The three candidates on the ballot in November for the 2nd Congressional district squared off Thursday evening in the first debate of the season.

Democratic incumbent Glenn Nye and his two challengers, Republican Scott Rigell and Independent Kenny Golden, faced an overflowing crowd at Princess Anne High School. I managed to not only make it to the debate, but to broadcast it live from a rather hot balcony at the school, thanks to Wifi help from fellow blogger Joel McDonald, who live blogged the debate.

Traveling down Virginia Beach Boulevard, I was met with a sea of Rigell signs. It was a harbinger of things to come. Once I finally found a parking space and made it into the building, it was clear that the Rigell camp had turned out its volunteers and supporters. Golden was out front greeting people and I saw a few members of the Nye campaign staff before rushing upstairs to get positioned for the broadcast. Being more concerned about making sure the broadcasting was working, I only half listened to the debate. Having reviewed the video a couple of times, I’m ready to declare a winner.

That winner would be no one.

Seated between Rigell and Nye, Golden had a tremendous opportunity here to make his case as the alternative candidate. In my opinion, he fell short. Perhaps it is his Republican roots, but I found him too much in agreement with Rigell. (Part of that was a function of the questions, discussed later.) Golden, who I interviewed earlier this year, has a lot more depth than was demonstrated in the debate. It wasn’t until his closing statement that he was able to work in his “blue glass, red glass, clear glass” appeal – and that rang hollow, based on his responses. I did enjoy, though, his gregarious personality. In the future, if he is truly an independent, I’d like to hear some more independent answers.

Graphic | VB Progressives

Rigell played to the crowd, throwing out Republican talking points over and over. Contrary to what his handlers may have told him, this was a debate, not a campaign rally, and his speaking style in this context – call it preacher talk, if you will – seemed out of place. I know Rigell has a greater understanding of some of the issues, but he failed to articulate them. I have to admit that I expected more from Rigell but he seems to be still in primary mode.

Early in the debate, I tweeted that if this turned into a Nye-bashing fest, Nye would win by default. While both Rigell and Golden got in their digs at Nye, it didn’t overwhelm the conversation. In his answers, Nye referred to his record in Congress or the old standby, his service prior to entering Congress. I have to admit that I cringed every time Nye said he voted on issues the way his constituents wanted – because rarely does he vote the way I’d like him to, and I’m one of his constituents.

As others have said, this debate sounded like one for a Republican primary. Perhaps the biggest reason was the phrasing of the questions. Except for the one on the environment, the questions themselves appeared designed to elicit only conservative responses. While I applaud the organizers for getting this debate done, I wish they had gotten some input from others on the questions. (And I wish someone had taught them how to pronounce Rigell’s name!)

Fortunately for the voters in the 2nd, we’ll have other opportunities to hear these candidates. Once such opportunity is coming up on October 9, when the League of Women Voters, of which I am a member, in conjunction with WHRO and ODU, will host what will likely be the only TV-broadcasted debate. As of this writing, Nye and Golden have committed to attending. Rigell’s camp is still holding their three (or five) independent polls position on whether they will show, ludicrous in light of their participation Thursday.

This post originally appeared on the writer’s blog.