USA Today/Gallup, came out with a new exclusive Debate poll for their Newspaper, stating that Barack Obama beat John McCain 46% to 34% (the remaining percentage saw no advantage for each).
This means that every major poll and focus group, has declared Obama the winner, and this is the first big name scientific poll performed the day after the debate. The CBS and CNN polls were done the same night with lesser known pollsters.
This latest poll, should calm those Obama supporters, who listen more to what pundits say, than what they see with their own eyes.
Obama put in a very solid performance. No he didn't hit on everything he could. But that's doesn't mean, that he still didn't win, and McCain performed poorly (as this and other polls indicate).
So let's look at the poll.
http://blogs.usatoday.com/...
A new USA TODAY/Gallup Poll shows 46% of people who watched Friday night's presidential debate say Democrat Barack Obama did a better job than Republican John McCain; 34% said McCain did better.
This means if the total numbers were fleshed out, Obama would win 56% vs 44% for John McCain. Not bad. But it gets worse for McCain (as with some of the other television sponsored polls). Gallup/Usa Today says:
Obama scored even better -- 52%-35% -- when debate-watchers were asked which candidate offered the best proposals for change to solve the country’s problems.
You see that pundits, Obama won handily, when the question was asked, who put forth the best proposals for change, and how to solve the countries problems.
According to USA Today, More than six in 10 people or 63% in the one-day poll, taken Saturday, said they watched the first face-off in Oxford, Miss. For those 701 people, the margin of error was +/- 4 percentage points.
According to the poll McCain didn't really impress anyone one.
The poll suggested the debate was to some extent a wash for McCain: 21% of those who watched say it gave them a more favorable view of him, 21% say less favorable and 56% say it didn't change their opinion much.
But Obama actually gained in his favorability, compared to McCain:
Three in 10 said their opinion of Obama became more favorable after seeing the debate, compared to 16% who said less favorable and 54% who said it didn't make much difference.
See Obama had a +14 in favorability, compared to a no gain for McCain (hey that rhymes).
McCain was -14 when viewers said they had less confidence in McCain with the economy, after seeing the debate. With Obama viewers newfound confidence, was up + 8. Here's the paragraph:
More than one-third of viewers, or 37%, said they had less confidence in McCain to fix economic problems after seeing the debate; 23% said more. For Obama, the survey results were 34% more confidence, 26% less.
McCain must of really had a bad night, because after all the Obama gains, the one area where he didn't make any gains (national security) was still perfect for him. They tied!:
Neither candidate broke away on national security and foreign policy. About a third of viewers said they had more confidence in each man on that front after the debate, and slightly less in each case said they had less confidence.
Wow! I can't wait to see the daily tracking numbers the next few days, and their debate questions (if they ask).
But it's clear. Between CBS, ABC, CNN and others. Obama has won or dominated the debates in viewers eyes. Even Fox, in a Frank Luntz group, Obama beat McCain with 69% of the vote from a a group of independents. CNN focus groups, noticed the same.
So How did the pundits get it so wrong (with the exception of the likes of Joe Klein, Mark Halperin and others)?
Bias, and the horse race effect. Most of these pundits, just talk to hear themselves talk for their Networks. Both Alex Castellanos and Gloria Borger had Obama winning last night (with CNN's fancy graphs) and Bennet and John King either had it virtually tied or Obama winning as well (King, but close). So they know the truth. But what did they say when on air. "it's close, a tie", etc.
It was obvious to anyone that watched that debate, that Obama was strong, commanding, gracious, articulate, confident and informed.
On the other hand McCain was meandering, un-focused, grumpy, belligerent and he barely took a glance at Obama. This cost him the debate alone.
By not looking at Obama, McCain came across like a punk and unconvincing.
After all the nasty commercials, the Sarah Palin insults, dastardly McCain spin, and recent Debate-Gate Grandstanding, why couldn't McCain look Obama in the eye? Why couldn't he face Obama down?
Think about it? The most memorable scenes that this debate will be remembered by, are not the McCain ones. Why, because McCain is essentially talking to himself. But the Obama scenes (Iraq, Iran and George Bush's economy to name a few), were impactful, because Obama is staring down McCain, calling him by his first name (which McCain never did)and demanding answers.
Those were Obama shake downs.
Sure Obama could of nailed McCain for Veterans benefits, and the Iraqi Prime-minister agreeing to timetables, and a assortment of other Gotchas with McCain. But I don't think that was Team Obama's strategy. I think their main goal, was to be quick to the punch, appear forceful, informed and Presidential. I think Obama captured that goal.
Judging by the polls, so did America!