.
Feedback

Romney Wins Debate, OC Crowd Agrees

Who won? A mostly conservative Orange County debate party said Mitt Romney flourished while Barack Obama languished in the presidential candidates' Oct. 3 debate.

Who won Wednesday night's debate pitting President Barack Obama against Gov. Mitt Romney?

Mitt all the way, according to Patch users who attended the Orange County debate viewing party at Oggi's Pizza in Mission Viejo.

"This was Obama's to lose, and he clearly lost," said Rebecca Goddard, who announced her support for Romney on a recent blog post. "[Obama] is a very good public speaker, but he's not a good off-the-cuff guy."

Others agreed. Paul Eskildsen said the president's problems boiled down to three main issues:

  1. He has to explain his own political record
  2. The format of the debate didn't suit him ("He tends to ramble")
  3. "His policies are weak and suspect, and Romney's are real and believable. He's done them."

Most of the crowd planned to vote for Romney before the debate began. But Margot Ferron, an independent voter, said the debate may have swayed her into the Romney camp.

"Right now, it's not looking like Obama," she said. "I just expected more from Obama. He's not staying on topic."

Romney's supporters criticized him as well. Goddard said he needed to show the government's responsibility for the housing crisis more clearly. Eskildsen wanted Romney to lay out his economic plan more clearly than he had earlier in his campaign.

But it was clear that in Mission Viejo—where Republicans outnumber Democrats 2-to-1—Romney was the favorite.

Even Democrat Kim Thornton of Lake Forest agreed the debate went well for Romney.

"They both held their own, which pretty much means that Romney won," she said. "He looked good up there. He didn't make any major mistakes that I could tell."

Still, she said, whoever wins might be irrelevant if the future president can't unite a divided U.S. Congress.

Who do you think won the debate? Tell us in the COMMENTS below.

Joker Joe October 4, 2012 at 01:17 pm
"[Obama] is a very good public speaker, but he's not a good off-the-cuff guy."
1. The reason Obama did not speak well was because someone unplugged the teleprompter. 2. He had nothing to say about 4 yrs. in office other than Obamacare. 3. Diverted attention from his record by blaming Bush and the previous administration for everything.
Rebecca Goddard October 4, 2012 at 01:34 pm
Here is Al Gore's take on the whole poor performance thing. I can now die and know I have heard it All. GAWD
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/al-gore-blames-denvers-high-altitude-for-obamas-lackluster-debate-performance/
Lawrence (Larry) McCook October 4, 2012 at 01:51 pm
Orange County thinks Romney won the debate? What a surprise!
Just kidding of course! LOL It was nice to see you Monday night. www.larry4rsm.com
Mercury October 4, 2012 at 03:20 pm
It's easy to win a debate when all you do is lie.
Rebecca Goddard October 4, 2012 at 08:18 pm
Bitter party of 1
Frieda Wales October 4, 2012 at 10:19 pm
Rope-A-Dope strategy.
Dusty W Otero October 5, 2012 at 12:59 am
We don't care if u favor Mitt pointing finger Romney California is already a Obama state lol u loose
Rebecca Goddard October 5, 2012 at 01:24 am
I don't lose, because I know how to spell
Represent October 5, 2012 at 03:31 am
Maybe California is an Obama state because of all the welfare recipients there.
MamaBear October 9, 2012 at 09:39 pm
Well said, Mercury. No bitterness, Rebecca, only truth

Newsletter & Alerts

Get the best stories each day and important breaking news

Subscribe

Not from Mission Viejo Patch? Find your Local Patch »

Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors. Write a new post... What's up? Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell something
Greg Raths announced for Congress
Shripathi Kamath June 19, 2013 at 10:51 am
"As a Republican, he will go head to head with our current incumbant [sic]" Wait, areRead More there no other contenders? John Webb on the Republican side might run, and then there was that Irvine mayor Sukhee Kang fella, who finished second. The more the merrier. The more diversity in the views, even better. I would like to hear from contenders how they would vote differently on some of the votes the incumbents have cast. Because all too often we have "an independent minded Republican" or a "progressive reformer" or "Heck, I am BATMAN himself" only to have disappointing regurgitation of ideology of what should not be done ("low taxes", "freedom", "family values", "apple pie, motherhood"). Not what will be done. And until we have that, corporate monies shall determine our representative. I mean I can imagine Mr. Raths voting for the 45th time to repeal Obamacare, but seriously, which vote that John Campbell cast would be different if Mr. Raths were in office? If 90% of the positions are the same, it looks like a remarkable coincidence that an independent thinker is so like the incumbent, does it not? Mr. Raths did offer an 'independent' idea endorsing civil unions but not gay marriage. Cool. Is he going to sponsor a bill for civil unions? Or simply insist on enforcing DOMA because "sanctity of marriage", "religious liberty". How about H.R. 1797? How about the Gang of 8 bill on immigration if it passes the Senate and comes to the House? Will his vote be different than that of Mr. Campbell's? That is the key question. But again, I welcome Mr. Raths entry in the field, we need more variety, and if we cannot get that, we at least need more people willing to run. Good luck to you, sir.
Gregory Raths June 19, 2013 at 05:30 pm
I've talked with both John Webb & Sukhee Kang and they have indicated they will not be runningRead More in 2014. I do welcome all entries into the 2014 race. GREG RATHS
Human Options' Cristi Dugger
Peter Schelden (Editor) June 19, 2013 at 09:29 am
Uncanny timing—this is especially poignant in light of this announcement:Read More http://alisoviejo.patch.com/groups/police-and-fire/p/elder-sexual-abuse-caregiver-suspect-arrested
M June 19, 2013 at 07:32 am
Anymore info on this place? When I looked online the only location is vista, ca
Dan Avery June 16, 2013 at 10:09 am
Tom Thumb you didn't read section 1021(b)(2) closely enough. It wouldn't apply to those arming theRead More rebels because of the word "suspicion." We know they are arming the rebels. See the difference. 1021(b)(2) only applies to those we "suspect" like you. Notice how the word "reasonable" doesn't appear anywhere near "suspicion"? Hmmmm wonder why that would be. Section 1021(b)(2) seems to be the modern day "suspicion of lurking with intent."
Tom Thumb June 16, 2013 at 02:31 pm
Shoot, I don't know about that. What we are hearing now is Obama/McCain are pushing to arm theRead More rebels who are supporting and are part of Al Qaeda: www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-22095099
Shripathi Kamath June 16, 2013 at 03:02 pm
Hey Avery, I am totally stealing the "suspicion of lurking with intent" phrase. It mightRead More even flourish on reddit.