CNN Flash Poll: Romney Wins Debate By Large Margin

[RonPaulFanInGA]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2012/10/03/cnn-poll-romney-wins-debate-by-big-margin/


(CNN) – Sixty-seven percent of registered voters who watched the debate said GOP nominee Mitt Romney won the debate, while 25% said President Barack Obama came out as the winner, according to a CNN/ORC International Poll released late Wednesday night.

For the survey, 430 adult Americans were interviewed by telephone after the end of the debate. The poll does not and cannot reflect the views of all Americans. It only represents the views of people who watched the event.

[Indy Vidual]

LOL?

[Rudeman]

Did they mention that it was scientific? Wolf made it a point to mention that they were having a scientific poll.

[kathy88]

So they were calling people at 10:30 last night?

[July]

Was this before or after watching the media analysis?

[roho76]

News flash: 67% of Americans are racist, kooky, tea baggers who hate "The Children."

[Lafayette]

There were no winners in last nights debate, only losers, the American people and the Constitution.

[juleswin]

There were no winners in last nights debate, only losers, the American people and the Constitution.

Either way, Obama lost that round. His ear piece must have lost connection during the debate :)

[ronpaulfollower999]

I actually thought Romney did a better job than Obama, before the MSM told me what to think.


There were no winners in last nights debate, only losers, the American people and the Constitution.

That was pretty much my FB status last night.

[jkr]

i DIDNT watch

I won

[seyferjm]

Two mostly identical candidates attempt to differentiate their similarities and we can declare a winner?

[Lucille]

http://voxday.blogspot.com/2012/10/the-first-debate.html


While Republicans are quite reasonably celebrating the fact that Romney demolished a hapless Obama sans teleprompter in the debate - disproving once again the notion that Obama is a supergenius master of rhetoric - they don't seem to be thinking through the obvious implications of what they are witnessing. Obama has never been more than a tool of those who have financially raped the nation. Romney is one of the financial rapists.

How can anyone imagine Mitt Romney has any intention of fixing the very problems that he helped foster and from which he profited so massively?

[nobody's_hero]

I wished Ron Paul or Gary Johnson or anyone else had been there with those two clowns on stage. Then I would have watched. Even if they only gave the other people 39 seconds.

I also keep in mind that these polls that suddenly show Romney as making his great comeback are probably the same polling firms that ignore Gary Johnson. Polls don't matter. Someone recently posted a thread on here where a pollster confessed that if they don't make a race seem close, the money dries up. No one wants to donate to someone who is about to get blown out of the water.

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?391547-Under-oath-Edwards-pollster-admits-polls-were-propaganda-...&p=4670933#post4670933

[The Gold Standard]

It wouldn't surprise me to see the media push Romney to victory to try to thwart any attempts of taking over one of their two precious war parties.

[kathy88]

Two phrases missing from last night's debate. QE3 and Civil Liberties. We're doomed.

[DeMintConservative]

It wouldn't surprise me to see the media push Romney to victory to try to thwart any attempts of taking over one of their two precious war parties.

Why there are so many people here who seem to believe that the two-party system is the product of the media, corporation, "the Rotschild", etc?

It's mainly a product of the Constitution and the voting laws. It's a consequence of the "Winner Take All"/"First Past the Post" + single member districts system. There are some other contributing factors, mostly of historical order, that make it a pretty rigid 2-party system, but 99% of it is about laws that have been in place since the Foundation.

That's why it was in place before the existence of the modern mass media, that's why two party systems are the norm in countries with similar laws.

You're going to live in a two party system - with the occasional exception - unless the Constitution is amended. Blaming the media or some conspiracy doesn't make any sense.

[qh4dotcom]

There were no winners in last nights debate, only losers, the American people and the Constitution.

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash4/420497_4530724793573_399338726_n.jpg

[nobody's_hero]

Would it be hard to believe that corportations influence both parties because they know that one of them will obviously win? It's like gambling on a roulette table. You can bet on black, odd, number 1, 00, the first 12, etc. Actually, you could put a chip down on every spot and you'll win something (you won't come out ahead if you do that, though).

Of course, our system is a little more simplified. You can bet on Red or Blue and one of them will win. It's why the military industrial complex has a hold on both parties. If I were the big man at Lockheed Martin, I'd throw down a cool $2 million on both candidates because I know I'd be getting hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts later from either of them, regardless of who wins.

It's not really that hard to believe that corrupt corporations keep the two-party system going. Did they start it? No. I think we have had two 'parties' in this country as early as the days of 'federalists and anti-federalists' (before we actually even had the Constitution). But they're hell bent on keeping the $tatus quo going, IMO.

[DeMintConservative]

As if "corporations" (i have no idea why people think only corporations are prone to rent-seeking....) don't capture the government in multi-party systems. I mean, is that supposed to be taken seriously? In fact, it's even worse. That phenomenon is more intense as the government grows in size - hence making the pay-off of capturing it higher - and countries with multi-party systems tend to have larger governments and lesser levels of economic freedom.

The two party system exists since the federalist vs. anti-federalist days (that's why I mentioned historical reasons), it'll exist in the absence of Constitutional amendments and corporations couldn't care less about it.

[nobody's_hero]

I was referencing your suggestion that media and corporations influencing politics is a 'conspiracy theory.' No, I don't think having more parties will suddenly make them give up trying to buy politicians. I was saying that suggesting that they *don't* buy politicians is a bit naive.

[jmdrake]

Wait a minute. I thought flash polls don't count? At least they didn't every time Ron Paul won one.

[RonPaulFanInGA]

Wait a minute. I thought flash polls don't count? At least they didn't every time Ron Paul won one.

What flash polls did Ron Paul win?

(Text message and online polls don't count.)

[DamianTV]

If it was Ron Paul vs Obama, Ron would definitely have won.

[angelatc]

So they were calling people at 10:30 last night?

On the West coast it was only 7:30

[angelatc]

Two phrases missing from last night's debate. QE3 and Civil Liberties. We're doomed.

Yeah, I can't wait for the foreign policy debate. <rolls eyes>