Did Trump Actually Win the Debate? How to Understand All Those Instant Polls That Say Yes.

Thursday’s GOP debates produced a slew of surprises—Carly Fiorina’s demolition of her opponents at the kids’ table, John Kasich’s stirring defense of Medicaid, and Fox News’ incredible job wrangling a historically crowded field, to name just a few. The night also produced one predictable outcome: A massive chasm between how pundits and journalists reacted to Donald Trump’s performance and how the public at large did.

Josh Voorhees

Josh Voorhees is a Slate senior writer. He lives in Iowa City.

The chattering class was near unanimous in its verdict: Trump lost. “The Trump bubble will burst,” Politico’s Mike Allen confidently declared after the debate. The current GOP frontrunner’s momentum has stalled and is “[definitely] not going up,” predicted ABC News’ Matthew Dowd. “Trump was a clown show,” tweeted Fox News contributor Stephen Hayes. “The last month has been Trump making the rest of the field look small; [Thursday] was the opposite,” wrote the National Review’s Rick Lowry. “Finally, perhaps we’ve really seen peak Trump,” concluded the Weekly Standard’s Bill Kristol.

Much of the public, though, saw something else entirely: A Trump victory. As of late Friday morning, more than 46 percent of the nearly half-million votes cast in a Drudge Report poll asking who won the primetime debate went to the once-and-future reality TV star. In Time magazine’s version of the survey, the real estate mogul claimed 47 percent of the more than 70,000 online responses. And even here at Slate—not exactly the friendliest playing field for Trump—the self-hype-man with the $10-million private jet garnered 39 percent of the roughly 44,000 votes that had been cast. In all three polls, meanwhile, the runner-up barely broke into the double-digits. Other online surveys showed similarly convincing wins for Trump.

But these competing instant-reactions each deserve giant disclaimers. First to the pundits: Previous predictions of The Donald’s imminent demise were also a bust. To date, the belligerent billionaire has refused to obey even basic rules of campaign decorum and yet his candidacy has yet to bend to the usual laws of politics that long-time observers hold dear.

They didn't tune in to see what Jeb Bush was going to do.

Meanwhile, the online results rely on a self-selecting group of respondents with no regards to political affiliation, age, or even country; no one should mistake them for the scientific surveys done by professional pollsters. Online, a vote from a liberal who is laughing at Trump counts the same as one from a conservative who actually like the man. The results also need the same necessary caveats we attach to the more scientific polls that currently show Trump leading the GOP field: The Donald may be the favorite right now, but his momentum is unsustainable and his political future is bleak. If Trump’s campaign doesn’t end with a bang, it’ll eventually go out with a whimper.

So how best to explain the current opinion gap between the professional class and the public? I think the more telling question isn’t whether you think Donald Trump won or lost Thursday night—it is whether you wanted him to win or lose going into the debate.

Politicos, pundits, and journalists see Trump as a sideshow that is preventing everyone from getting down to the serious business of selecting the GOP nominee. Many of us make no secret that we want him gone. So when the Fox News moderators roughed him up with a series of questions on everything from his views about women to his previous support for single-payer healthcare, it looked to us like Trump falling on his face.

But for many people watching at home, Trump didn’t stumble—he stood tall. They saw what they’ve been seeing for months: A tough-talking businessman who refused to back down and is incapable of apologizing. For a certain, significant subset of conservatives that’s a message they’ve been craving and for others, it’s one they’re willing to entertain six months before the first actual nominating contest begins. It’s also obvious that not everyone who watched the debate or voted in those polls is even a Republican primary voter—many just wanted to enjoy the free show—which means Trump’s GOP support could still slip in the days to come. (A Fox News focus group of actual Republican voters, for instance, showed signs of turning on Trump after he refused to rule out a third-party run.)

But, regardless, the debate’s massive ratings and those unscientific insta-polls remind us of a larger and more immediate truth: Love him or hate him, the public’s thirst and curiosity for All Things Trump remains incredibly strong. The early overnight numbers suggest that Thursday’s primetime event was the most watched primary debate in U.S. history—potentially doubling the previous record. It’s a safe bet that few of those people tuned in to see what Chris Christie, Jeb Bush, or even Ted Cruz was going to do. It’s also a safe bet that many of them would be willing to watch a repeat performance from the man who stood center stage in Cleveland.

Trump, then, is unlikely to be forced from the national spotlight any time soon and, as a result, will continue to play an outsized role in the GOP primary for the foreseeable future. His impact may wane as the early primaries draw closer. But for now, his presence is something the professional class should get used to.

Trump Loses Zero Ground After Fox’s Unfair, Unbalanced Attack In Debate

CLEVELAND, Ohio: A Wall Street Journal report suggests that despite critics’ opinions predicting GOP frontrunner Donald Trump’s poll numbers would fall, two early – though unscientific – polls predict that may be wrong.
“Time Magazine found that Mr. Trump took 47% of nearly 55,000 votes.

Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)

80%

of Florida was in second place with just 10%. The Drudge Report’s poll found more than half of nearly 362,000 voters favored Mr. Trump, well above everyone else,” the Wall Street Journal noted. After Frank Luntz’s made his opinion on Trump’s performance suggesting “tonight his act wore thin,” conservative talk radio host Rush Limbaugh stood up for Trump, and instead went after Fox News’ performance.
“I have never seen this kind of public backlash against Fox News personalities since the network launched in 1997,” the radio legend stated.
Even Bloomberg Politics went after Fox News host Megyn Kelly for her questioning comparing it to “something Rachel Maddow would ask.”
Bloomberg reported:

A few hours before Thursday’s Fox News debate, a friend of Donald Trump’s confided to me that Trump was nervous. Not about the competition—he could handle them. No, Trump worried about Fox News, and in particular, debate moderator Megyn Kelly. She’d been hammering him all week on her show, and he was certain she was out to get him. He’d canceled a Fox News appearance on Monday night, the friend said, in order to avoid her. (Trump’s spokeswoman wouldn’t confirm or deny this.)
It turns out Trump was right. His toughest opponents Thursday night weren’t the candidates up on stage, but the Fox News moderators, who went right after him—none with more gusto than Kelly…
But Trump saw her coming a mile away and cut her off.

GOP big winner in first two debates

We’ve come a long way from the cringe-inducing primary debates of the 2012 cycle. Despite all the wailing and arm waving leading up to Thursday night’s contest, the format worked. Beautifully.
Nielsen data reveals that 24 million Americans watched the second debate on Fox News. That means more Americans tuned in than there are voters in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina and Nevada (the early primary and caucus states in 2016). That's a new cable  television record.

• 
  
• 
  
• 
  

Now Playing Fiorina reacts to rave reviews following first GOP debate

It was our first primary. And the Grand Old Party won.
There was energy in the hall in Cleveland. It wasn’t a moderator-centric grilling. It was a celebration.

This was a debate made for Republican primary voters. It was a purity test. A sanity check of our candidates.

The two-hour format went past in a flash. It was enjoyable—a real debate. The candidates interacted. They challenged each other which has long been absent in overly-stage-managed primary debates.
Given the unprecedented media hype that preceded this debate, we knew the stakes were high. How did it work out for our candidates? There were clear winners and losers, and a few who simply showed up.

Rubio, Walker, Bush and Cruz won the first primary.

With the best line of the night, Scott Walker brought down the house responding to a national security question about cyber attacks. “The Russian and Chinese government[s] know more about Hillary Clinton’s email server than do the members of the United States Congress.” He bolstered his conservative credentials and steadily delivered answers on every question posed. Walker’s closing statement was delivered with perfection (and from copious memorization, which is Walker’s style), besting even Mike Huckabee’s made-for-TV closing quip.
Rubio showed policy smarts and incredible poise. With a potent answer on the illegal immigration problem, he was quick on his feet—true to form and sure to invigorate his recently fizzled poll numbers. He delivered the second best line of the night in response to Megyn Kelly’s question from Facebook: "Do you have a word from God?" Rubio said: “God has blessed us. He’s blessed us with some very good candidates. The Democrats can’t even find one.” It was generous and humorous. He shined throughout the debate.
Bush could have shown more enthusiasm. He was subdued, but serious. He walked through a minefield of tough questions and seemed prepared for every one of them.
But where was the spark?
There seems to be an enthusiasm gap among voters for his candidacy compared with others like Cruz or Walker. He held his own. His answers were solid, but he needs to trade in some of the wonkery for animation in future debates.
The Fox anchors were also stars in the show. They were tough. Megyn Kelly was adept at delivering questions and follow ups. Bret Baier and Chris Wallace delivered on the expectation that they would be unforgiving of canned responses. The moderators kept the debate focused. Suffered no fools. They were authentically engaging on conservative policy topics, not disparaging of them as we have seen from biased moderators in the past.

Baier’s opening question pointed out that there were losers in this first debate as well.

Donald Trump came across as defensive, offensive and egotistical. Essentially, classic Trump. From the very first question, he appeared disingenuous. In one of his more lucent rants, he explained how he likes to give money to politicians to buy their compliance with his business interests.
Trump appeared, at times, pouty and smug. Most of his responses bordered on the incoherent. His performance can’t help his future in the campaign. But since he thinks this is a reality show, that’s unlikely to lead to his exit any time soon.
Rand Paul clearly dodged a question or two. At the conclusion of each answer, he immediately stared down at his podium. He’ll fix this by the next debate, if he’s still in the race. At times, he appeared to feel hurt or disappointed to be there.
Ben Carson was slow with his lines. He gave a confusing answer on his tax policy. He was not lit up. Where was the energy? His answers were breathy. If you didn’t know that this is sometimes his style, you might have interpreted it for nervousness.
Kasich’s luck in making it on the stage turned out to be a lost opportunity. As I watched the debate I found myself wishing the tenth spot was occupied by Carly Fiorina. Fox did her a huge favor in prime time by playing one of her best lines from the 5:00 pm debate to the top ten candidates in the later debate.
Fiorina took on the toughest topics with inspired, verbal sword play where Kasich failed to leave much of an impression. Consider his lackadaisical response to the softest of softball questions regarding how he would respond to Hillary’s basic talking points.
This was a debate made for Republican primary voters. It was a purity test. A sanity check of our candidates. The format and the moderators helped us consider the electability of our candidates—covering a robust field of topics in an organized way.

What happens next?

Trump’s poll numbers are likely to drop. Kasich’s probably will too. Rand Paul may cling to polling life a bit longer, but he didn’t compare well with the other candidates, possibly because he’s “a different kind of Republican.” Rubio, Walker, Bush and Cruz should expect varying increases in their campaign standings. The debate served them well. And it’s unclear how the debate helped Huckabee, Carson, or Christie, if at all. Let’s hope that CNN's September debate will be as effective as this one was.

Dem defections show deep divisions in party over Iran nuclear deal

Two more Democratic defections over the Iran nuclear deal have exposed deep divisions at the top echelons of the party just as lawmakers entered the August congressional recess, putting added pressure on President Obama to lock down support ahead of a vital vote next month. 
In the middle of the Republican presidential debates Thursday night, senior Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer issued a lengthy and detailed statement announcing his opposition to the deal.
"To me, the very real risk that Iran will not moderate and will, instead, use the agreement to pursue its nefarious goals is too great," Schumer, D-N.Y., said. "Therefore, I will vote to disapprove the agreement."
The news came as Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the top Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, took the same stance.
The announcements came just hours after two other Senate Democrats -- New York's Kirsten Gillibrand and New Hampshire's Jeanne Shaheen -- announced their support for the international accord. Schumer and Engel also are at odds with the Democrats' likely presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, who has cautiously embraced the deal. The Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, supports the accord and has been working hard to persuade lawmakers to do the same. So does top House Democrat Nancy Pelosi.
On Friday, Secretary of State John Kerry said "I profoundly disagree" with Schumer and Engel.

More on this...

• Greta: Obama cheap shot in Iran speech disgraceful

But their opposition, coupled with that of other Democratic lawmakers, means the administration still has its work cut out to be able to sustain an expected presidential veto when Congress returns and votes on the agreement.
Republicans, who control the House and Senate, are uniformly opposed to the deal, meaning its fate likely hinges on whether both chambers could muster the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto. So far, the administration has secured the backing of more than a dozen Senate Democrats and more than two dozen House Democrats.
Obama, who delivered a hard-hitting address earlier this week in defense of the deal, shows no signs of letting up in his administration's lobbying effort.
Despite taking heat from Republicans after that speech for comparing their position to that of Iranian hard-liners chanting "Death to America," Obama on Friday stood by his criticism.
He said what the two groups have in common is that they're "satisfied with the status quo." Speaking on CNN, he said hardliners are opposed to any cooperation with the international community, and Republicans have an "ideological commitment" to not getting a deal done.
Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has called on Obama to retract his comments, calling them offensive.
In announcing his opposition, Schumer said he found a potential 24-day delay before inspections could take place "troubling" and noted that the agreement does not allow for "anytime, anywhere" inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities or a unilateral demand for inspections by the U.S.
While Schumer said he is opposing the deal, which would curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief, he signaled that he wouldn't lobby hard against the accord.
"There are some who believe that I can force my colleagues to vote my way," he said. "While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion."
Engel followed Schumer's announcement with his own statement shortly afterward.
Engel echoed Schumer's concerns over inspecting Iran's nuclear facilities. "It is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world and continues to hold American citizens behind bars on bogus charges," Engel said. "Its actions have made a bad situation in a chaotic region worse."

'Strategic blunder': Republicans slam Obama administration as Russia tries Arctic land grab

Republican lawmakers slammed the Obama administration this week after Russia announced it had submitted a bid to the United Nations for huge areas of the Arctic that could contain vast quantities of oil and gas, with one lawmaker describing the application as evidence of a “strategic blunder” on the part of the administration's foreign policy.
Russia’s foreign ministry said in a statement Tuesday that Moscow was claiming over 463,000 square miles of Arctic sea shelf, extending more than 350 nautical miles from the shore.
The Arctic is believed to hold up to 25 percent of the planet’s untapped oil and gas supplies. Russia, the U.S. and Canada are among those trying to assert jurisdiction over parts of the region.
Sen. Dan Sullivan, R-Alaska, told FoxNews.com he isn’t surprised by what he called Russia's “latest attempt to grab territory in the Arctic” and noted that the move comes after Vladimir Putin has been amassing forces in the region.
“Meanwhile, in the face of this Russian military buildup, we are significantly reducing Army forces in our nation’s only Arctic state, Alaska. This is a strategic blunder by the Obama administration,” Sullivan said.
Russia first submitted its claim to the territory in 2002, but it was rejected by the U.N. due to lack of evidence. In 2007, Russia staked a symbolic claim to the Arctic seabed by dropping a canister containing the Russian flag on the ocean floor from a submarine at the North Pole.
The Kremlin submitted a partial revision regarding the Okhotsk Sea in 2013, and the commission issued a recommendation the following year.
The Russian foreign ministry said their new bid contains new arguments and "ample scientific data" to back up their claim.
Moscow has ramped up its military presence in the Arctic recently, restoring a Soviet-era military base in the New Siberian Island and other Arctic military outposts. The Russians have also conducted large-scale military exercises involving tens of thousands of troops, dozens of ships and submarines, and over 100 aircraft.
RELATED VIDEO: Was Mitt Romney right about Russia?
Sullivan called for the administration to increase U.S. physical presence in the region in response, but said that the administration “seems more focused on climate change.”
”Right now, the Russians are playing chess in the Arctic and our Administration still seems to think it’s tic-tac-toe,” Sullivan said.
The State Department told FoxNews.com that Moscow was following appropriate procedure under the Law of the Sea Convention.
“This technocratic process is the usual manner in which coastal states secure legal certainty in their sovereign rights and jurisdiction to continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles,” a State Department spokesperson said.
Sullivan’s fellow GOP Alaska Sen. Murkowski appeared to agree with the State Department, acknowledging that Russia is following protocol as a party to the Law of the Sea, and in contrast to Sullivan, saw it at as a more measured approach from the Russians than in other regions.
“At this point, it’s worth noting that Russia is following protocol and following international agreements in submitting their claims rather than unilaterally claiming them via military force as they’ve done in other parts of the world,” a spokesperson for Sen. Murkowski told FoxNews.com.
Lawmakers in the House, however, joined Sen. Sullivan in taking aim at the administration.
“Russia’s latest move into the Arctic is the fruit of the Obama administration’s failed energy policies. Obama has sent a clear signal to the world -- which Russia has correctly interpreted -- that our nation is choosing weakness when it comes to energy development,” Julia Slingsby, press secretary for the House Committee on Natural Resources, said.
“Instead of letting Russia bully us, America should be exerting our energy power by developing our resources on multiple fronts. A strong American presence in the Arctic means a safer Arctic,” Slingsby said.
House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman Ed Royce, R-Calif., chose not to criticize the Obama administration directly, but said the U.S. and its allies should stand up to Russia.
“Russia has been aggressively pushing its claims to the Arctic, especially the resource-rich continental shelf. It now has an Arctic Command to strengthen its military presence in the region. The U.S. and others bordering the Arctic must maintain a united front against Moscow’s aggressive ambitions toward this vital region,” Royce told FoxNews.com in a statement.

Poll Cartoon

A debate with no losers: Republicans should be proud

For the first time in as long as I can remember, I strongly feel that there were no real losers in tonight’s debate. The quality of the conversation and, overall, the level of respect that each candidate showed to the others, highlighted the potential for the Republican party to rise above much of the divisiveness that has haunted them in recent elections.
Indeed, I believe that tonight’s debate elevates the Republican party as a whole.

Republicans should be proud. They’ve got a bunch of good candidates, as Rubio noted himself. And they treated each other – and the voters they’re trying to win over – respectfully.

There was clear appeal to the more conservative side of the base on social issues – abortion was a hot topic – as well as the importance of a strong military to not only combat ISIS but to also restore America’s place in the world as a global leader. We heard about the importance of a pro-growth agenda from Governors John Kasich, Scott Walker and Jeb Bush who all added thousands of jobs while in office.
We also heard about the importance of moving our country forward, not backwards from Marco Rubio: a note that he has hits regularly, but means a lot to a country that doesn’t want to elect another Bush or Clinton.
Donald Trump was clearly the featured candidate, with all eyes on him and tremendous anticipation as to whether he was going to follow through on his pledge to be civilized and only to attack if attacked.
Trump showed that he is clearly ready for prime time. His responses to questions on immigration, his business background, bankruptcy and change in position on issue likes health care and the pro-life/pro-choice debate showed him to be a pragmatist above all else. And that’s something that resonates with voters.
The latest Fox poll showed that Americans are considered with leadership above all else – even Conservative values. It follows that Trump’s approach is right on target. And he didn’t let down his supporters this evening.
To my mind, Rubio and Kasich were both incredibly impressive. Rubio has been slipping in the polls lately because of Trump and believe he will win back some support after this performance wherein he showed Americans what his vision of a strong, generous America looks like.
Kasich showed us all why he deserved to be up there Thursday night. He touted an impressive record in Ohio where he created jobs, balanced budgets, worked with Democrats and made smart decisions for all his constituents. He spoke meaningfully about pulling people out of the shadows and appealing to minorities and immigrants. For Kasich, offering the chance to Americans to move up in society is his top priority and with 40% of the electorate saying that the economy is the most important issue to them, his message will strike a cord.
We didn’t hear anything particularly new from Ted Cruz, but he was surely an effective right wing advocate. I believe that he will emerge as the clear leader of the right and with good reason.
Bush was steady and not particularly dynamic, but I don’t think he will lose his standing at the top of the heap as a result of this evening. He made clear, repeatedly, that he governed conservatively and showed that through his record. If viewers were watching with an open mind – and I believe they were – he may have won some votes from those who think him to be too liberal because of his stance on immigration. Tonight can only benefit him.
Christie and Walker didn’t hurt themselves. And neither did Huckabee or Paul. Ben Carson had a few good quips, but wasn’t generally very persuasive, especially as an outsider candidate in comparison to Trump. But we saw that coming.
The overall takeaway from this evening is that Republicans should be proud. They’ve got a bunch of good candidates, as Rubio noted himself. And they treated each other – and the voters they’re trying to win over – respectfully.
This only stands to help the Republicans as candidates and as a party. It also means that their strong showing proves that the only real loser was the Democrats and Hillary Clinton more specifically. It’s going to be a long, tough battle. 

Two top congressional Democrats announce opposition to Iran nuclear deal

Two top congressional Democrats announced late Thursday that they would oppose President Barack Obama’s nuclear deal with Iran.
Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., the No. 3 Senate Democrat, and Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., the leading Democrat on the House Foreign Affairs Committee, both announced their objection to the deal in a blow to the Obama administration ahead of next month’s vote.
Schumer, who said in a statement that he made his decision "after deep study, careful thought, and considerable soul-searching", is the first Senate Democrat to step forward to oppose the deal. His announcement came just hours after two other Senate Democrats — New York's Kirsten Gillibrand and New Hampshire's Jeanne Shaheen — announced their support for the international accord.
Schumer's decision also puts him at odds with the Democrats' likely presidential nominee, Hillary Clinton, who has cautiously embraced the deal. The Senate's No. 2 Democrat, Dick Durbin of Illinois, supports the accord and has been working hard to persuade lawmakers to do the same.
The administration, which has lobbied intensely for the pact, had secured the backing of more than a dozen Senate Democrats and more than two dozen House Democrats, including Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif. Republicans, who control the House and Senate, are uniformly opposed to the deal.
Schumer said in his statement that there is real risk that Iran "will not moderate" and will use the pact to "pursue its nefarious goals". He added that advocates on both sides of the debate made points that couldn’t be dismissed, but in the end he said he "must oppose the agreement and will vote yes on a motion of disapproval.”

More on this...

• Krauthammer slams Obama's divisive rhetoric on Iran

Schumer also stated that he found a proposed 24-day delay before inspections could take place "troubling" and noted that the agreement does not allow for "anytime, anywhere" inspections of Iranian nuclear facilities or a unilateral demand for inspections by the U.S.
“While inspectors would likely be able to detect radioactive isotopes at a site after 24 days, that delay would enable Iran to escape detection of any illicit building and improving of possible military dimensions (PMD) - the tools that go into building a bomb but don't emit radioactivity,” he said.
Schumer said that while he is opposing the deal, which would curb Iran's nuclear program in exchange for billions of dollars in sanctions relief, he signaled that he wouldn't lobby hard against the accord.
"There are some who believe that I can force my colleagues to vote my way," he said. "While I will certainly share my view and try to persuade them that the vote to disapprove is the right one, in my experience with matters of conscience and great consequence like this, each member ultimately comes to their own conclusion."
Engel followed Schumer's announcement with his own statement shortly after. Engel’s announcement made him the second major Jewish Democratic figure from New York City to announce their opposition to Obama’s accord.
Engel echoed Schumer’s concerns over inspecting Iran’s nuclear facilities in a statement late Thursday and believes Iran is a “grave threat to international stability.”
“It is the largest state sponsor of terror in the world and continues to hold American citizens behind bars on bogus charges,” Engel said. "Its actions have made a bad situation in a chaotic region worse."