What can a person say about a debate when nothing new is said within the debate. This debate is very difficult to gauge because there is little more to take away other than the ways in which the two candidates conducted themselves.
To address what was actually said, simply think partisan. Think guns, immigration, and economic policy, and you’ve got it. Think of all the tag lines that have become cliches of both campaigns, and you’ve got it. Think of all the claims that have have been used against the opposing candidate, especially those vehemently opposed, and sometimes proven incorrect, and you’ve got it.
So, because the popular vote is nothing more than a vote of popularity, and these are the actions being condoned by the candidates by saying nothing worth paying attention to, we need to focus on the favorable and non-favorable ways in which they conduct themselves which results in their popularity.
Mitt Romney’s aggression, which served him well in the first debate, was a negative in this debate. His interruptions, and lack of respect for the moderator left viewers, especially myself, dissatisfied. Romney is still yet to clarify the ways in which he plans to do many of the things he wants to do, and this leaves many dissatisfied.
Barack Obama’s sneers and snickering, left viewers feeling like they had a president that lacked leadership and compassion. His interruptions of his competitor, and moderator, left the viewer feeling like he wasn’t taking the situation seriously. Obama’s unwillingness to accept his administration’s shortcomings and downfalls, and unwillingness to accept blame of poor performance instead of passing the buck, left many unhappy.
When it comes down to it, the debate wasn’t favorable for either candidate. Neither candidate said anything worth while, and neither left a favorable image of themselves.
The question, at least for myself, is who hurt themselves the least? What are your thoughts?