Two miles away, the President and his Republican challenger went head-to-head in a lively debate that could help decide the 2012 election.
But just beyond the security phalanx surrounding Hofstra University, about 75 people from across Long Island witnessed the historic presidential debate on live television Tuesday night between President Barack Obama and Republican Gov. Mitt Romney.
At the end, their verdict was unanimous: Obama was the clear winner.
They are not a representative or statistical sampling of any kind. Those attending were from Long Island and New York City, in a state long ago thought to be solidly in the Democratic column. They were invited by Patch to attend the forum.
National polls show the race much closer and hanging on the outcome in several key swing states. But if Tuesday night's gathering was typical of similar ones across the country, in bar rooms and in living rooms, the Republican challenger took a beating Tuesday night.
When asked by Patch Regional Editor Greg Sleter, the program's moderator, who won the debate, the entire room raised their hands in favor of the President.
Sleter asked again: "No one for Romney?
There was no response.
Most at the gathering had already made up their minds, but Wantagh's Chris Wendt, a self-described "disenfranchised Republican," said the debate helped him decide his vote.
"I'm a moderate and the party has gone too far to the right," Wendt, a corporate manager, said afterward. "In the past I had a great deal of trouble voting for Obama. But Romney is all about the right wing."
"Obama seemed more comfortable, more animated and more patient," said Howard Leb of East Meadow. "In the first debate, (Obama) allowed the governor to pontificate, to say too much. This time he didn't and that's what hurt Romney this time."
"At the end of the debate, what he said about the 47 percent, that was key," said Ronald Weintraub, who traveled by train from Roosevelt Island to attend. "He talked about the veterans. He answered that better."
"He was able to connect with voters in a way that Gov. Romney could not," added Seamus Campbell, of Brooklyn.
The debate got personal for David Kennedy, of North Babylon, when the topic turned to outsourcing.
"I’m glad someone finally mentioned outsourcing. I’m a software engineer and my job got sent to Croatia. I'm probably leaning toward the president in my vote because people who are capitalists like Romney are the one who outsourced my job in the first place," Kennedy said. "But I do have a lot more respect for him (Romney) after watching the debates."
The room's biggest reactions were to the president's staggered shots at his opponent. They laughed at Obama's reference to Romney's budget axe falling on "Big Bird." They roared over the president's toe-to-toe exchange over pensions, when Obama said his pension was not as big as that of the former Massachusetts governor.
That exchange seemed telling to Robert Saunders, a teacher at Farmingdale State College: "This debate, like any debate, is about optics," Saunders said. "Mitt Romney was overly aggressive and rude. It was a violation of the president's space. That's how it came off."
Wendt agreed: "When (Romney) was standing in front of (Obama) he was rude and overbearing. It was more of an attack."
Phil Solhes, of Elmont, said he was already decided: "Obama has fulfilled his commitment to to us, especially on foreign policy. Other presidents haven't."
The Patch-sponsored gathering was held at the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 1500 headquarters on Merrick Avenue. The guests were invited openly via the various Patch sites across Long Island, Brooklyn and Queens.
Obama has fulfilled his commitment to us??? How exactly, please clarify that Mr. Solhes. He as put us farther in debt, making the US dollar weaker that it has ever been. He has made the government larger creating more "jobs" that our TAX dollar pay for. This is not fullfilment of anything but his own agenda. I'm not sure who Obama seeks to provide for, but it is clearly not the American people.
Really has the last 4 years been better 4 you?
I'd have gotten creamed for daring to say that it matters to me that American soil was unprotected and that heavily armed terrorists, who regard us as the great Satan and who are sworn enemies of our values, including freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and education for women, were permitted to burn down our consulate and murder our ambassador and three other people--and that this happened because the requests for help were not only denied but they met with demands that they stop asking because their requests were annoying the state department. And say what you will about Ms. Clinton, the buck stops at the Oval Office. It's easy enough, in the wake of American outrage, to pretend to care. A President who actually cared about America would have protected his people. I am confident that every other president in our history would have responded to the calls for help and protected his people. This is the first President we have ever had who regarded America's representatives abroad as a nuisance to be ignored in their time of peril. .
I find it useful, when my personal opinion does not agree with a consensus opinion, to re-examine my own opinion. In this case, the definition of "winning" may not be consistent among the opinions (yours, and the consensus). I do not equate being right with winning a debate, nor do I equate winning a debate with being right. There are simply too many issues and too many divergent positions on those issues for either candidate to outscore the other on having the most correct positons on the most issues. In my evaluation of this debate, Obama clearly won on the basis of having done what he needed and wanted to do to reverse his losses from the first debate, and to re-establish his credentials as the incumbent, leaving the hall with renewed momentum to his campaign. Obama met and exceeded his goals, objectives, and expectations from this debate. Simply by virtue of Obama having done what I just described, Romney, by comparison, gave ground to the Obama campaign, something that would not have been his goal, objective or expectation out of this debate. Trying to use talking points to score a debate is a futile exercise. Trying to debate someone else's opinion of the outcome of a debate is not productive for gaining an understanding of that outcome. Criticizing, from the sidelines, here, the party you personally wanted to lose the debate does not make your guy the winner.
I suppose most people who support Romney here do so out of latent bigotry, xenophobia, fear of change, or just the wan hope that maybe an elitist like Romney will reduce their taxes....