Many people are saying Obama, almost nobody is saying Romney—I guess that means Obama won. Voters who didn’t tune in are mostly going to hear some variation on, “Whereas the President looked wearied and unenthusiastic in the first debate, in the second he seemed energized and eager to make his case aggressively.” That can’t be bad for Obama.
I’m going to mostly try to avoid grand pronouncements about the “atmospherics,” though. I tend to be somewhat tone-deaf about these things, and I’m more interested in the substance. On that front, I thought it was a close debate, with both candidates making some extremely effective attacks on their opponent but having a harder time laying out a really compelling account of their own agenda. I look forward to answering as many questions as I can that dig into the policy questions from the debate.
The economy should definitely be the focus of the second presidential debate, as it is still the most influential issue in the majority of Americans' lives. With a lack of job creation and many people in significant debt, both candidates should thoroughly explain how their policies will help the U.S. rebuild its economy and create a more vibrant job market.
Yes, of course the economy should be the central focus of the Presidential debate. The poor economy is one of the most critical issues facing our nation. Other issues are not nearly as important in light of a failing US economy. In difficult economic times, a country should deal with its own problems rather than worrying about those of the world at large.
Debate topics have to vary sometime. During Obama's second term, he can't focus solely on the economy because other work has to be done. Yes, jobs and the economy is a big part of what the federal government must assess in the next four years. But the American people need to see other sides of candidates in order to try to pick the best person for the job.