The second U.S. presidential debate on Tuesday night might well have been held in the sports complex at Hofstra University in New York in the boxing ring. It is reasonable to assume, though, that both President Barack Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney would have rejected the idea because they came to Long Island bare-knuckled. Obama was aggressive, as was expected after the first debate fiasco in Denver. Romney didn't remain silent either. According to the polls, Obama won the second debate on points, not with any knockout. This promises us another stormy night at the next debate on Monday. After what we have already seen, maybe children shouldn't be allowed to watch the third debate. Obama and Romney were like two gladiators for this encounter. Before even a quarter of an hour had passed, it was clear that this time there were going to be no shortcuts. The accusations the two men made were direct and the blows painful. Respect stayed at home. After his failure, or more accurately, his absence, in Denver, Obama arrived at this debate ready to knock his opponent out flat. To achieve his goal, Obama didn't hesitate to encroach on Romney's space and call him out on comments he had made, accusing Romney of not telling the truth. However, Romney didn't flinch and didn't fall. The debate was sharp and rhythmic. Had they been two gunmen, Obama would have survived on Tuesday for the simple reason that he drew faster on the issues of China, Libya and his pay stub. This is why commentators granted him the victory. At least 10 topics came up in the debate, which was conducted in a different format than the first debate. This time it was a town hall meeting, in which the audience was invited to ask the questions. They asked about immigration, the deficit, unemployment, education, social issues, foreign policy, Libya, and the price of gasoline. Each candidate sought not only to answer the questions, but also to attack and denigrate his opponent's answers. Romney repeatedly stressed that Obama had failed, and that negative economic statistics could no longer be consider the responsibility of his predecessor, former President George W. Bush. Obama discredited Romney's proposals, one after another. Romney said the middle class could expect another four years of failure with Obama. Obama clarified that Romney's plan did not have five points, as claimed, but only one: Benefit the wealthy. The rhetorical combat was punishing; only their suits remained unruffled throughout the evening. Now the question remains how much this debate benefited each of the candidates. Women have now become a popular target audience for both sides, and women do not like aggressive behavior from candidates. There was a lack of refinement. At times the debate was even physical, especially when they seemed to dance around the stage. The peak of their exchanges occurred when the candidates wrangled over oil-drilling permits granted under the Obama administration. The two were very close, just like the polls. This time, Obama showed that he was not indifferent and wants to continue in office. Romney proved that he is far from standing down in this election and is not giving up. The first debate allowed Romney to get back into the race and change its momentum. The second debate primarily rallied the Democratic camp, which is important in and of itself. The high level of aggressiveness on Tuesday and the negative broadcasts of both parties afterward may still not succeed in swaying these elections. In a USA Today Gallup poll of swing states including the major electoral battleground in Ohio 55 percent of respondents said that the onslaught of negative ads only made them less excited about the debate. Even after the next debate, on Oct. 22 in Columbus, Ohio, we still won't know who the next president of the U.S. will be. For that, we'll have to wait until the votes are counted.
