Gravis is pretty sketchy, to put it mildly. However, those numbers don't look totally unfeasible.
Regarding internet polls, obviously they're unreliable (I once spammed one by an Idaho radio station for Paul myself). However, polls that had previously showed 40% or 30% of respondents saying Trump won jumped, by a pretty yuge margin, to 60%-70%. Again, internet, but that could mean something.
Like I said only Paulites spent hours and hours spamming polls. Even then they couldn't topple big poll like Drudge this cycle (though they did it in 2012 a few times).
It is quite a precognitive dissonance, I think in debate 4 and 5. Paulites spammed the hell out of polls because Rand gave good enough of a performance to motivate them. But it is crazy how after they spend hours spamming polls, then turn around and buy their own bullsh**t. Citing the polls they spammed as evidences that Paul did well. And then proceed to cry conspiracy once the actual polls came out.
I have older polls from those site to compare to. Not definite science. But you can guesstimate that at least Trump probably didn't suffer damage. Whether or not he will improve his numbers, I don't know. But he ain't dropping 5 or 10 points in the poll.
More nuance info would be about Cruz, or Rubio, or Christie. That you can't really get those infor from these online polls.
However, what I can draw is that Cruz still second and Rubio is still third.
Nowadays, most polls don't let you spam. But when you find one... it really makes your day
I have never believed that those polls are a good indicator. They're really an enthusiasm/popularity contest. That's why Trump is doing so in them well now, and it's why Paul the Elder did so well the last cycle or two: their supporters jump at the chance to support their candidate by simply pushing a button. It will be interesting to see how the "who won the debate" compares to scientific analysis and polling.
