Was it really more abstract than any other debate? I guess I'm not familiar with detailed debates, the time frame usually makes them about principles not details. In fact, I thought this debate was refreshingly more nuanced than most. Both candidates tried to get specific when talking about particular legislation. In my eyes, this was one of the better debates I can remember for talking specifically rather than broadly. The devil is in the details so it's probably not best to evaluate policy changes by debates anyway. But it's hard, as someone who believes being practical is important, not to strongly favor Romney's abstract take on Dodd-Frank for instance. Now I know that he has backdoor intentions and part of this isn't genuine, but his argument was "regulation is ok, but not all regulation is ok. Sometimes, some part of legislation are bad" to which Obama basically replied "well better to do something bad than nothing." Which A) doesn't answer the question and is pretty much in line with every liberal driven policy change on social welfare, college funding, etc. It's admitting your own legislation's awful unintended consequences, throwing up your hands, shrugging, and blaming someone else. Good god. That, for me, totally encapsulates the problem with the left. I'm still probably going to throw my vote away on some third party or write-in, but Romney at least got me interested in seeing how long this Rational Romney is going to stay around.