandal.”

      Are you also upset about the Bush2 Email Scandal? You know: when Bush2 deleted almost 22,000,000 emails to prevent them from being given to the Department of Justice? How upset are you about that? Or is it okay when homicidal fascists do it?

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_White_House_email_controversy

  15. There is a very good the resident idiot @25 has not read the times article, since

    a) In the past he has never read an article he has referenced
    b) The New York Times is not as sleazy as Breitbart, his favorite hangout
    c) The Times’ writers tend to use words with more than one syllable, and past performance has shown that that complexity has been beyond the ability of sn to grasp

    In any case, there is nothing in that article to hint that the investigation will approach the president: it centers on the fact that some former FBI agents are upset about his comments, and states that some current agents could be as well.

    As mentioned late in the article, agents were equally upset when (then) President Bush stated that he believed DeLay was innocent of the charges against him – for the same reason: injecting political language into an ongoing investigation.

    Is anyone surprised that sn has grossly misrepresented an article, presenting what is, in essence, another lie? Anyone? Bueller?

  16. The Republican Party’s claim is that Ms Clinton violated a law that didn’t exist at the time

    Clearly she used a time machine to go back just far enough to avoid the law.

    It’s probably the same one used to plant President Obama’s fake birth certificate and false birth announcements in Hawaii’s government and newspapers.

    1. “Clearly she used a time machine to go back just far enough to avoid the law.

      It’s probably the same one used to plant President Obama’s fake birth certificate and false birth announcements in Hawaii’s government and newspapers.”

      Maybe the same time machine also moved Hawai’i out of Kenya and in to the Pacific.

  17. From the ultra-liberal Huffington Post:

    “Therefore, below are 10 questions that need to be addressed before America puts this latest email controversy to rest. Once these questions are answered, the email saga will end.”
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/h-a-goodman/with-clintons-private-server-break-laws_b_8144564.html

    And note that the above doesn’t even cover questions about specifics such as Benghazi, Sidney Blumenthal, Cheryl Mills, the Clinton Foundation.

  18. A very revealing segment from today’s Benghazi hearing (11 minutes):

    [A link to the NR? I don’t think so. People can go watch the 11 hours of hearings and find out their own interesting 11 minutes on their own.]

  19. Greg,
    Where’s my post containing the quote from the State Department’s summary and the Youtube video from the hearing?
    I submitted the post about 24 hours ago.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.