Poll: Decisive win for Obama in final debate

By Sarah Dutton, Jennifer De Pinto, Anthony Salvanto, Fred Backus, and Lindsey Boerma

President Obama scored a clear two-to-one victory against Mitt Romney during the final presidential debate Monday night, according to a CBS News instant poll of uncommitted voters.

Immediately after it wrapped, 53 percent of the more than 500 voters polled gave the foreign policy-themed debate to Mr. Obama; 23 percent said Romney won, and 24 percent felt the debate was a tie. Uncommitted voters in similar polls gave the first debate to Romney by a large margin, but said Mr. Obama edged the GOP nominee in the second debate.

Both candidates enjoyed a bump regarding whom the voters trust to handle international crisis. Before the debate, 46 percent said they would trust Romney, and 58 percent said they would trust the president. Those numbers spiked to 49 percent and 71 percent, respectively.

Overwhelmingly, the same group of voters said President Obama would do a better job than Romney on terrorism and national security, 64 percent to 36 percent. But they were evenly split, 50-50, on which candidate would better handle China.

The "uncommitted voters" polled are voters who are either undecided about who to vote for or who say they could still change their minds.

• In final debate, fierce battle over foreign policy
• Poll: Obama, Romney locked in tight race

This CBS News poll was conducted online using GfK's web-enabled KnowledgePanel, a probability-based panel designed to be representative of the U.S. population. The poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 521 uncommitted voters who have agreed to watch the debate. Uncommitted voters are those who don't yet know who they will vote for, or who have chosen a candidate but may still change their minds.

GfK's KnowledgePanel participants are initially chosen scientifically by a random selection of telephone numbers and residential addresses. Persons in selected households are then invited by telephone or by mail to participate in the web-enabled KnowledgePanel. For those who agree to participate, but do not already have Internet access, GfK provides at no cost a laptop and ISP connection.

This is a scientifically representative poll of uncommitted voters' reaction to the presidential debate. The margin of sampling error could be plus or minus 4percentage points for results based on the entire sample.

[reginaldcharleston]

Sorry, but anti-racist is just a codeword for anti-White. Get over it.

[Sminklewitz]

Yes, America is definitely a White country.

The US was created solely by White people. Until just a few decades ago she was 90% White.

The Constitution dedicates America to " Secure the blessings of Liberty to ourselves and OUR Posterity."

That was White people writing those words, so they meant White people`s Posterity, not the non-White global herd of "New Citizens" you anti-Whites have foisted on us.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-White.

[jjmf1001]

Earth is not a white planet.

And North America was red until Europeans brought all colors here. It is not the color of individuals that is at the heart of problems, it is the policies put in place by Democrats assigning winners and losers and pitting one race against another.

But no race is absolved from being racist. The black race have just as many racist tendencies as any other race.

[Rabbitofthehighplains]

Everybody says there is this RACE problem. Everybody says this RACE problem will be solved when the third world pours into EVERY white country and ONLY into white countries.

The Netherlands and Belgium are just as crowded as Japan or Taiwan, but nobody says Japan or Taiwan will solve this RACE problem by bringing in millions of third worlders and quote assimilating unquote with them.

Everybody says the final solution to this RACE problem is for EVERY white country and ONLY white countries to "assimilate," i.e., intermarry, with all those non-whites.

What if I said there was this RACE problem and this RACE problem would be solved only if hundreds of millions of non-blacks were brought into EVERY black country and ONLY into black countries?

How long would it take anyone to realize I'm not talking about a RACE problem. I am talking about the final solution to the BLACK problem?

And how long would it take any sane black man to notice this and what kind of psycho black man wouldn't object to this?

But if I tell that obvious truth about the ongoing program of genocide against my race, the white race, Liberals and respectable conservatives agree that I am a naziwhowantstokillsixmillionjews.

They say they are anti-racist. What they are is anti-white.

Anti-racist is a code word for anti-white.

[jjmf1001]

THINKING_AMERICAN says:

".....so that businesses are inclined to create jobs in this country, not to have to produce goods in a foreign country in order to sell their products and make a profit. - THINKING_AMERICAN

---Obama gave $50 billion dollars to GM to build companies in China. The president and first lady vacation abroad with approximately 100 staff and crew. They sleep, eat, shop, and spend money in other countries at least twice a year. Don't you think patriotism should start at home?

It is reported that by 2033, 51% of the jobs in the U.S. will be foreign-sponsored. Have you ever heard of companies such as Anheuser-Busch, Nestle, IKEA? That's just the tip of the iceberg. The number of jobs leaving is easily made up by the number of jobs being in-sourced. You've fallen for one of the liberal hot button issues they like to rouse their base with.

A paycheck does not know or care who the employer is or where they are from. A global economy works both ways. In case you haven't noticed, we have entered a new century.

There are business reasons for businesses to operate off-shore. Ask Hollywood. They film on location all over the world.

There is nothing preventing a company to close shop and open somewhere else. If you want to see a mass exodus of companies leaving the U.S., just give Obama four more years. I am sure he has more destruction he can unleash on the economy.

And finally, let's hope companies continue making profits. Wages are paid out of profits - not losses.

[jjmf1001]

KEEPTHINKING says:

"giving the government, not individual women, control over women's bodies."

---Women turn the control over their bodies to the taxpayers. Women have the sex. When they decide they don't want the fetus, they demand taxpayers pay for their abortions. I am not against someone having an abortion. That is their moral decision. I am against PAYING for abortions. To force taxpayers to cover the consequences of personal behavior is not the role of government.

I am sure that 99.9% of these women and their partners can afford to pay for their own abortions. If not, we have students loans for students, why not have loans for the 1% who require temporary assistance?

We now bail people out for making bad decisions when taking out a mortgage. Is our society just a bunch of morons? When is 'mommy' government (aka taxpayers) going to stop the hand-holding and allow people to take responsibility for their own stupidity?

[jjmf1001]

ZIMBAHAL says:

"It's true. Check out Frontline's coverage of this event. They (the administration) were being sent warnings and memos by people in intelligence and they ignored it. They fell asleep during their watch and almost 3000 people died that day." - Zimbahal

-----The first time I heard the name, Bin Laden, was from Col. Ollie North warning of him as a dangerous threat. Bin Laden has been on the CIA's radar since that time. Bill Clinton had Bin Laden in his cross hairs but did not want to become involved in a messy assassination. And besides, Bill Clinton was busy being Bill Clinton.

If Clinton had done his job more thoroughly and effectively, 9-11 may have been prevented. Instead, he kicked the can down the road.

I don't think you will find that information in Woodward's book or on Frontline.

[jjmf1001]

TAYLORSUCRAM SAYS:

"Acting on God's instructions, the Jews "annihilated everyone who lived in" Makkedah. At Libnah, they again "left no survivors." At Lachish, "they put the sword to all who lived there, just as they had done to Libnah." At Eglon, "they annihilated it just as they had done to Lachish." At Hebron, "they annihilated it and all who lived there." Again at Debir,...."

Reply: Back in medieval days or B.C. or ancient times, individuals acted in a far more barbaric manner than they do today. In fact, history is replete with instances of brutality and violence among all nations. We can cite examples of every nation and tribe performing brutal and violent acts in the name of religion, or their beliefs, or as a part of their spiritual rituals.

Millenia ago, war and killings were part of the culture. Rulers often established their own version of god or gods. Nature itself has exacted unimaginable death tolls. If one takes a page from Bill Clinton, 'kill' may have had a different connotation or may have been mistranslated.

The point is Christians today aren't out killing individuals in the name of their religion. Muslims are.

We also no longer burn witches at the stake, offer virgins up for sacrifice, or behead our queens. I hope the president isn't offended by your attacks on his religious beliefs.

[KeepThinking]

Obama crushed Romney in the second and third debate.

Romney tried to shout down, bully and intimidate the President of the United States --and failed, utterly. A thoroughly contemptible performance.

Thank God (I mean it) that Romney and Lyin' Ryan are losing. What a staggering disaster they would be, if elected. More, endless, disastrous wars abroad, George W. Bush style (from the same old Bush foreign policy team Romney is now reassembling. Plus, in the ultimate irony, Taliban-style laws on social issues in the United States, giving the government, not individual women, control over women's bodies.

The new wars, plus even more huge tax cuts for the very rich, would blow up the deficit (steadily coming under control with Obama) to unheard of magnitude. Which would be the trigger for Romney and Ryan to do what they've wanted to do all
along, but dare not admit:

1. Doing away with the tax breaks (like the mortgage tax deduction) that ordinary Americans rely on while of course, obviously, leaving untouched the loopholes that save Romney personally millions in tax -- notably the capital gains tax treatment of "carried interest". Result: billionaires pay less tax than ever, ordinary Americans pay more. That's why Romney and Ryan DARE NOT answer the obvious question: "you talk about abolishing tax loopholes. Which ones would you abolish?

2. Trashing the social safety net: Medicare, Medicaid, the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), Social Security, Veterans benefits and services, and the rest.

[jjmf1001]

Healthy economies are not achieved through tax increases but by means of private sector productivity. The need for tax increases signals the failure on the part of a president to grow an economy through job creation.

It is not the role of government to take the wages of one worker and redistribute them to another individual. Picking winners and losers isn't the role of a president.

[jjmf1001]

"plus even more huge tax cuts for the very rich,..."

Taxing the very rich, such as Oprah, Steven Spielberg, Jay-Z, the Kennedys, the Clintons, the Gores, the Obamas, the Bidens, etc., is an admission of failure on the part of the president.

If we had a robust economy, we wouldn't have to penalize ANYONE.

Why not just advertise to the world, "My policies are not working. Rather than growing the economy, I will have to resort to beg, borrow, and steal from successful individuals. The most productive and successful people need to bail me out because I have crushed the middle class and created more poor people."

Plus, he has waged a war against employers. Imagine, the engines of our economy and one of Obama's biggest targets.

[grubbery]

LISA4MCCAIN, Obama said no such thing. That was a proven distortion when McCain trotted it out at the time, and it is no less inaccurate now. What Obama SAID was of Iran, Cuba and Venezuela:

"These countries are tiny ***compared to the Soviet Union.***"

Which is true.

Likewise, he said those countries don't pose a serious threat to the United States "the way the Soviet Union posed a threat to us."

Which is also true.

What is NOT true is the either dishonest or ignorant distortion of the President's actual words you parroted.

[Blue-Alien]

See the real Mitt Romney at http://romneypix.com