Memo to Dems: Beware of post-debate snap polls

[babylonsister]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/post/memo-to-dems-beware-of-post-debate-snap-polls/2012/10/16/77667b72-17a2-11e2-a346-f24efc680b8d_blog.html

Memo to Dems: Beware of post-debate snap polls
By Jamelle Bouie


President Obama is ultimately responsible for the fallout from his lackluster debate performance two weeks ago — but it’s also true that liberals added to the bad news with several days of complete panic. They grossly overreacted to initial snap polls of the debate, despite the fact that immediate, post-event polling is notoriously shaky.

The CNN snap poll for example, showed a 42 point Romney victory, but failed to mention that white Southerners — a GOP friendly segment of the electorate — were a large part of the sample. Likewise, their snap poll of the vice presidential debate was more Republican than their average poll of all Americans, showing the extent to which debate watchers — as a whole — are more likely to support the GOP..

The immediate liberal stampede away from Obama — driven, in part, by the snap polls — hurt his image writ large, and reinforced the view that the first debate was a historic loss for an incumbent president. We don’t know how Obama will perform in this debate, but his supporters are nervous and there’s a good chance that Mitt Romney will give another good performance. Regardless, I think everyone — Republicans and Democrats — would do well to ignore the post-debate polls.

The best case against them is that they don’t tell us much about public opinion. The sample sizes are too small, the circumstances are too idiosyncratic, and the debates themselves are too subject to spin and reinterpretation. At best, the polls give us an idea of how a subset of viewers saw the debate — nothing more and nothing less.

More broadly, partisans — and reporters, for that matter — should spend a little less time obsessing over the debates. They’re billed as the most important events of the political season, but the truth of the matter is that they’re nothing of the sort: The vast bulk of Americans have watched President Obama perform in office for the last four years. The large majority of have already made up their minds about his tenure and their vote. Likewise, they’ve watched Romney campaign for more than a year. He’s given speeches, articulated policies, and gone through all of the motions of a presidential campaign.

There’s just not much more that the debates can tell us. Ultimately, the outcome will not depend on who performed best in four-and-a-half hours of television, stretched out over the course of a month.

[fugop]

1. The spin...

I read the Obama team is sending out more big guns this time for post-debate spin. And Joe's doing all the morning shows (network). I think they realize that's REALLY where we got beat last time.

[Maximumnegro]

2. BINGO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[TDale313]

3. Unfortunately, those snap polls...

Tend to set the narrative. So the snap polls show one candidate "won" by a few points and people (media and viewers) pile on. Pretty soon it's a 20 to 30 point gap showing that candidate won the debate.

We liberals may be a bit too honest in our assessments, though. The first debate, many on our side gave our real opinion that Obama hadn't done as well as he could have. Romney could advocate punching puppies and their side would still claim he was brilliant.

[kathman-duzi]

16. Good point thanks! n/t

[dkf]

4. No it wasn't the polls that formed impressions, it was the debate itself.

But the impact of the reaction is true.

[lunatica]

5. No it was the fucking talking heads who formed the impressions

Because if it had been the debate everyone would have known that lies don't win debates.

[Drunken Irishman]

7. I agree with luna...the reaction is what set the impressions...

I was on DU the night of the debate and while some people were upset with Obama's tepidness, it was generally calm and civil. I think, initially, most felt Obama could've done better but that Romney didn't get a game-changer. He did better than expected, but also lied ... a lot ... and looked kind of creepy sitting there with the smile.

Then on came Chris Matthews, who freaked out and everyone kind of just followed his lead. Then, instead of the narrative setting in that Romney lied through his teeth ... it was that Obama didn't look interested and was weak and passive and blah. That's the impression that quickly set in and it was pushed by the supposed liberal media. Matthews, Rachel, Ed, they all quickly threw the President under the bus.

What's interesting is that the most sane, calming response to the debate was James Carville on CNN. He said Obama didn't have his best night, but that he would be okay ... and that this debate wasn't a big deal. Had the fools at MSNBC taken the same approach, I wonder if the panic would've been nearly as large as we eventually saw.

[dkf]

8. I was on DU that night too and reaction was really negative during the debate.

People were aggravated that Obama let it slide.

[Drunken Irishman]

11. Right...

It was negative ... but not freak out negative. That came after Chris Matthews went crazy after the debate. So, yeah, I agree...it was negative...but outside some posters, most weren't near embarrassing as they would later become. That was fueled entirely by MSNBC and other liberals who freaked the fuck out in the moments, and days, after the debate.

It was really pathetic and sad and embarrassing. Sometimes I am so ashamed to associate with the left.

[dkf]

12. I was actually shocked at the comments.

Then again I didn't watch Tweety. I think that helped to be more even keeled afterwards.

[Drunken Irishman]

13. The whole thing was a mess...

I hope we avoid it altogether. Obama needs to come out strong and we need to not embarrass ourselves ... especially MSNBC. There is no doubt Obama struggled in the last debate. But we amplified that struggle with some of our responses.

I still believe James Carville said it best and had we taken that approach, the narrative would've been more positive. But because everyone decided it was the end of the world and you had Matthews screaming at the top of his lungs and Andrew Sullivan essentially calling the race for Romney, the whole night was just a toxic clusterfuck. From Obama on down.

[kathman-duzi]

17. Totally agree. Yes the performance wasn't as shiny as we (our spoiled selvemay have wanted, but the

opposition was pathetic with lie, lie and another one bites the dust lie wow. The spin doctors get paid for their turning and twisting of the story. It sells more print.

[LeftInTX]

6. Personally, I thought the last debate was a tie

So did my husband who is a moderate (anti-abortion) Republican

I kept asking my husband: Did Obama perform badly?
Husband: No

My husband couldn't figure out the sudden pro-Romney spin.

He's not very impressed with Romney.
He tends to think Romney is a flip-flopping phoney.

But, the target audience at the last minute is the uninformed, undecided voters....

[Doctor_J]

9. But if the presidentgets stampeded again,

the snap polls will be much like those from the subsequent days. Rmoney didn't close the gap in the week after the debate because of what Ed & Rachel said. He closed the gap because the president didn't behave like a leader.

[fugop]

10. And how many troll threads will be started tonight?

I hate all the PANIC NOW! threads that get started. It all snowballs and makes things worse!

[Inuca]

14. This is the THIRD

article I saw this evening on the same theme.

SJ Dionne http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/gaming-the-town-hall-debate/2012/10/16/6b3ed27c-179d-11e2-a55c-39408fbe6a4b_blog.html?hpid=z2

and J Chait http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/10/did-liberal-hysteria-sink-obama.html

Same or very similar point in all three articles, and IMHO a valid one.

[treestar]

15. We allow ourselves to be manipulated

It's sad.