4 of 5 Town Hall Debate Undecideds Now Support Obama

At the second presidential debate, a town hall forum held at Hofstra University, 11 undecided voters from Long Island asked President Obama and Mitt Romney questions on a range of issues, including unemployment, gun control, and equal pay for women. Mother Jones caught up with five of them, all of whom are still dealing with the aftermath of Sandy, and asked if they finally have decided. Results? Four of the five say they’re voting for Obama. Here’s why:

Nina Gonzalez CNNNina Gonzalez CNNVOTER: Nina E. Gonzalez

QUESTION: “President Obama, during the Democratic National Convention in 2008, you stated you wanted to keep AK-47s out of the hands of criminals. What has your administration done or plan to do to limit the availability of assault weapons?”

VOTING FOR: OBAMA. “If I could have had a clear understanding of how Gov. Romney would have provided jobs, I would have gone with him. The bottom line is we need food, shelter, and clothing before we can take care of any other needs. I never got a clear understanding about how he would do it. With my question at least [Obama] showed some concern. Romney just reiterated that he would advocate that people be able to possess weapons. And he essentially said that single mothers were the problem. They have enough problems. He also flip-flopped in regard to his thoughts about abortion. So, I was not happy with his response.”

Jeremy Epstein CNNJeremy Epstein CNNVOTER: Jeremy Epstein

QUESTION: “Mr. President, Gov. Romney, as a 20-year-old college student, all I hear from professors, neighbors, and others is that when I graduate, I will have little chance to get employment. Can—what can you say to reassure me, but more importantly my parents, that I will be able to sufficiently support myself after I graduate?”

VOTING FOR: OBAMA. “I feel that both Mitt and Obama have completely different paths for our country. I think [Romney] would undo a lot of the work the president has done in the few years of his presidency. We’re already on one track; let’s give it a chance and see where we are in another four years. I liked Romney’s answer to my question better—his business experience swayed me, but the third debate swayed me towards Obama. That was a commander-in-chief test. Romney looked uncomfortable; he didn’t look presidential like he did in first debate. How are you gonna lead if you’re uncomfortable?”

Kerry Ladka Fox NewsKerry Ladka Fox NewsVOTER: Kerry Ladka

QUESTION: “The State Department refused extra security for our embassy in Benghazi, Libya, prior to the attacks that killed four Americans. Who was it that denied enhanced security and why?

VOTING FOR: OBAMA. “It was always a toss up for me. Romney’s business skills are well established, and I think we need a strong economy, but more important is Obama’s backing of social plans like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid. I don’t think he’ll hurt them, but I think the Romney-Ryan ticket will try to destroy them. Also I’m a fan of Obamacare. I think this nation needs a national health care plan. I’m not crazy about that entire episode with people dying in Libya, but still, overall, I think he’s a better man than the governor.”

 Phillip Tricolla YouTubePhillip Tricolla YouTube

VOTER: Phillip Tricolla

QUESTION: “Your energy secretary, Steven Chu, has now been on record three times stating it’s not policy of his department to help lower gas prices. Do you agree with Secretary Chu that this is not the job of the Energy Department?”

LEANING: ROMNEY. “I’m leaning towards Romney only because I think he’s a businessman, and maybe we should try something new—take a chance, go off the beaten path, who knows? Every thing is a shot in the dark at this point. They’re both good looking, sharp, very presidential looking. It’s really hard. No one is sweeping me away. You know, like sweep me away! I say fix the gas prices. When gas is so expensive, almost $4 a gallon, it sucks so much money out of the economy. You wanna get all the votes? Lower the gas prices, get the natural gas, pull it out of the ground. You’d really make a lot of people happy, especially in upstate New York. It would be the answer to our our prayers.”

Barry Green Fios 1 NewsBarry Green Fios 1 NewsVOTER: Barry Green

QUESTION: “Each of you: What do you believe is the biggest misperception that the American people have about you as a man and a candidate? Using specific examples, can you take this opportunity to debunk that misperception and set us straight?”

VOTING FOR: OBAMA. “First of all, my wife would kill me if I voted for Romney. But the problem I think for anybody is whether the information you’re getting from either side is true or not. I don’t have time to look that up. I think they should make debates so that there are fact-checkers who put [the facts] on half the screen. But even if I can’t believe either of them, I have to go with the fact that I think that Paul Ryan was the utmost stupid choice of vice president because he’s so totally right wing and so totally anti-women’s rights. Then with the Supreme Court, there will be one or two positions that come up in the next four years…There’s part of me that hopes it ends up a tie and we end up with Romney and Biden.”

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We can’t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate