After the first Democratic debate of the 2016 campaign, we have a slew of diaries and media stories breaking down who "won" the debate. Of course the answer depends on who you ask and more importantly who controls the narrative about who won the debate. I think the better question is who actually disrupted "politics as usual."
Point 1, there is a clear discrepancy between the polling data and the pundit pronouncements, as detailed in this article:
http://usuncut.com/...
On key metrics, online polls, focus groups, social media mentions,. etc. Sanders out performed Clinton.
Now all these measures are far from scientific but, news media generally highlights these results in the aftermath of a debate to support their winner and losers analyses.
This debate is different in that these conventionally deployed metrics are largely absent from the media narratives proclaiming that Clinton dominated the debate.
It is also worth noting that media coverage of debate has also systematically edited Sanders comments to exclude his criticisms of the political system at large, though those watching the debate live clearly heard them:
https://theintercept.com/...
One implication is that Sanders is clearly the disruptive candidate who challenges the orthodoxies that underlie contemporary politics and the narratives advanced by their beltway media enablers.
It also suggest that Sanders' "revolutionary" rhetoric may not be so misplaced given that his disruptive message seems to have struck a very resonant chord with potential voters.
Of course, in the new social media landscape, the beltway's power to control the political narrative is diminishing with every election cycle. And this one could be the tipping point where they lose control of the narrative all together.
We will see soon enough how far and fast the Bern spreads.