CNN Poll: 67 Percent of Debate Watchers Say Romney Won

Romney surprised many with a better-than-expected presidential debate performance. CNN surveyed 430 adult Americans who watched the debate and are registered to vote, 67 percent of them thought Romney won the debate, while 25 percent said Obama won. The poll has a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

These results are in stark contrast to expectations. According to a Washington Post/ABC News poll, 59 percent of Americans expected President Obama to win the debate, 29 percent expected Romney to win. A Pew Research poll found 51 percent of Americans thought Barack Obama would win the debate and 29 percent said Romney. Early this month the CNN/ORC poll found 62 percent anticipated Obama would win, 32 percent thought Romney would win.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • JeremyR||

    Unfortunately though, Romney wasn't what Obama tried to paint him as, a no regulations, small government, free market guy.

    It was painful watching Romney saying you don't want people opening banks in their garages. But still, it's a move in the right direction.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Everything he said about regulation could just as easily have been said by Ron Paul. It's all about framing.

  • ||

    "Regulation is essential"

    Fuck you Tulpa you disingenuous piece of shit. That line made be vomit out of all my orifices. The rest of the debate was fighting over who was going to cut spending less and not cut taxes more.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    Even Ron Paul doesn't support banking anarchy.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Fuck you Tulpa you disingenuous piece of shit. That line made be vomit out of all my orifices.

  • Randian||

    Unless you're an anarchist you believe in regulation.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Lots of libertarians support free banking which would enable people opening a bank in their garage.

  • Randian||

    True, and I am supportive of garage banking myself. Just saying that regulations qua regulations are not undesirable.

  • Calidissident||

    Randian, I think we both know that Mittens and Obama's idea of regulation is a lot different from the regulations libertarians would approve of

  • Question of Auban||

    "Just saying that regulations qua regulations are not undesirable."

    Other than regulations against force or fraud, what regulations do you support?

  • BigT||

    I support regulations that require transparency and full disclosure. A customer has the right to know all there is to know about the product he/she is acquiring. And an investor has the right to the full financial aspects of a company he/she invests in. That might fall under fraud in your understanding.

  • Jingo||

    Agreed. Libertarians tend to look to Thomas Jefferson for their guidance, who is second only to Patrick Henry in terms of libertarianism.

    And Thomas Jefferson warned that "banking institutions are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies..."

    He also said allowing a Central Bank like the Federal Reserve would impoverish the American people (as it has):

    "If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children wake up homeless on the continent their Fathers conquered."

  • LTC(ret) John||

    "That line made be vomit out of all my orifices."

    I am glad I wasn't there to see that - Two Reason Commenters, one bucket.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    Everything he said about regulation could just as easily have been said by Ron Paul.

    Sure it could have been as they are both English speakers.

    In reality, Ron Paul never would have endorsed regulation the way that Romney did. That was one of the weakest parts of his performance.

  • Question of Auban||

    I agree with Apatheist, That line made be vomit out of all my orifices as well. I would not imagine Ron Paul or Gary Johnson saying anything like that at all. What the hell is wrong with opening a bank from one's garage? I remember that Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak started Apple in a garage in Los Altos. Why couldn't two financial wizes start a bank in a garage in Los Altos or any other city for that matter?

  • ||

    Um, no not really. When Ron Paul or a libertarian talks about regulations, they're talking about property rights and liability. Romney and Obama mean federal micromanaging of how you go about your business.

  • ||

    You can open a bank in your garage. It is called note and deed of trust.

    It is used everyday.

  • ||

    Don't worry, Obamney will put a stop to that exploitative practice.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    FDIC drones in the air as we speak.

  • Robert||

    Years ago around here someone did open a drive-in bank in what had been a home's garage on Wmsbr. Rd. at Rhinelander Ave. It operated for about 20 yrs.

  • val||

    Romney did hit some good sounding notes on education if I do say so myself.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    And that 67% will translate into how many Electoral College votes?

  • Mint Berry Crunch||

    Slightly more than McCain got. Not enough to win.

  • SIV||

    Mitt is running as the more competent big government centrist. That appears to be the winning strategy.

  • ||

    Depressing, isn't it.

  • Lost_In_Translation||

    Well we tried 2 incompetent big government centrists previously...surely he can't be worse...

    (4 years from now)
    Son of a...!

  • Hyperion||

    The 25% in the poll also believe in the Easter Bunny and the Tooth Fairy.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    I do recall similar numbers in 2008 believing BO was a secret Muslim.

  • Drake||

    I'm starting to come around to that position myself.

  • Hneckone||

    I didn't know Obama's dog was religious. He doesn't look that stupid.

  • Tulpa Doom||

    As Colbert famously stated, it's not three quarters empty, it's one quarter full...but I wouldn't drink it. the last 25% is mostly backwash.

  • Randian||

    There is no reason to think the President won tonight. None.

  • WTF||

    I watched the Yankees win the AL East last night instead of the debate, but from the wailing and gnashing of teeth by the left wing this morning I'm guessing Obama sucked ass last night.

  • ||

    He did terrible. Romney really dominated the first half of the debate, and Obama only got in two good points:

    1) Romney's plans are vague and void of specifics, and
    2) Romneycare is are almost identical to Obamacare, with Romney's current plans not very different from Obama's.

    The second point was really slammed home at Romney, but the first critique, accurate as it is, was very weakly put and unconvincing (even to me, and I know it's true).

  • BigT||

    Romney rebutted the 2nd point (Romneycare=Obamacare) fairly well, although the differences may be meaningless.

  • free2booze||

    The Democrats are so stupid. Imagine how the electoral map would look if they bailed on the enviro-nuts, opened up Federal lands, and maximized energy production. The unemployment numbers would probably be much, much better, enough so that all of their class warfare crap would go unnoticed by the majority of the sheep. Not only would Obama have secured re-election, but the Dems would get a nice majority in congress. Then, after the election, they could go all Chavez, nationalize energy production, and hand out all sorts of free goodies to the flock.

    Thank goodness the left is so incompetent.

  • Tman||

    It really is amazing how bad they blew it, but not surprising considering how much power they were handed in 2008. Both Houses, the presidency, and a SCOTUS with two open seats.

    Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

    Yet another example of the brilliance of the Constitution as well. If the balance of power goes unchecked the leaders will fuck it up so badly that the people will inevitably start paying attention enough to vote the bastards out.

  • Bill Dalasio||

    The bottom line is that they thought in 2008-2009 that they'd won the whole shebang. Their opinion was that the economy was bound to recover in four years and that they'd ride the recovery to a permanent majority. That was their plan. Hell, I remember Democrats telling me just this when Obama was elected. That's why Obama felt free to pass the "elections have consequences" line on the Republicans and dismiss any opposition to his push for increased government power as "the failed policies of the past". They thought their win was never going to end. What they didn't anticipate was that their policies would undermine the very recovery this strategy counted on.

  • ant1sthenes||

    While it obviously was a message aimed at Republicans and moderate independents (not so much libertarians), I do think he sold it really well. He came across as respectful enough, but I caught a subtle hint of outrage that the president was focused on defining him in a way he didn't accept. He came out firmly against POTUS talking points several times in a way that made the President look (just a little) like an asshole and maybe a bit dishonest.

    Definitely think his reminding people toward the end that he worked well with Democrats instead of pissing them off with a narcissistic show of dominance ("elections have consequences", i.e. if you didn't want me to fuck you, maybe you should have worn a longer voting majority) and poisoning the next four years will play to the center.

    I could be biased, but I was able to pay attention to the things that Romney was saying for the most part without zoning out, and without even getting overly pissed at him from my libertarian perspective, even though based on the content I probably should have. That's presentation, not substance, but that's what really matters for the debates anyway. When the President talked (and part of this was major annoyance at his message and the petty class-baiting bullshit), I tended to just sort of zone out while he stammered around his points.

    Did anyone notice the President say he had turned the deficit into a surplus? I'm sure I saw him say that at one point. They should do a blooper reel.

  • SIV||

    No

    He aimed his message at sane, non-Marxist, centrist Democrats. That's where the votes are.

  • ant1sthenes||

    You're discounting praises for small business, free enterprise, etc. There was definitely a little red meat for the right, but nothing that would have scared the center.

  • ||

    elections have consequences

    I think Bush said that first

    I have a mandate and now i am going to spend it

    In an alternate universe where a libertarian wins the white house I would not disagree with the above.

  • BigT||

    Such libertarian would be a statist fuck. Does not compute.

  • ||

    No.

    He could bring all troops home.

    He could fire legions of bureaucrats

    He could rescind all executive orders and mandates.

    He could instruct the justice department to argue against unconstitutional laws rather then defend them.

    He could empty prisons of non-violent drug offenders.

    The list goes on.

    Anyway if anyone got uppity about it he could simply claim "Elections matter".

  • JeremyR||

    It's not a blooper.

    Obama has saved trillions by not spending as much as he really, really wants to.

  • Jerry on the road||

    He saves money by having the Bush cuts expire, even though he had said he won't raise taxes on the middle class.

  • Drake||

    Obama hasn't had a real debate since Hillary Clinton bashed him around in the Democrat primaries in 2008. McCain was a bad joke 4 years ago.

    Not a surprise that he got a beating.

  • ||

    I had approximately the same reaction.

    Romney said a lot of shit that should piss me off as a libertarian, but I guess I'm too apathetic at this point.
    It was centrist boiler plate.

    I can't say he convinced me to vote for him, though. Actually I can't vote yet, as I'm not a citizen yet. I guess he just showed he wasn't as terrible a campaigner as all that.

  • free2booze||

    One of Obama's staffers told him there was a debate tonight. He showed up just in time to vote present.

  • FD||

    !!!

  • Caleb Turberville||

  • ||

    Why didn't he fly that fast in the first place and stop the missiles?

  • ||

    Shouldn't you be asking how flying really fast around the Earth to make it spin backwards turns back time? People do understand that time is not caused by the rotation of the Earth, right?

  • ||

    According to the theory of relatively you would go backward in time if you traveled faster then the speed of light. Of course the problem with this is if you went backward in time wouldn't you go backward in time? and therefor every time you broke the speed of light you would go right back to the moment before you broke the speed of light?

    I think that might be one of the reasons going faster then the speed of light is impossible.

    Anyway The world sinning backward is just showing you time go backward....there are clips thrown in their showing shit like dam repairing itself and crap exploding.

    All of it is showing time go backward.

  • ||

    spinning not sinning.

  • Coeus||

    According to the theory of relatively you would go backward in time if you traveled faster then the speed of light.

    Whohainthewhatnow?

  • ||

    "I read it in a comic book once."

    Any student of mine who said something like that had to write the Lorentz transform equations 1000 times as punishment.

  • ||

    the faster you go the slower time passes in relation to any observer.

    One twin stays on earth the other flys off at near light speed for 60 years and returns still a young man while the twin that stayed is an old man.

    The curve of that "time dilation" hits zero at the speed of light. In other words if that twin actually hit the speed of light he would not age one second while traveling at the sped of light.

    One can infer if he traveled faster then the speed of light then the curve would bend into negative territory...ie time would go in reverse....it is a big inference...but then again it is a fucking movie based on a comic book.

  • ||

    In fact in order for the speed of light to stay constant for the observer traveling faster then the speed of light time would have to reverse.

    The observer would arrive at his destination before he left.

  • ||

    Think of a photon leaving alpha centauri and hitting a space ship traveling toward alpha centauri.

    That photon has to hit the ship traveling at light speed. so if the ship is going forward at near light speed well time has to slow down for the ship in order for that photon to hit it at the right speed. Well now think of that ship going faster then the speed of light. That photon can't hit that ship cuz it would have to collide with it at faster then the speed of light. In order for the speed of light to remain constant the ship would have to reach its destination at alpha centauri before that photon ever existed....in other words the ship arrived before it left.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    That reminds me - a photon is checking into a hotel and the desk clerk says, "do you need help with your luggage?" The photon replies "no, I am traveling light".

  • ||

    That reminds me - a photon is checking into a hotel and the desk clerk says, "do you need help with your luggage?" The photon replies "no, I am traveling light".

    A joke like that is inappropriate in mixed company, as it will ensure that you never, ever get laid.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    How about "the bartender says, 'We don't serve faster than light particles in here!' A neutron walks into a bar."

    Any better?

  • Auric Demonocles||

    Might be better if you got the right particle.

  • Ice Nine||

    Someone in another thread said that Intrade was going beserk. I looked but I don't know from Intrade and certainly not how to interpret it. Anyone know what kind of beserk it's going exactly?

  • ||

    Looks like it hardly moved and volume is pretty calm...or a least as calm s the past 3 weeks....volume has been picking up the election gets closer.

    I call bullshit on berserk.

    This is what berzerk looks like:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gb4gWvqbsYA

  • wef||

    Don't know about berserk, but the intrade probability of team-o win has dropped from about 79% to 65% over the past five days. Dropped two points yesterday evening. Went down more over night. Pretty big fall on a big spike in volume yesterday.

    Still team-o at about 3-to-2 odds for.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I'm glad people see Romney as having won only because it means they're probably more willing to consider him presidential material. Now they're more likely to see him as a viable replacement for Obama.

    And I don't really care where Romney stands on the issues at this point. There's only one issue I care about--and that is getting Obama out of the White House as soon as possible.

    Obama needs to pay for TARP, nationalizing GM, Dodd-Frank, ObamaCare, the individual mandate, and so many other things. If we reelect him despite all of those things he's done and give him another four years--without having to worry about another election?

    God only knows what Obama will try to do.

  • ||

    Bush 3.0 will be ready in just a few more months, Ken, just hold it together until then.

  • robc||

    Obama needs to pay for TARP

    He did. He was forced to give up his Senate seat.

    TARP occurred under Bush.

  • wef||

    And I don't really care where Romney stands on the issues at this point.

    A variation on This Is The Most Important Election Ever!

    That is exactly the attitude in the mass that keeps making the mess worse.

    And to repeat what robc noted, TARP was a bushoid turd. And the bushists started the GM bailouts in December of 2008.

  • 0x90||

    I'm gonna go check out the Obamney hate over at freerepublic...

  • triclops||

    I am please by this, but almost entirely because I love seeing the shock and pain on Obama fellators like MSNBC and Andrew Sullivan.

    It really is like their fav sports team just got blown out in game 1 of the finals/world series, or 1st quarter of superbowl.

  • Brandybuck||

    Chris Matthews may end up in the nuthouse over this. He had erected a fantasy world in his head, but it came crashing down when Romney failed to show up for the debate wearing a Satan costume.

  • InlineSkate||

    http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrew.....-was-obama

    Chris Matthews loses his shit.

  • VG Zaytsev||

    That made me laugh.

  • FD||

    "Where was Obama tonight... What was he doing...?"
    Does anything else need to be said to underscore Matthews' banality and blind, analytical dysfunction? Whenever I hear someone say, "I don't like Matthews, but he's smart..." I want to wretch. How the hell do these folks define smart?
    How is it smart to delude oneself into seeing Obama as different from W?
    How smart is it to be surprised that Obama is a poor debater? He always has been. Did you just wake up after a Washinton Irving-esque sleep, Chris?
    "Where was Obama tonight?" Cripe, you're joking, Chris! He was right there, doing what he always does -- saying nothing and trying to look presidential.
    Look I've no problem with these leftist nuts cheering for their guy. But please don't tell me how someone like Matthews is smart. He is a common leftist shill. Okay, maybe a ranting, spitting, interrupting shill. But still a common leftist.
    Nothing more and nothing less.

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Some idiots watched the whole stupid slogan contest. I made the fulfilling decision to do some small tasks and then watch South Park. They brought up the subject of ADA lawsuit trolling. A valid response to this problem is Rascal Tipping.

  • commentard||

    This whole thing just makes me think about how much I love porn.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Which reminds me, when's the last time anybody saw Masturbatin' Pete?

  • ||

    The CNN Axelrod is fucking hilarious.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZhvPX58wsxU

  • ||

    I forget how great it feels to watch the powers that be get its ass kicked.

    We need elections every year and for 99% of the time for the incumbent to lose.

  • Alien Invader||

    Yes to all except, once a year elections are nowhere near enough.

    If they have to run again every two or three months, there wouldn't be time for bullshit like, say, ObamaCare.

    No elected official should get more than 10 minutes to do anything, before having to worry that we're going to kick his ass out of office.

    Except then the permanent bureaucrats would end up running everything and they'd be the real monsters. They already are but we don't think about it. It'd mess up our whole "democracy is a great thing" dream the western world has going.

    Okay how about this. Every two years, We The People, each and every one of us, gets to pick the one government employee we hate most, and feed them to the lions. It's a lock that there will be no government employees left, because somebody is going to hate each and every one of them.

    So every two years we get to start all over with a clean slate, and the rest of the time the clowns in DC run around in fear of the day they get fed to the lions.

    Or something. Anybody got a better something? Because I'm just fed up with what we've been getting, it really chaps my ass.

  • ||

  • Entropy Void||

    Dear Mitt-

    Thank you for so graciously handing me my ass last night.

    Regards,

    Barry

  • Ayn Random Variation||

    This was a massacre. An adult vs a child.

    The worst part was Obama crediting SS for his grandma becoming a bank VP.

  • RightNut||

    The Obama Campaign and the media in general has been acting like Romney has been president for the last four years. That has worked for Obama so far, but you can't act like your not president at a presidential debate.

  • ||

    More like a 12-year-old vs an 8-year-old. They're both kids, but one's a lot more presentable than the other.

  • LTC(ret) John||

    Not bad - like having two kids show up for class photos - one is all brushed and dressed nice, gives the big smile and moves on, while the other was pouty and non-cooperative with the photographer?

  • BigT||

  • ||

    Yeah, but they're both brats. And the pouty one is considered "cute".

  • ||

    I wish I could take credit for this, but it's been said (by someone who is not me) that this wasn't so much a debate as Mitt Romeny simply took Obama for a cross-country trip strapped to the roof of his car.

  • RightNut||

    Did Obama poop on the roof?

  • John||

    I have to give Welch credit for that line. Has there ever been a debate where 67% of the people polled said one guy won? If there has been I can't remember when it was.

  • Loki||

    25 percent said Obama won

    25 percent of Americans are also retarded.

  • David Emami||

    Is that a "South Park - Mystery of the Urinal Deuce" reference?

  • David Emami||

    In my opinion, the best summary of the debate so far is by the folks at Next Media Animation -- the Taiwanese company that does CGI humor videos about the news: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNhUI8ktHuw . Spoiler: you get to see Romney take a chainsaw to Big Bird.

  • truthisnotrelative||

    So, 33% of the voting populace is incapable of critical analysis. Grrrrreat. When you can't concede something that obvious out of some zombie-esque obsession with Zero, are you personally aware? I wonder.

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement