I’m sitting here this morning trying to wrap my head around the polls of debate watchers released by Politico, CBS and CNN (did anyone else so a snap poll? I’d love to see them if there are others).
What appears to be the take-away:
Disproprotionarely partisan audience, with relatively few independents. CCN’s polling sample had more Ds tha…
I’m sitting here this morning trying to wrap my head around the polls of debate watchers released by Politico, CBS and CNN (did anyone else so a snap poll? I’d love to see them if there are others).
What appears to be the take-away:
Disproprotionarely partisan audience, with relatively few independents. CCN’s polling sample had more Ds than Rs, and Politico had more Rs than Ds (couldn’t back out an eatimated ratio with the data CBS provided)
Those who watched the debate were more likely to to have previously formed opinions on Walz and Vance than the Likely Voter polls have been showing
Nearly everyone seems to agree with was a positive debate
Both Walz and Vance improved their personal popularity, and the perception of their readiness to serve as president if need be.
And of those who watched, only 1% of Trump supporters and 1% of Harris supporters flipped their vote. So, this isn’t likely to move many/any polls
Now, the part I don’t get is how narrow the polls are about who won. It was pretty clear to me that Vance won, especially early in the debate when Walz was visibly nervous and using tons of filler words on those first couple questions. Vance is a polished barrister, this is his groove/niche and he showed it on stage with his debate skills. But all 3 polls show the “who won?” question far closer than I would have imagined.
Politico:
50-50 Vance-Walz overall
72-5 Walz among Democrats
71-4 Vance among Democrats
34-25 Walz among Independents
CNN:
51-49 Vance-Walz overall. No partisan crosstabs given
CBS:
42-41 Vance overall. No partisan crosstabs given
Also, has anyone seen the number of viewers? I haven’t seen that number posted anywhere
Just as in a boxing match, one fighter may be ahead on points for eight-and-a-half rounds. That doesn’t matter one iota if the other fighter delivers a knock-out punch in the ninth round.
"That’s a damning non-answer," was Tim Walz’s knock-out punch!
Tim Walz spoke the memorable lines that will echo after this debate. What memorable lines did JD Vance have? I honestly don’t remember any. Neither will most people – and I think that matters.
The Harris-Walz Campaign is already cutting an ad with JD Vance’s evasion about 2020 and future elections – and Walz’s zinger: "That’s a damning non-answer."
"Thinking about the debate last night and I have to say there is something really odd about the media demanding interviews to ensure politicians are honest and accountable and the same media swooning over a slick delivery of lies."
Imo Vance made the 3 biggest mistakes of the night(and thus imo he actually lost); 1\getting his Mic cut made him look silly;2\ he blatantly lied about the national abortion ban, and 3\he would not definitely give an opinion on either January6 or this year's election outcome; so, taking those observations into account, I can see where a neutral observer would basically call it a tie; that Politico poll saying that Walz won the independent portion is very telling(which tells me that Walz actually outperformed expectations)
People prioritize different things. Being “smooth” isn’t necessarily one of them. I’m sure every American who was in debate club in high school thought Vance won; thankfully they don’t make up a huge chunk of the electorate! Walz did good enough; not great, but good enough, which is all he needed to do.
If anything it’s proof that a lot of Americans are *not* on board with the substance of the Trump platform.
I was in debate club and if I judged it, I would have probably judged it a tie(Vance blatantly lying about abortion is a huge nono because it's so easily refuted)
The polls basically calling it a tie is imo a plus for Walz(there was a definite lowering of expectations thing going from the Walz side and that worked to Walz advantage in the end)
This makes me feel more relaxed. I thought Walz did terrible and looked like Joe Biden. But then, the polling says it was a tie. You’re right. I am a very direct, snappy and not cordial person when debating an issue. It’s not that I want combat, I just don’t like bs’ing and I can factually tear down someone’s opinion in a very educated manner very quickly. But, then I look like an asshole. Walz gave a lot of grace that I would not have.
I think the two things people will remember about Vance are when he said nothing about Jan 6 and then when he stated I thought you weren't going to fact check me.
Pundits, and for the sake of this conversation I would include us in that category as well, really care about how polished a communicator someone is. I don't think the vast majority of voters do. You do have to cross a minimum threshold, but once you get beyond that, I think what you say matters a whole lot more than how you say it.
Makes me wonder how Gabby Giffords would have faired if she kept going in electoral politics. Actions speak louder than words and she’s become the best at it. I imagine there was some sit down family discussion of who is running for Senate in 2018? “You or me?” ❤️
I didn't find it to be such a clear win for Vance. Walz is usually good with concise soundbytes that have good replay value in clips and in ads, and he was solid again with that last night. Even though Vance was smoother generally and played to the camera better, I didn't think he landed many punchy, quotable lines. Ultimately, the legacy of the debate (i.e. how it plays in the coming news cycles) matters more than "who appeared nervous during an early exchange".
Imho, Tim Walz spoke the memorable lines – the ones that will echo after this debate. The one I quoted is one of many.
Which memorable lines did JD Vance have? Despite his smoothness, or perhaps because of it, I honestly don’t remember any. Neither will most people – and I think that matters.
While he may have delivered his lines well I don't think Vance said much that was memorable and whatever he did say that was memorable was memorable for the wrong reasons. The locks on doors comment, which he even prefaced by saying it was a bad answer. HIs abortion and January 6th comments are going to be the subject of ads used against them.
While I don't think yesterday's debate did much to move anyone that's undecided or a soft Kamala supporter to their side (maybe it firmed up some soft Trump supporters), but I will say this for JD Vance and this will probably end up being the most long lasting legacy of this debate, I think JD Vance made himself a stronger 2028 candidate based on what he did yesterday.
Only if Orange Slob gets back into the White House. If he doesn't - and I hope he doesn't - Vance will have the loser tag on him going into 2028. FDR notwithstanding, history has been anything BUT kind to losing Vice Presidential candidates when they run for President.
I think when you dig into it, especially recently, this becomes a little less clear. John Edwards was a strong 2008 candidate (the Rielle Hunter affair didn't come out until after he dropped out), but he just happened to be running against 2 even stronger ones. I think Palin would've been a very strong 2012 candidate. I'm not sure about Ryan in 2016 he probably would've been stuffed into the clown car with all the other non-Trump candidates, but in a smaller field or a non-Trump field, he could've been a strong candidate.
2008: Edwards didn't win a single primary or caucus. He came across as an "angry populist" and that doomed him. 2012: Romney ran to the right of Gingrich and Santorum, he wasn't going to be denied the nomination. 2016: even without Orange Slob in the race, Ryan most likely loses to Cruz, Kasich, or Rubio.
Edwards didn't win because he was running against two incredibly strong candidates. He lost to two better candidates not because he was perceived as an angry populist and certainly not because he was a failed VP candidate. I don't know how a Palin-Romney race would've gone, what I am much more comfortable in saying is if Palin did lose it wasn't going to be because of 2008. I think Ryan probably wouldn't lost in a non-Trump 16 field, but that's just because when you have a handful of candidates that are relatively even in terms of strength, no individual candidate is probabilistically likely to win. But, I don't think any of those people were a demonstrably stronger candidate than Ryan
I think he was perceived as all of the above and that's what hurt him. He was peddling a hot brand of left populism but it contrasted so sharply to his persona during his Senate term that, even if you agreed with his message, it seemed like it was coming from a snake oil peddler.
Not to mention his run in 2004. In 2004 he was MUCH more optimistic. Even with that though he only won two primaries: the two Carolinas. He wasn't as strong a candidate as he seemed.
Agreed. I was a college Junior during the 2008 primaries and was open to Edwards bc it seemed cute and progressive against the two behemoths. It did not take long to get turned off. Absolutely did not buy his schtick as a Southern guy turned progressive.
Ryan would have been crushed if he ran in 2016. Even if he ran instead of Scott Walker and occupied that country club lane, there was next to zero constituency for that in the 2016 iteration of the Republican Party. His platform would have been poison to them, and even if Trump hadn't been around as a contrast, somebody like Huckabee or Santorum would have risen in Trump's absence.
I don't really agree with you that someone would've risen in Trump's absence in his vein. If he hadn't been in the race it would've been some flavor of establishment type. I do think Jeb was probably DOA regardless. But Rubio or Cruz or Kasich and yeah Ryan if he had run. I actually don't think it would've been Ryan because I don't think particularly highly of his political abilities.
Regardless of any of that, what I'm much more certain of in this hypothetical is that if Ryan would've run in 2016 and lost that he was the losing VP candidate 4 years earlier would not have been the reason.
I would only say that the minute Trump loses; the very next second he will start deflecting from taking blame himself, and will put Vance on the hot seat by completely bombarding him with fault
I don't see that at all. Vance has been a drag on the Trump campaign and this one debate will do nothing to help him in the future.
He lied about abortion and said some things that might actually hurt him with anti abortion zealots, he messed up a question on January 6th and he was very rude to two women journalists.
I think he is an awful candidate for president and will go no where.
The Washington Post had its group of 23 “undecided swing state voters.” Before the debate, if pushed, they “probably” were for Trump 12-9-2. Afterwards, it was 13-9-1.
They were also asked about lots of issues that came up. The responses to one issue stunned me: “Do you agree with Walz that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election?” 7 agreed; 12 disagreed and 4 were neither.
The comments were also stunning. As one who “somewhat disagreed said: “The media obscured the event; protestors were allowed into the buildings and Trump never directly commanded anyone to overturn the allegedly fair election.” And one who neither agreed or disagreed said: “I don't really think the election was fair, but I do think Trump influenced people to protest that way.”
I interpret this as showing how successful the right wing media has been in convincing less-involved people about the insurrection. Of course, it could just be a fluke (23 undecideds) but it scares me nonetheless.
"Undecided swing state voters." How do you determine the accuracy of that claim? How do you determine the meaningfulness of that group?
You can't - it's garbage. It's always been garbage, it always will be garbage. It's fluff to allow journalists to create news out of thin air, complete with pithy quotes, rather than actually investigate and do journalism. It's an integral part of the media's utter abdication of their responsibility to the truth and the profession they claim to represent.
It's crap like this that pisses me off and leads me to further and further despise the whole journalistic profession. The Washington Post can climb into the same dumpster the New York Times lives in, dressing up as garbage versions of Fox News and Pravda.
Of course it is not a scientific poll. It's 23 people.
You asked: "Undecided swing state voters." How do you determine the accuracy of that claim? How do you determine the meaningfulness of that group?"
I would say that about any poll respondents and any participant in a focus group. Here, the participants had been polled before and were undecided when polled. And the WP knows who they are, where they live, their professions, etc.
Their discussions about individual issues that came up during the debate certainly have as much validity as speaking to 23 undecided voters at their doors or on the phone. As the WP put it: "Our group is too small to capture how uncommitted swing-state voters feel overall, but it still offers an intimate window into how uncommitted voters, who will be some of the most important voters this election, are thinking and feeling about the debate in real time."
The only part of that post I disagree with is that this lowers my opinion of the media. It does not, because they've interviewed random people about politics forever!
While I disagree that "undecided swing state voter" is meaningless garbage, I would agree that it's garbage when done the way WaPo did.
If the majority of the people in this focus group were "probably" for one or the other pre-debate, they weren't truly undecided. And while there's certainly value in having a focus group of soft supporters of both candidates, to see if the debate changes that for them, it needs to be separate from aun undecided focus group, IMO.
I wouldn't be too concerned. The very results you're citing show that that was not a representative panel, and before anyone suggests that's circular logic, I submit that undecided voters who can be pushed to Trump by the Washington Post aren't really undecided.
Is it really that stunning, though? The majority of the people in the focus group were Trump supporters, including the one they quoted who neither agreed nor disagreed.
And as I commented elsewhere, only two people in this group were actually undecided initially.
This is like CNN including that guy in their focus group before that they knew was a Trumper, because they needed the extra person.
If they couldn't find enough legitimately undecided voters for their focus group they should have just said that, instead of pushing this narrative.
YouGov has an instant poll taken today (10/2) asking the favorability and unfavorability of Vance and Walz. Vance is 38%-39%. Walz is 45%-30%. (The poll included people who watched and did not watch.) (2933 adults surveyed)
I’m sitting here this morning trying to wrap my head around the polls of debate watchers released by Politico, CBS and CNN (did anyone else so a snap poll? I’d love to see them if there are others).
What appears to be the take-away:
Disproprotionarely partisan audience, with relatively few independents. CCN’s polling sample had more Ds than Rs, and Politico had more Rs than Ds (couldn’t back out an eatimated ratio with the data CBS provided)
Those who watched the debate were more likely to to have previously formed opinions on Walz and Vance than the Likely Voter polls have been showing
Nearly everyone seems to agree with was a positive debate
Both Walz and Vance improved their personal popularity, and the perception of their readiness to serve as president if need be.
And of those who watched, only 1% of Trump supporters and 1% of Harris supporters flipped their vote. So, this isn’t likely to move many/any polls
Now, the part I don’t get is how narrow the polls are about who won. It was pretty clear to me that Vance won, especially early in the debate when Walz was visibly nervous and using tons of filler words on those first couple questions. Vance is a polished barrister, this is his groove/niche and he showed it on stage with his debate skills. But all 3 polls show the “who won?” question far closer than I would have imagined.
Politico:
50-50 Vance-Walz overall
72-5 Walz among Democrats
71-4 Vance among Democrats
34-25 Walz among Independents
CNN:
51-49 Vance-Walz overall. No partisan crosstabs given
CBS:
42-41 Vance overall. No partisan crosstabs given
Also, has anyone seen the number of viewers? I haven’t seen that number posted anywhere
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cbs-news-vp-debate-poll-2024/
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/02/politics/election-poll-walz-vance-debate/index.html
https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/02/politico-snap-poll-division-debate-00182131
Just as in a boxing match, one fighter may be ahead on points for eight-and-a-half rounds. That doesn’t matter one iota if the other fighter delivers a knock-out punch in the ninth round.
"That’s a damning non-answer," was Tim Walz’s knock-out punch!
It was definitely Walz' high water mark, and a major ding on Vance. Hardly a knockout though
Maybe more of a 'knockdown'; rather than a 'knockout'; Harris delivered a 'knockout' to Trump in the first debate
To keep the boxing jargon going; the judges here(according to your polls above) ruled this debate a draw
Tim Walz spoke the memorable lines that will echo after this debate. What memorable lines did JD Vance have? I honestly don’t remember any. Neither will most people – and I think that matters.
To be honest, I think the entire debate will be forgotten by Saturday
The Harris-Walz Campaign is already cutting an ad with JD Vance’s evasion about 2020 and future elections – and Walz’s zinger: "That’s a damning non-answer."
At least that line won’t be forgotten.
I stand corrected...that line could have an impact
that is what I said last night...lots of back and forth...nothing that will have a lasting impact although some of vances bs should
"Thinking about the debate last night and I have to say there is something really odd about the media demanding interviews to ensure politicians are honest and accountable and the same media swooning over a slick delivery of lies."
– Neera Tanden
Imo Vance made the 3 biggest mistakes of the night(and thus imo he actually lost); 1\getting his Mic cut made him look silly;2\ he blatantly lied about the national abortion ban, and 3\he would not definitely give an opinion on either January6 or this year's election outcome; so, taking those observations into account, I can see where a neutral observer would basically call it a tie; that Politico poll saying that Walz won the independent portion is very telling(which tells me that Walz actually outperformed expectations)
People prioritize different things. Being “smooth” isn’t necessarily one of them. I’m sure every American who was in debate club in high school thought Vance won; thankfully they don’t make up a huge chunk of the electorate! Walz did good enough; not great, but good enough, which is all he needed to do.
If anything it’s proof that a lot of Americans are *not* on board with the substance of the Trump platform.
I was in debate club and if I judged it, I would have probably judged it a tie(Vance blatantly lying about abortion is a huge nono because it's so easily refuted)
Vance's whopper on the ACA was his most audacious moment of the night IMO.
That is true but imo the abortion lying is just so far beyond the pale(but you have a great point)
If only debate judges got to judge the debate.
The polls basically calling it a tie is imo a plus for Walz(there was a definite lowering of expectations thing going from the Walz side and that worked to Walz advantage in the end)
This makes me feel more relaxed. I thought Walz did terrible and looked like Joe Biden. But then, the polling says it was a tie. You’re right. I am a very direct, snappy and not cordial person when debating an issue. It’s not that I want combat, I just don’t like bs’ing and I can factually tear down someone’s opinion in a very educated manner very quickly. But, then I look like an asshole. Walz gave a lot of grace that I would not have.
He was nowhere near as confused, sometimes incoherent and quiet as Biden.
"The first thing I want to know about a flash poll of debate watchers is the partisan breakdown of the people watching the debate."
– Prof. Michael McDonald (Election Project)
I think the two things people will remember about Vance are when he said nothing about Jan 6 and then when he stated I thought you weren't going to fact check me.
Both of those would have lost him speakers points in high school debate judging
I would add the blatant lying on the abortion issue
Pundits, and for the sake of this conversation I would include us in that category as well, really care about how polished a communicator someone is. I don't think the vast majority of voters do. You do have to cross a minimum threshold, but once you get beyond that, I think what you say matters a whole lot more than how you say it.
Hey, Susan Collins! If someone could personify nails on a chalkboard, it’s her.
Makes me wonder how Gabby Giffords would have faired if she kept going in electoral politics. Actions speak louder than words and she’s become the best at it. I imagine there was some sit down family discussion of who is running for Senate in 2018? “You or me?” ❤️
I imagine that it's a stamina issue; after all, dude's an astronaut
Yeah. It takes a lot of energy to talk on the phone with strangers and ask for money.
I didn't find it to be such a clear win for Vance. Walz is usually good with concise soundbytes that have good replay value in clips and in ads, and he was solid again with that last night. Even though Vance was smoother generally and played to the camera better, I didn't think he landed many punchy, quotable lines. Ultimately, the legacy of the debate (i.e. how it plays in the coming news cycles) matters more than "who appeared nervous during an early exchange".
Imho, Tim Walz spoke the memorable lines – the ones that will echo after this debate. The one I quoted is one of many.
Which memorable lines did JD Vance have? Despite his smoothness, or perhaps because of it, I honestly don’t remember any. Neither will most people – and I think that matters.
"This makes [JD Vance] the first vice presidential candidate in history who doesn’t know who won the last presidential election."
– Lawrence O’Donnell
Sometimes it's just the guns.
While he may have delivered his lines well I don't think Vance said much that was memorable and whatever he did say that was memorable was memorable for the wrong reasons. The locks on doors comment, which he even prefaced by saying it was a bad answer. HIs abortion and January 6th comments are going to be the subject of ads used against them.
While I don't think yesterday's debate did much to move anyone that's undecided or a soft Kamala supporter to their side (maybe it firmed up some soft Trump supporters), but I will say this for JD Vance and this will probably end up being the most long lasting legacy of this debate, I think JD Vance made himself a stronger 2028 candidate based on what he did yesterday.
Only if Orange Slob gets back into the White House. If he doesn't - and I hope he doesn't - Vance will have the loser tag on him going into 2028. FDR notwithstanding, history has been anything BUT kind to losing Vice Presidential candidates when they run for President.
I think when you dig into it, especially recently, this becomes a little less clear. John Edwards was a strong 2008 candidate (the Rielle Hunter affair didn't come out until after he dropped out), but he just happened to be running against 2 even stronger ones. I think Palin would've been a very strong 2012 candidate. I'm not sure about Ryan in 2016 he probably would've been stuffed into the clown car with all the other non-Trump candidates, but in a smaller field or a non-Trump field, he could've been a strong candidate.
2008: Edwards didn't win a single primary or caucus. He came across as an "angry populist" and that doomed him. 2012: Romney ran to the right of Gingrich and Santorum, he wasn't going to be denied the nomination. 2016: even without Orange Slob in the race, Ryan most likely loses to Cruz, Kasich, or Rubio.
Edwards didn't win because he was running against two incredibly strong candidates. He lost to two better candidates not because he was perceived as an angry populist and certainly not because he was a failed VP candidate. I don't know how a Palin-Romney race would've gone, what I am much more comfortable in saying is if Palin did lose it wasn't going to be because of 2008. I think Ryan probably wouldn't lost in a non-Trump 16 field, but that's just because when you have a handful of candidates that are relatively even in terms of strength, no individual candidate is probabilistically likely to win. But, I don't think any of those people were a demonstrably stronger candidate than Ryan
I don't think Edwards was perceived as angry. Incredibly fake and shallow, maybe.
I think he was perceived as all of the above and that's what hurt him. He was peddling a hot brand of left populism but it contrasted so sharply to his persona during his Senate term that, even if you agreed with his message, it seemed like it was coming from a snake oil peddler.
Not to mention his run in 2004. In 2004 he was MUCH more optimistic. Even with that though he only won two primaries: the two Carolinas. He wasn't as strong a candidate as he seemed.
Definitely fake and shallow. It was a precursor of revelations to come.
Agreed. I was a college Junior during the 2008 primaries and was open to Edwards bc it seemed cute and progressive against the two behemoths. It did not take long to get turned off. Absolutely did not buy his schtick as a Southern guy turned progressive.
That film footage of the hair was devastating imo
Ryan would have been crushed if he ran in 2016. Even if he ran instead of Scott Walker and occupied that country club lane, there was next to zero constituency for that in the 2016 iteration of the Republican Party. His platform would have been poison to them, and even if Trump hadn't been around as a contrast, somebody like Huckabee or Santorum would have risen in Trump's absence.
I don't really agree with you that someone would've risen in Trump's absence in his vein. If he hadn't been in the race it would've been some flavor of establishment type. I do think Jeb was probably DOA regardless. But Rubio or Cruz or Kasich and yeah Ryan if he had run. I actually don't think it would've been Ryan because I don't think particularly highly of his political abilities.
Regardless of any of that, what I'm much more certain of in this hypothetical is that if Ryan would've run in 2016 and lost that he was the losing VP candidate 4 years earlier would not have been the reason.
I am thinking it would have been either Cruz or Rubio(leaning towards Cruz)
agree completely; there would not have been a trump 2.0
Palin would have lost a general election worse than Romney did.
I would only say that the minute Trump loses; the very next second he will start deflecting from taking blame himself, and will put Vance on the hot seat by completely bombarding him with fault
Which will only reinforce my loser tag argument above.
I’m gonna need some popcorn to watch the shit show unfold but I also feel the need to declare I don’t want to watch a snuff film.
Lmao
I don't see that at all. Vance has been a drag on the Trump campaign and this one debate will do nothing to help him in the future.
He lied about abortion and said some things that might actually hurt him with anti abortion zealots, he messed up a question on January 6th and he was very rude to two women journalists.
I think he is an awful candidate for president and will go no where.
I watched the debate, and Walz won IMO.
The Washington Post had its group of 23 “undecided swing state voters.” Before the debate, if pushed, they “probably” were for Trump 12-9-2. Afterwards, it was 13-9-1.
They were also asked about lots of issues that came up. The responses to one issue stunned me: “Do you agree with Walz that Trump tried to overturn the 2020 election?” 7 agreed; 12 disagreed and 4 were neither.
The comments were also stunning. As one who “somewhat disagreed said: “The media obscured the event; protestors were allowed into the buildings and Trump never directly commanded anyone to overturn the allegedly fair election.” And one who neither agreed or disagreed said: “I don't really think the election was fair, but I do think Trump influenced people to protest that way.”
I interpret this as showing how successful the right wing media has been in convincing less-involved people about the insurrection. Of course, it could just be a fluke (23 undecideds) but it scares me nonetheless.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/elections/interactive/2024/vice-presidential-debate-voter-poll/?itid=hp-top-table-main_p001_f005
"Undecided swing state voters." How do you determine the accuracy of that claim? How do you determine the meaningfulness of that group?
You can't - it's garbage. It's always been garbage, it always will be garbage. It's fluff to allow journalists to create news out of thin air, complete with pithy quotes, rather than actually investigate and do journalism. It's an integral part of the media's utter abdication of their responsibility to the truth and the profession they claim to represent.
It's crap like this that pisses me off and leads me to further and further despise the whole journalistic profession. The Washington Post can climb into the same dumpster the New York Times lives in, dressing up as garbage versions of Fox News and Pravda.
Of course it is not a scientific poll. It's 23 people.
You asked: "Undecided swing state voters." How do you determine the accuracy of that claim? How do you determine the meaningfulness of that group?"
I would say that about any poll respondents and any participant in a focus group. Here, the participants had been polled before and were undecided when polled. And the WP knows who they are, where they live, their professions, etc.
Their discussions about individual issues that came up during the debate certainly have as much validity as speaking to 23 undecided voters at their doors or on the phone. As the WP put it: "Our group is too small to capture how uncommitted swing-state voters feel overall, but it still offers an intimate window into how uncommitted voters, who will be some of the most important voters this election, are thinking and feeling about the debate in real time."
The only part of that post I disagree with is that this lowers my opinion of the media. It does not, because they've interviewed random people about politics forever!
Lemme guess, they found these "undecided voters" in a diner out in some small exurban town?
While I disagree that "undecided swing state voter" is meaningless garbage, I would agree that it's garbage when done the way WaPo did.
If the majority of the people in this focus group were "probably" for one or the other pre-debate, they weren't truly undecided. And while there's certainly value in having a focus group of soft supporters of both candidates, to see if the debate changes that for them, it needs to be separate from aun undecided focus group, IMO.
I wouldn't be too concerned. The very results you're citing show that that was not a representative panel, and before anyone suggests that's circular logic, I submit that undecided voters who can be pushed to Trump by the Washington Post aren't really undecided.
Is it really that stunning, though? The majority of the people in the focus group were Trump supporters, including the one they quoted who neither agreed nor disagreed.
And as I commented elsewhere, only two people in this group were actually undecided initially.
This is like CNN including that guy in their focus group before that they knew was a Trumper, because they needed the extra person.
If they couldn't find enough legitimately undecided voters for their focus group they should have just said that, instead of pushing this narrative.
YouGov has an instant poll taken today (10/2) asking the favorability and unfavorability of Vance and Walz. Vance is 38%-39%. Walz is 45%-30%. (The poll included people who watched and did not watch.) (2933 adults surveyed)
https://today.yougov.com/topics/politics/survey-results/daily/2024/10/02/256ff/1
I don't agree with you. Overall, I felt the debate was a push, just like snap polls did.