As we've written repeatedly, the last GOP debate was Carly Fiorina's big audition to be "The Establishment Choice," crowned the winner (and Donald Trump the loser) before the damn thing even started. The punditry avalanche was so big, I had people try to convince me that Fiorina "is now leading in the polls!" The reality?
Trump did take a little dip post debate, and you can see Fiorina's orange bump, but the big winner was apparently someone people barely mentioned—Ben Carson. The punditry can blab all they want, but the people decide in the end. Let's now look at the Dems:
Clinton was already recovering from her nadir before the debate took place (likely from the exposure of the Benghazi Committee sham), but we don't have enough data to get good post-debate trend lines just yet.
So let's look at individual polls that have both pre- and post-debate numbers, below the fold.
ABC/WaPo
10/15-18: Clinton 54, Sanders 23
9/7-10: Clinton 42, Sanders 24
Monmouth Univ
10/15-18: Clinton 48, Sanders 21
8/31-9/2: Clinton 42, Sanders 20
NBC/SurveyMonkey
10/15-18: Clinton 49, Sanders 29
9/16-18: Clinton 41, Sanders 29
CNN
10/14-17: Clinton 45, Sanders 29
9/17-19: Clinton 42, Sanders 24
CNN is about as rosy as it gets for Sanders, and that one still has Clinton improving from her mid-September place. Now I've heard some people complain about the punditry giving Clinton an unfair push by declaring her the winner. Who cares what they say or think? Just ask front-runner Fiorina how much value their blathering has.
But aside from that, I too thought she "won" the debate. Let me explain:
She didn't out-debate Sanders. He was great. And she was great. In a neutral world, I'd say they both acquitted themselves well, and the polling above bears that out—Clinton improved and Sanders either improved or stayed even. Neither candidate flopped.
But Sanders' supporters spent the last six months telling everyone that the DNC was protecting Clinton with its ridiculous debate schedule, which was true. But many of his supporters went further—that Clinton was afraid to debate, that Sanders would crush her head-to-head. They also spent months painting a caricature of Clinton that simply wasn't based on reality—that she was dull, that she was a neoliberal, etc, etc.
So you'd be excused if you tuned in to the debate expecting her to sound like Mitt Romney (and about as engaging as him, as well). You'd be excused if you ended up surprised that Clinton could take command of the stage, confident rather than afraid.
So Clinton didn't win because she was better than Sanders, she won because she far exceeded the expectations that Sanders' supporters themselves created. In politics, you don't make news when you meet expectations (Bernie was as awesome as everyone expected him to be), you make news when you either blow expectations away, or you blow up. And she certainly didn't blow up.
So a lesson to underdogs: you're supposed to lower expectation for YOUR guy, not the front-runner. And for crissakes, don't underestimate Clinton! She's actually a damn impressive political figure, and talking her down got you nothing in the end.
One final note, take a look at the Democratic poll trendlines above once more, and notice Sanders' flatline. That's what maxing out the white, educated, liberal Democratic electorate looks like. He's gotta bust out of that if he's going to be competitive past the two early states.