I was considering writing a news article for this topic, however, it's nearly impossible. The story is the same: "Obama and Romney talk about how bad the other is." Both, as with the first debate, talked about the same topics, talked over each other and the moderator, and mostly talked about how bad
the other is.
People will still ask the question of who "won" the debate ― as if anyone wins when unemployment
is at 7.8 percent. Or when US incarceration numbers
are dismal ― especially since 60 percent of those prisoners are nonviolent offenders. Or when we send young men and women overseas to die in wars that are not in the best interest of the country.
Can anyone win when the dollar is becoming less and less valuable? Or when students are indebted to the government with loans they may never be able to pay back?
I don't think anyone wins.
A Washington Post blog
says it best. The Post
said to undecided voters:
"Can you say with a straight face that there was anything in that debate — style or substance — that would convince an undecided voter to get off the fence? Us either. The argumentative tone from both candidates is the sort of stuff undecideds and independents voters don't like a bit — and affirms for them why politics is broken."
And, of course, they mention the bickering, saying:
"These are the two men who are competing to be the leader of the free world. Do we really need to see them reduced to fighting over who gets to speak last or who is/isn't following the rules of the debate?"
I can't help but agree with these two points.
The debate wasn't "won," nor was anything revealed about the candidates. Simply put, they're very similar and often agree with each other. Just ask yourself in November if you
will win if either of these candidates win. If you say "yes," ask again in four years.