Does 'win the debate' mean anything ? If so, what? Does using a sports

[KingCharlemagne]

metaphor help or hinder our understanding of last night's debate?

I would argue that 'winning a debate' means little in this context, but I'm open to hearing other people's opinions. Was anyone's mind changed by what he or she heard last night? And, if so, how would you quantify it so as to declare a 'winner'?

[stone space]

1. "Winning the debate" means changing the terms of the debate.

Socialism won the debate last night.

And the NRA lost badly.

[KingCharlemagne]

3. Interesting. I had to work last night, so

could not watch it live. Rather than watch a recording of it, I have spent time reading post-debate commentaries and anaylyses. How did the NRA lose?

[Renew Deal]

2. I'm sure there was at least some movement with voters

That's just natural. Not sure if it's significant.

[KingCharlemagne]

5. I'm merely an interested layperson, but I would think

Last edited Wed Oct 14, 2015, 02:02 PM - Edit history (1)

that the polling organizations have ways to poll to see whether there's been any change. But I have no specific knowledge in that regard.

[Renew Deal]

8. Yes, they do

They can either poll before and poll after and see the numbers change or they can ask directly: Who did you support before? Who do you support now? If they do it that way, they can detect movement from one to another.

[NCTraveler]

4. I think it means something.

Here are a couple of the biggest things.

1) Sanders has brought a lot of new people into the process. All of them will have liked what Clinton and O'Malley had to say last night. Before last night they only knew of Sanders. Many of these people will stick around and support the party after the primary even if their candidate isn't victorious. That is a huge benefit of how excellent the debate was last night.

2) Many people were introduced to Sanders for the first time last night. While I don't think he changed any minds last night, they got to know him and see that he isn't some scary socialist. That is big, it will garner name recognition for him, and will most likely gain him support over the next couple of months. You can't support someone you aren't comfortable with and Sanders introduced himself very well last night.

3) Since all of our candidates held their own last night, the talk of the town seems to be how our candidates were so much better than the republicans. How our debates were better. How we are the adults in the room. I think people would truly be shocked to find out how many people vote a certain way simply because their mother, father, or trusted friend votes a certain way. These people are willing to move. Being talked about as the adults in the room is actually really important.

[FSogol]

6. No. It has no meaning. Different candidates had different goals.

HRC had to show she was progressive and would stay to the left. She had to show that RW attacks are nothing more than RW attacks. She needed to keep Biden from sensing weakness and joining in. She succeeded and did a good job.

Sanders had to show non-supporters that he wasn't an angry, un-electable, commie from a tiny liberal State. He came off well and reassured much of the party base. He spoke well and his ideas resound with all Democrats.

O'Malley had to introduce himself to people who weren't aware of him, separate himself from Webb/Chafee and show he had the progressive chops to be on the stage with Sanders and HCR. He also succeeded especially with the number of times he said, "I already enacted these policies in Maryland and his powerful closing statement."

All three did well. Who won? American did. No matter which Democrat is the winner in the end, america is better off with our party than they would be with the crappy, clownish candidates of the GOP.



My 2 cents (unadjusted for inflation)

[2naSalit]

10. Agreed.

There is far too much at stake for this process to be minimized into simplistic soundbite-sized memes and cliches. Childish attitudes about the fate of everyone on the planet (not just the human element) is foolish and imperils us all.

What I saw were, for the most part, the adults in the room addressing how they perceive the issues and what they see as paths to resolving the ills of our past behavior as inhabitants of the planet.

We have to pull ourselves up out of the pit that was made during the past 15+ years (actually I agree that it started much further back but I'll claim that it became painfully obvious by 2000) of intellectual decline into mere emotional triggers and get serious about how we plan to survive our negative impact... last night showed that some of our political personnel are, at least, contemplating this as necessity and that's why I thought the debate was good at face value.

[KingCharlemagne]

12. Excellent post You seem to have captured and articulated many of

my unvoiced thoughts. It sounds like it was a good discussion last night.

[FSogol]

13. I liked it. The Democratic Party and our candidates rock.

We all need to get out the vote and make sure we rule too.

[SheilaT]

7. I've been thinking the same thing, and

trying to figure out how to craft an OP on this.

Debate in high school or college is a sport. A weird sort of sport, but a sport nonetheless, and there are winners and losers, judged on (to me) somewhat strange criteria. I once attended a debate between two candidates for Congress, one of whom had apparently majored in debate in college, and it showed, but not in a good way. He talked so incredibly fast, trying to pack in as much fact and information, that it was very difficult to follow him. His performance made me like him even less.

Debate at this level ought to be about 1. Letting us learn more about the specific candidates and the positions they hold, and 2. Challenging them about those positions.

Instead, according to the media, it's simply about who won or lost. And that does all of us, candidates and voters alike, a huge disservice.

Keep in mind, what the media loves best is a horse race between candidates, or a football game between the two parties, crap like that. The main reason, in my opinion, they've been salivating over the possibility of Joe Biden entering the race is that they're totally bored by the current match-up between Bernie and Hillary. The others on stage last night simply don't matter, alas for them. Meanwhile, the media is totally delirious over the current huge Republican field, and are probably more disappointed every time someone drops out than anyone else is.

[2naSalit]

11. +1

[Maedhros]

9. People will generally see what they want to see with respect to debate performance.

Clinton supporters will naturally feel that she won, and Sanders supporters will believe he won.

Media types will declare the winner based upon who is paying them and who they want to win.

The real measure of success from the debates will play out in the next few days.

[Hortensis]

14. A winner at this point is someone who's decidedly better off after than before.

There were 2 winners last night for sure, not one.

I think O'Malley may have managed to establish himself as the very distant #3; he may not have moved up enough to consider this round a win for him, but that is still an advance over competing with 2 other unknown people for dead last.