POLL: Obama-Romney Presidential Debate: Who Won?

The town hall-style debate gave voice to questions from uncommitted voters. Who handled the issues best?

President Barack Obama and Gov. Mitt Romney were in Long Island, N.Y. Tuesday night, answering questions Tuesday night from voters who said they were still undecided while also managing to go at each other.

The questions covered topics that included energy costs, unemployment, immigration, tax codes and more.

Wednesday morning, Patch will have flash survey results from Massachusetts political activists and leaders, both Republican and Democratic.

But right now, what about you: what do you think? Who would you say 'won' this second presidential debate? Tell us in the comments sections below.

Ero Matchinson October 17, 2012 at 04:07 PM
When is Romney actually going to tell us his 'plan'. Not '1. This thing. 2. This other thing. etc. etc. etc.' He never stands on solid ground for ANYTHING other than stopping stem cell research, cutting taxes for the rich and stopping Chinas cheating. It's like a 10 year old is actually on the verge of becoming president. Give me some facts. Give me some ideas. Not some vague BS.
Mr N October 17, 2012 at 05:14 PM
next time they should have an impartial moderator like O'Reilly or Limbaugh? If you can't win the war go shoot the messenger!
Howard Kosrofian October 17, 2012 at 05:33 PM
Look Obamacare was passed without anyone reading the dam thing. Bela pilosi said we have to pass it first to find out what`s in it. NO canidate can give complete specifics before he is elected, on a budget, in fact who ever did ? One thing you can rest assured that Romney will get this country up and running and and feeling good about itself.There not one shred of evidence that anything will change with 4 more years of Obama, at best the uneployment rate is back where we started 7.8 % however gas is not 1.89 a gallon as it was then, things are costing more, wages are down. So who really who want`s this guy, lets look. public employes love him, why not more taxes, means more pay for them.People on the sidelines who have no intention of ever get off , NOT THE ONES THAT DO, want him more taxes means steady income for them. On someone else`s back. That`s the Obama idea of no one being left out. He wants reporations for a certain segment of the community OK I SAID IT. Prove me wrong.
Eric Poch October 17, 2012 at 05:47 PM
Here you are Ero http://www.mittromney.com/JobsPlan Oh, and by the way, Mitt's had detailed white papers released on Economic Growth for years, it's just too bad Obama never read them.
Tim Hill October 17, 2012 at 05:51 PM
Wilma, that is not necessarily true. Gains on stocks are also taxed at capital gains and those gains have not already been taxed. Dividends have, but gains make up a larger portion of what gets taxed at the capital gains rate.
Tim Hill October 17, 2012 at 05:52 PM
Tim Hill October 17, 2012 at 05:55 PM
Carver, that is just on this board. The media, both conservative and liberal, have pretty much acknowledged that Obama was the winner last night. The bigger question, the aswer to which both parties disagree on, is whether the win was enought to overcome the loss he suffered at the last debate.
Howard Kosrofian October 17, 2012 at 06:15 PM
Obama love`s to deal in class warfare and is always throwing around the fact that Mitt Romney is wealty, indeed he is. He will be entering the White House a rich man. All I know is Obama assumed office a relatively modest man, he willing be leaving very Wealthy. So I guess the last 4 years did pay off quite nicely, for the OBAMA`S.
Paul S October 17, 2012 at 06:45 PM
The only people who will vote for Obama are the ones on Food Stamps and the ones that are so ignorant that they do not know Obama's history. His dad was a certified member of the Communist Party. Check out the movie "Dreams From My Real Father" if you want to get educated or you can stay a mushroom and watch how Obama plans to destroy this nation.
Paul S October 17, 2012 at 07:07 PM
The debate was a tie. There will be no jump in the polls except for Romney. Obama has done nothing to improve the economy of this nation. We should all be desperate to get Obama out of the White House because if Obama had been more concerned out the citizens of this nation and their protection (part of his job) the four people killed in Benghazi would have never lost their lives. Obama rightly took responsibility because he was spending more time campaigning, fund raising and golfing instead of taking care of the responsibilities of his office. Every president before Obama would always properly staff the U.S. Embassies on Sept. 11th each year because that date has great significance in the Islamic world. Obama is asleep at the wheel when it comes to foreign policy. Obama does not care about the people of this country, he only cares about himself.
MoonBeamWatcher October 17, 2012 at 07:10 PM
The same people who want "Deer Crossing Signs" moved to another area are voting for the Great Pretender who so love the poor he is creating millions more as we speak. OMG! = Obama Must Go!
Eric Poch October 17, 2012 at 07:19 PM
@Don n - For your reference, Candy Crowley is a self-important, fem-bot media snob who just can't seem to follow the rules. The Obama AND Romney campaigns set some interesting ground rules, most notably, neither camp wanted a whole lot of moderating, specifically requesting that Candy Crowley doesn't ask any follow-up questions to a candidate who may choose to talk his way around a difficult question. The memo signed by both campaigns, would suggest there won't be any follow-ups at all. The document not only bars Crowley from asking them, but also the audience members and even the other candidate on stage. •7 (c), IV: "The moderator will not ask follow-up questions or comment on either the questions asked by the audience or the answers of the candidates during the debate or otherwise intervene in the debate except to acknowledge the questioners from the audience or enforce the time limits, and invited the candidate comments during the 2 minute response period." •7 (d): "The audience members shall not ask follow-up questions or otherwise participate in the extended discussion, and the audience member's microphone shall be turned off after he or she completes asking the questions." •5 (e): "The candidates may not ask each other direct questions during any of the four debates.
Eric Poch October 17, 2012 at 07:39 PM
So, Ero, first, help me understand which points from Obama's plan and campaign pledges from 2008 he has successfully achieved? Next, elucidate me on what his plan is for the next four years. Somehow I missed that last night among all the complaining he was doing, alleging what he thought Romney would do. Then, just out of curiosity, do you have any idea what our Current Trade deficit is with China? Do you understand how much of our debt they hold? Do you even fathom the idiocy of Clinton having offered them WTO status? If Mitt cracked down on China alone, we'd be in a helluva lot better position with tons of new manufacturing jobs in the US.
M C Stringfellow October 17, 2012 at 09:40 PM
You are right about abortion. Its a choice. The law give you the right to choose that option. It does not mean that the government has to pay for it. IF a women wants an abortion, then, let her pay for it. Most pregnancies are not rape or incest related, just stupid women who didn't take a few minutes to practice birth control. Lets face it BirthControl is much cheaper than abortion and safer.
M C Stringfellow October 17, 2012 at 09:41 PM
Amen to that.
M C Stringfellow October 17, 2012 at 09:47 PM
Taxes will go up. It's a question of how much. Obama said he would cut waste, NOT. Democrats in general want to raise taxes to the max with no cut in wasteful spending. Republicans want to cut the wasteful spending and raise taxes accordingly (minimum). We really need legislation to omit any riders to any bills along with line item veto. What do you really wnat from our Government? Think before you vote.
Mr N October 18, 2012 at 12:57 AM
Do you think that your idols Limbaugh and O'Reilly would've done a better job? She wasn't perfect but at least she was half alive which is more than can be said about Lehrer or Schieffer. These rules deserved to be violated for the benefit of the general public. From my point of view both candidates violated 5(e) and I didn't see any violation of 7(d), certainly if there was any it was a fraction of what occurred in the first debate. Calling the moderator names doesn't enhance your case especially after both sides agreed to the moderator used in advance. It's not like nobody had ever heard of her before. Any candidate from Massachusetts is a weak choice from a practical point of view, just ask the supporters of the last 4 Massachusetts candidates for President.
Walt Cassell October 18, 2012 at 02:32 AM
Look, this is simple: has Obama's plans over the last 4 years worked? Can you name anything that he has done that has worked? Borrowing money, and apologizing for America from day one stick in people's minds more than any legislation he has enacted. Can anyone say they are better off now than 4 years ago? Even putting in 3 full years ( I don't count this past year, it's been all campaigning) he accomplished nothing. I said it the other day and I say it again: We owe it to ourselves to switch directions, I am tired of watching my paycheck get taxed to death. A lot of that money is going to freebies that people who are capableof working are taking full advantage of. More and more people everyday are finding that it is easier to take from Uncle Sam than to get up and better themselves. It's time to stop Making it easy for them. I for one am ready for change. I admit it may prove to be the wrong change, But to never take the leap is to remain in one place. Right now we are all in one place. And it's called losing ground.
Felix October 18, 2012 at 10:46 AM
Doesn't matter who win this debate, I can't afford four more years under Obama adm. Maybe he is a good guy, but really is a very bad president, 'cause he made too much damage (just take a look at his record, double national deficit, 8o/o unemployed, almost the half of population get benefit.......). Only who can't think with the head will support him.......
Richard Smith October 18, 2012 at 02:59 PM
If substance and policy were important then Romney won. If attacking and disinformation was important then Obama won. The policies of the present administration have led to a resurgence of Al-Qaeda, stagnation in the economy, and runaway government spending. Think before you vote are you better off today than you were 4 years ago. I like substance, and policy, over disinformation, and character assassination any day.
M C Stringfellow October 18, 2012 at 03:36 PM
We will get along fine. I agree.
J. Parker October 18, 2012 at 07:09 PM
Judging from all of this banter, I think Obama aught to give that Nobel Peace Prize back. : D
M C Stringfellow October 18, 2012 at 08:04 PM
Gingrich would have been a stronger choice for the debate. BUT, certainly not for The Presidency. Gingrich has always wanted things his own way. I am not certain I could vote for a man who divorced his second wife because 1. he was tired of her 2. she was not pretty enough to be First Lady and 3. his affair was about to become public. Not good personal qualifications for a man who wants to be President. Who else Patty De suppose to blame? Oh, I know, the newspaper guy on the corner. Obama was not sick that day nor was he tired. He was playng at being "The Anointed One" who felt it was beneath himself to be there. Romney won because Obama did not prepare. OR you could look at it this way. Obama was laid back to give Romney a false sense of security so he could tear him down in the second debate. Didn't quite work that way though, did it. Numbers hardly moved for Obama. AND stop blaming Bush for all the troubles. Every President inherits problems form the last. Obama is the only one to compound them into a trillion dollar deficit and rising. Look at facts not party.
M C Stringfellow October 18, 2012 at 08:18 PM
I'm sorry that monetary figure was wrong. should have been 16 trillion. The keys do stick.
Michael Fleming October 21, 2012 at 04:22 PM
We need a CEO to deal with our countries economic problems, someone who deals with the realities and hazards of a business, not some guy who was a "community organizer" I mean, what the hell is that anyway? A guy who goes around the neighborhood encouraging the poor to sign up for well fare and other entitlements, and basically spreading anger and discontent amongst the citizens. THAT Will help this country turn itself around? Are you serious? C'mon people...we can do better than this guy.
David Chase October 22, 2012 at 12:39 AM
I thought we tried a CEO president not so long ago (had a Harvard MBA and everything) and it didn't turn out so well. Took a surplus, turned it into a deficit, started two wars, lackluster economy, ended in a financial crisis.
x October 22, 2012 at 01:04 AM
How's that community organizer workin' out for ya. Reverend E. Raleigh Pimperton III
Paul S October 22, 2012 at 03:08 AM
David, the last CEO president that I can remember was George Washington and he did a pretty darn good job. Bush was not a CEO of any company as far as I know. He family has been in politics for a long time. Obama has no life experience in any type of business. He college education was very lackluster with a "C" average. He is really just an average Joe. Just because he can talk and spout off lies and tell everyone else that they are telling lies when he the one actually telling the lies is just crazy. But it is just like the Pied Piper who led everyone away with his magical music. Obama is doing the same with all of the ignorant voters who either do not want to research him or are too lazy to do so. Any person who really does their research about Obama would never vote for him. He had the first two years to create millions of jobs and he did nothing but create thousands of government jobs and a huge expansion of government bureaucracy. If he gets into the White House for another term he will most certainly double the number of people on Food Stamps and expand the federal government to double the size it is now. The debt will double and we will have to go bankrupt. The USA is actually already bankrupt, but nobody wants to discuss it.
Mr N October 22, 2012 at 03:15 AM
Now many jobs did Romney create in Massachusetts?......oh net zero. Guess it's not the same as being a strip miner of businesses
David Chase October 22, 2012 at 03:48 AM
It's always good to check your memory against Google and Wikipedia. Bush founded Arbusto, was chairman of Spectrum 7, board of directors of HKN, managing general partner of Texas Rangers. I recall him running as a "CEO president", and the term was used in the title of a Time article back in 2002, a Reason article in 2005, and appears in several other articles. It seems unlikely to me that Obama will do the things you claim he will. He has been making plenty of noise about shrinking the deficit (for example, letting tax cuts on the rich expire -- what's that for, if not to cut the deficit?) To me, his policies look like those of an old-style Rockefeller Republican. For example, did he push for universal health care? Guaranteed income? Maximum wage? Is he proposing to put the maximum tax rate back where it was the last time a Republican balanced a budget? He's proposed none of these things. He rerouted a pipeline, but did not block it.


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something
See more »