↓
 
Home » Debate night

Debate night

The New Neo Posted on by

There were three big debates tonight: Oz versus Fetterman (Pennsylvania), Zeldin versus Hochul (New York), and Dixon versus Whitmer (Michigan).

That’s three too many debates for me. Regular readers may recall that I hate debates. The reasons? The moderators, the gotcha questions, and the tension – that is, they make me tense when I watch. So I didn’t watch any of these. In addition, with the Oz/Fetterman debate, I think it had the potential to be tantamount to abuse, because Fetterman is obviously still having major health problems. Then again, if he’s being abused, it’s with his own willing cooperation.

So no, I didn’t watch. But I do read, and the consensus on the right is that Fetterman did even worse than expected (see this as well as this). Even CNN can’t really sugarcoat it much, although they give it a weak try.

As far as the New York debate went, I haven’t read that much that indicates anything other than a predictable “he said, she said.” Zeldin played his strong suit, the anti-crime card (see this). I think in New York it will really come down to how many residents are fed up enough to vote Republican for once.

In Michigan, here’s a description. Whitmer has been leading Dixon in the polls all the way, but the gap has been closing steadily, although Whitmer is still ahead. One strange thing about this duo is that Whitmer looks like Dixon’s less attractive older sister. Same hairdo too, more or less.

If some of you watched any or all of the three, let us know what you think.

Comments

Debate night — 52 Comments

  1. I watched some of the Fetterman debate but like you Neo, I have a limited tolerance for political debates and the Fetterman train wreck pushed me to the limit very quickly. It was just embarrassing.

    I don’t know why Fetterman agreed to do this. Perhaps when he agreed to debate, he really thought his condition would have improved enough to make a reasonable showing but this was obviously not the case. Maybe when he (or his handlers) realized that he was not ready to debate, he thought it was too late to pull out.

    I understand why some people would still support Fetterman because his seat could determine control of the Senate. But I don’t think anybody can now plausibly make the case that he is not severely impaired. I think only massive fraud can save the election for Fetterman and save the Senate for the Democrats.

  3. Dat poowah, poowah myan…
    Suffewing like he is.
    How could dat EVIL Weepublican even think of taking advantage of him when he’s so obviously sick and suffewing? When he’s so down and distwessed?
    How dayah dat EVIL Weepublican twy to beat him in his impayed state?
    Doesn’t dat EVIL Weepublican have any compassion? Any sense of faiyah play?
    Any mowality?
    Oh, I fawgot! He’s an EVIL Weepublican….

  4. Guess it’s time to whip out the “Oh-But-He-Was-Taken-Out-Of-Context” gambit…
    “Pundits stunned by ‘painful’ Fetterman performance in Pa. Senate debate”—
    https://nypost.com/2022/10/26/pennsylvania-gov-fetterman-struggles-in-senate-debate-against-dr-mehmet-oz/
    “Oz Odds Of Winning PA Soar After Historic Fetterman Debate Meltdown”—
    https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/draft-do-not-publish-oz-odds-winning-pa-soar-after-historic-fetterman-debate-meltdown

  6. Michigan: (from your link) “November 2020, after Whitmer lost authority to issue her own orders, her health director ordered all schools..”

    Even though I no longer live in MI I saw that part of the debate, That “fact check” about school closures left out how Whitmer “lost authority” to issue executive orders. Did she leave it at home one day on the way to work? Maybe left it at a coffee shop after her finishing her pumpkin spice lattee? It couldn’t have been lost due to a court order after a lawsuit because her actions were unconstitutional could it? Thanks ‘fact checkers’.

    Dixon missed an opportunity to mention all the declarations of non-essentialness and small business destruction created by Whitmer’s executive orders. A lot of futures have been wrecked by Whitmer. Interesting that Dixon is the third string opponent with James Craig and others being denied approval to be on the ballot over invalid signatures (now labeled “illegal” in the press). To be a potential and very likely winning candidate is an indictment of the incompetence of the MDP leadership.

  7. Michigan here.
    Mods were good due to the structure. Here’s the question, your turn first Ms. W you get sixty seconds. Ms. D gets thirty seconds. Next question, reverse.
    I may have it confused, but the structure was clear and the two adhered to it. Mods asked questions, none were gotchas as far as I could tell.
    Some questions had been sent in by citizens and, of course, picked from the, likely, thousands.
    Answers were mostly, I did this. You said that. Guns in school are bad. We should harden schools. Referred to the St. Louis shooting where, on account of an armed security officer, the casualties were a tenth of Uvalde’s butchers bill.
    W says this proves guns in school are bad.
    Lots of road construction questions, roads being parts of W’s campaign.
    A rather large part of each answer/rebuttal was that the other was lying–“misrepresented””something, including the opponent’s case.
    Basically got nothing out of it. Except W said, wrt Covid, we were working from what we knew from 1918. It looks like that might have been the case, but there was little to nothing from 1918 which applied. IOW, either she/the med establishment was stupid, or they’re lying.
    W’s main point is that D is going to take a bazillion dollars out of education on account of Betsy deVos and give it to…apparently Betsy deVos.

    Detail to the last. Birmingham–top end Detroit suburb–lost six hundred students going into this school year. That meant $14 million in funding cut. Folks there can afford private schools or home schooling–iow, the two-income model is nice but not necessary.

  8. I’m astounded by Fetterman, but then not really surprised. Check out the coverage in the local papers – – – no mention of Fetterman’s struggles above-the-fold. I’m not sure they can ultimately keep his performance below the radar of the average voter, though.

    It would be nice to see Democrats blow a winnable Senate race for a change, but then partisanship is a powerful drug and PA does not vote statewide for Republicans all that often. If I were a Democrat, would I vote for Fetterman to keep Republicans from controlling the Senate? Well, I voted for Donald Trump to keep Democrats from controlling the Executive Branch, so I find it hard to judge.

  10. One odd thing to me is that Oz is straight out of central casting as the “Republican who can win in Pennsylvania.” His persona is that of a moderate, country-club Republican of the type who twenty years ago would have been able to carry the Philly suburbs.

    But Trump has really skewed things. The Trump base is still skeptical of Oz because of his moderate persona, and the fact that Oz owes his rise to Trump hurts him in the Philly suburbs that should be his strength.

    I suspect that, in these circumstances, an implosion of the Democratic nominee was/is probably Oz’s only chance of winning. Thankfully, we seem to be witnessing just that. I think that, if Oz wins, he will be a better candidate as an incumbent in 2026 than he is now. (He’ll have to be, because 2026 is likely to be the first midterm of the next Republican president.)

  11. One last comment on Oz – He threw cold water on Lindsay Graham’s abortion bill (but didn’t categorically rule out voting for it). Oz’s position is that abortion is a state issue and that the federal government should stay out of it.

    I don’t think there are many pro-lifers who would have a problem voting for a candidate who takes Oz’s position and sticks to it, at least at the federal level. I also suspect that Oz’s position commands a large majority (provided that it can bring along the pro-life vote).

    Defederalizing abortion policy may actually be a political boon for Republicans, and not the albatross that was predicted over the summer.

  13. * Correcting my math error in the previous post – if Oz wins he’ll stand for reelection in 2028, which will be a presidential election year. I still think he’ll be a better candidate as an incumbent than he is this year.

  14. @Bauxite

    Yeah, my wife won’t vote for Oz because of Trump (but she is a very conservative person, but also worries about character, though I ask her who does have good character in politics?) She’s going 3rd party. Me, I dunno. I will not vote for Fetterman based soley on Fracking / Energy. I am not overly 1 issue voter (wait a few minutes, I’ll have a different 1 issue), but overt hostility to energy (as opposed to pro-union payoffs to energy) are a 2022 no go zone for me.

    As for Mastriano / Shapiro, crap. They both are vile. Based on ‘what if Fetterman wins?’ I may have to vote for Mastriano, though the chances of Oz losing and Mastriano winning seem small.

    I have a small hope that Oz may be like Trump, in that the entertainment persona isn’t the same as the political persona. Not gonna hold my breath, though.

  15. I dont like oz i dont trust him because of all his previous stances he will probably be as reliable as soecter
    i hate what they did to force parnell and then barnette out of the race that say fetterman is an existential threat to the country its not a question of doubt

  16. Kris – Another thing to consider in PA is Democrats meddling in the Republican primaries. Shapiro spent more money promoting Mastriano in the Republican primary than Mastriano’s own campaign did.

    Democrats are like Bourbons (forget nothing and learn nothing), but if enough of the wingers they pushed in the Republican primaries win or come close to winning office then maybe (just maybe) Democrats will stop mucking around in Republican primaries. I’m not a huge fan of Kari Lake or Don Bolduc (sp?), either, but I’m pulling for them for that reason.

  18. My only strike against mastriano was he voted for that stupid mail vote law

    Whats wrong witb kari lake again general bolduc was one of the few honest staff officers that came out of the iraq war

  19. Unfortunately, the reality is that as far as PA Democrat voters are concerned, Fetterman is perfectly competent for what they want: A senator in the D column, who can potentially help the Democrats keep control of the Senate, and who in any case will vote in lockstep with other Democrats. And really, what are the qualifications needed to be a Senator? The fact that he is mentally deficient makes no difference, just as it makes no difference to Democrats that Biden is mentally deficient. All that matters is moving forward the progressive agenda.

  21. I think Jimmy nailed it. If you would like to keep our republic, vote for Oz. He might disappoint from time to time, surely no worse than Romney, but I cannot see how anyone in the center or on the right can support Fetterman.

  24. Some have noticed a comparison of young whitmer to jane badler but shes become more reptillian in the intervening years

  26. Various stuff:

    — Dwaz comment above about Ben Franklin still on Philly voter rolls made me laugh aloud. Loved it. In 2020, four different Dem election judges in Philly were named in federal indictments for taking bribes and committing election fraud. We need a new expression for gaslighting on steroids. “The Big Lie” simply doesn’t do justice for describing standard Dem operating procedure.

    — the NFL is pushing hard with ads encouraging people to register to vote by stressing how important their votes are and how big the impact of the election will be on their lives. On its face, simply non-partisan, good citizenship encouraging civic participation. Reality, those who aren’t registered and aren’t engaged in political news tend to vote D. They are easily confused by the lies and propaganda. Does anyone think that the NFL would do so if new voters tended to favor the GOP? Me neither. Speaking of Dem ignorance — the video of Trump voters schooling an interviewer trying to shame them about Jan 6 is priceless. Also, one of the most encouraging things I’ve seen in 2022. Shows the power of truth and alternative sources. Neo gets props on this. Every single blog, et al that work to put out the real facts deserves some credit.

    — the desperation of the lies and propaganda is palpable as they ramped up recently. The old reliable social security and Medicare boogy man emerged. Now, Rs want to intentionally wreck economy (that’s believable?). MAGA has plans to steal 2024 election (does anyone really trust Hillary? Wouldn’t that be a prima facie case of fatal stupidity? Isn’t trusting Hillary sufficient evidence to establish incompetence?)

    — speaking of lies and liars, this latest from Krugman is classic D misrepresentation. https://hotair.com/john-s-2/2022/10/25/paul-krugman-jumps-on-the-bogus-red-state-murder-problem-bandwagon-n505698
    A deliberate effort to confuse. As if crime, policing, and administration of justice is a state-wide issue.

    — the crime lie above is classic D obfuscation. EVERY D talking point employs it. See e.g. gender pay gap, racial incarceration

    — saw the ‘Civil Rights Act of 1964/South went GOP because of racism’ canard again. I think the only reason that liberals fall for it is because of their deep, emotional need to hate their opponents and believe the worst about them. It’s such a stupid argument because it requires ignoring all relevant evidence.

    If we’re still two weeks out, how much more outrageous will the lies get?

    — this is wacked. “Democratic candidates are now struggling against this parade of election deniers, religious bigots, and conspiracy theorists who once would have been beyond the pale of modern American politics.” https://hotair.com/david-strom/2022/10/26/the-atlantic-america-you-are-going-to-kill-democracy-itself-n505764
    The bubble alone is insufficient to explain this much insanity.

  27. Kris,

    Elections are a two-party zero sum game. Voting third party is moral masturbation. Especially when the cited reason is something as stupid and irrelevant as “character”.

    Perhaps back in the fifties and early sixties when both parties were basically big govt liberal supporters whose only real disagreement was the size of welfare payments one might have a point. Since the commie left seized the Ds in the 60s, can’t support that kind of moral hubris.

  29. @stan Eh. My wife has had enough voting for the least worst. She is also the Judge of Election for our precinct, and has previously volunteered for campaigns before becoming involved in the polling place, so she is engaged and part of the solution. If she doesn’t want to vote D or R, she’s got that right not only by right of citizenship, but earned that right in service.

  32. Kris, your wife is a naïve fool. If she and you can look across the country and see the damage that the Democrats have done in two years and then say I refuse to take a side, you are abetting the destruction of our country.

  33. From the Democrat point of view, Fetterman was absolutely perfect and his debate performance probably sealed his election win.

    Everyone knows the guy is impaired by the stroke, and it showed. The average person sees this as a honest and refreshing gesture, but don’t know all the behind-the-scenes propping up done for the guy vis-a-vis closed captioning and advance knowledge of the questions.

    Though somewhat garbled in places, he got his main message to the voters out early on loud and clear–everything that comes out of Oz’s mouth is a lie. He is a liar, period. Do you want to vote for a pathologic liar? Of course not. Debate over.

    If that wasn’t bad enough, Oz comes off as a high falutin’ bully with his perfect delivery and responses to the questions. Normally it would be impossible to portray a cis-white male candidate as a victim, but Fetterman’s obvious impairment in the debate cemented his Victim Status. What Oz did in the debate is essentially akin to an awful high school villain picking on the kid with Down Syndrome. Of course, the average voter believes Fetterman’s mind and intelligence is completely sound, it’s just his speech that is off, so it’s not like they will be voting for a mentally challenged candidate.

    At worst (to use a pop culture reference like Fetterman is known for), he comes off looking (and sounding) like the lovable Karl Childers from the movie “Sling Blade” whose bad behavior gets more or less excused by most viewers.

    Oz was essentially in a no-win situation and the Democrats who ran Fetterman knew it. There were only three options, all of which favored Fetterman. Don’t do a debate, which suits Fetterman just fine. Do a debate and (god forbid) perform poorly, in which case, a supposed “intellectual” lost to a mentally incapacitated individual, or do a debate and roundly stomp him, in which case you will be portrayed as a vile bully tormenting the handicapped.

  34. ‘A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the Democrat Leftist agenda of fundamentally transforming the country, at this point.
    No amount of rationalization is going to change that fact.

    If you believe that individual liberty should be subsumed by the needs of the state, keep the Democrat Left in power.
    If you believe that the state should be the final arbiter of what is best for our children, keep the Democrat Left in power.
    If you think the economy is better served by destroying the small business middle class in exchange for a corpocracy that will serve the interests of the state, keep the Democrat Left in power.
    If you want to see equity advanced in the country by pandering to the criminal class through no bail, early release programs that are implemented along racial lines continue to keep the Democrat Left in power.
    If you want the economy to continue its slide and dislocations in a foolish quest to change our basic energy sources by force of government, rather than through the natural development of innovation winning in the marketplace, continue to keep the Democrat Left in power.

    We have been voting for the least worst candidate for decades, probably millennia, since perfect candidates are a rare phenomenon.

  35. Stan – Voting third party sends a message – nominate better candidates. If someone is willing to risk putting the opposition into power in order to send that message, that is their prerogative. A candidate has to win votes, they are not just entitled to them.

    A lot of Trump supporters preach your message, but Trump himself doesn’t practice it. See Stacy Abrams v. Kemp and O’Dea v. Bennett in CO. Who here thinks that Trump will be receptive to a “binary election” message if he or his preferred candidate fails to win the 2024 Republican primary?

  36. “The perfect is the enemy of the good.”

    Who said that?
    Somebody famous, I’m pretty sure…
    Winnie the Pooh?
    Piglet?
    Eeyore said, “I love thistles” and, in rare moments, “Civilization is often saved by the ‘imperfect.’ “ (Or was that Orwell…and his “rough men”…?)

  37. Barry Meislin – Everyone has their limits. My own limits have expanded considerably watching what Democrats have done since 2016, and then considerably more since Biden took office in 2021, but I still have limits and I suspect you do too.

    Also, very few people are going to be badgered out of honoring their own limits. The time to take into account the limits of principled voters on your own side is during the primaries.

    For example, if a big block of Republican voters say they won’t vote for Trump in the general, believe them.

  38. dryst; Bauxite:

    Don’t confuse having a RIGHT to do something with whether that “something ” is a good idea or a terrible terrible one. Voting third party this year is a terrible terrible one. It is in my opinion an act of dangerous self-indulgent virtue-signaling that helps the Democrats win. It doesn’t “send a message” to anyone; all it does is act as a spoiler. Those who think otherwise live in a dreamworld. But elections and their consequences occur in the real world.

  39. Bauxite:

    If a big block of GOP voters say they won’t vote for Trump, I believe them. If a big block of GOP voters say they won’t vote for anyone else, I believe them as well.

    I think both blocks are equally destructive. And both blocks exist. I happen to think the second block is larger.

  40. @Don @neo
    Naive? Hardly. Disgusted and still participating? Yes. Not willing to compromise her integrity (regardless of others)? Yes. Still voting for other candidates (down ballot)? Yes.

    You can disagree with her choices, but ~50% of PA citizen that vote won’t go to the winner; less if you count registered or eligible voters and a distinct minority if you count residents. They aren’t all naive. Some are quite logical votes, even if not for the winner (without even knowing who wins).

    The question for voting is looked at one of two ways: Who do you want to represent you? or Who don’t you want to represent you? Usually, they lead to the same choice, no worries. Sometimes they don’t. They what?

  41. “The question for voting is looked at one of two ways…”

    Let’s try a third:
    Do I want to try to prevent the destruction of my country…or are my principles far more important…?

    (And to paraphrase Groucho, “If my country gets destroyed, I’ve got others….”)

  42. That is not a third way. The two ways I described are how to answer the question ‘How to vote for a representative for me concerning X’.

    You aren’t voting on not destroying the country, you are voting on you representative. I do wish we all remembered that. Letting the pols change the terms of the election to other, proxy, questions is a helluva trick that lets the uniparty maintain control. Like, really, is Mitch / Mitt / Lisa M / the Maine Twins really going to ‘allow’ significant conservative progress? They are trying to stop conservative like Lee and others.

    We could get to 74 GOP senators, and it wouldn’t be enough. There’d be Jeffords, Spector, McCain, Romney (or on the D side Manchin, Sinema) grudgingly standing on some of THEIR principles thwarting the will of a huge number of people.

  43. Kris:

    You seem to be somewhat math-challenged if you think that a couple of RINOs would be able to stop a 74-person majority in the Senate. Yes, there will always be people like Romney, etc.. But in recent years, not so many. The GOP is becoming more conservative in the same way that the Democrats are becoming (or have already become, actually) more leftist.

    And no, you most definitely do NOT vote just for your representative. You also vote for which party will control the legislature. Control of the legislature determines the agenda. Period.

    And “naive” is the kindest word I can think of for the attitude you express.

  44. everything that comes out of Oz’s mouth is a lie

    At least neo has one Democrat reader. Fetterman on fracking is the soul of honesty, eh ?

  45. Mike K:

    I think “dryst” was attempting to paraphrase Fetterman’s main message last night.

  46. A third party vote is a vote for the liberal. You don’t oppose madness by sidestepping it.

  47. @Neo
    Math challenged? No. An exaggeration for effect? Partly.

    Would 53 be enough, right now? No, because Biden. So, until 2024, we’d need 67. But would the aforementioned cabal of ‘Go along to get along / country club republicans’ actually vote, on party lines, to do something ‘unpopular’ to the DC media? So, sure, 73 votes could override a veto, assuming that, in fact, they could maintain party discipline. Which, if there wasn’t 2/3 in the house, I would say they might. But they might not (need to keep in mind next election ads after all…)

    Yeah, a bit cynical here, but am I really wrong?

    We are always ‘just a few conservatives from change’ Then the GOPe kneecaps Trump with ‘appoint these people you can trust them’ and half-assed support (at best) for real mandates. Or McCain stopping the Obamacare repeal. No wall. No push back on deep state entrapment. Yada.

  48. Kris:

    It wasn’t a slight exaggeration, it was an enormous one that made no sense, historically or otherwise. The point is that, since FDR’s time, the GOP majorities in the Senate have always been small, whereas the Democrat majorities have often been very large (see this). Therefore a few defections by GOP members have always mattered. It is important to realize that if there was a large GOP majority, such defections would be highly unlikely to matter.

  49. @Neo

    I can accept that your point. I don’t agree, as I think even with large majorities, we are stuck with 2 big state, corporate friendly parties: 1 center, 1 center-left party. And both are trending left. Some exceptions (as always) from individual states. But the (R) talk a great game, and vote like conservatives until they are the majority. The (D) talk a great game, then vote like socialists when they are the majority. In both cases, I mean ‘great game’ as duplictuous.

    But, at this point, I could redo the initial comment, I’d put in 57 instead of 74.

    I am just, overall, disgusted with the choices in PA, and across the nation, and both the (D) and (R) parties (oddly, for the same reason: really, really unpleasant, unpalatable options). I am resigned to the fact that we are in a 2 party system, that, numerically, that tends to be the most stable. And that the issues slide back and forth a bit as the parties have internal friction. And that, for the time being, both parties have some really unpleasant TO ME policies, so I feel, overall, under represented or unwelcome in both. So, I say bombastic, overwrought crap.

  50. For the next two years a Republican majority is critical to slowing the Democrat Left’s agenda.
    We don’t need 57, we don’t need 67– we need 51 in the senate. Republican spines will be slightly stiffened when opposing such a ruinous Democrat Left agenda.

    That will prevent the Democrats from advancing their transformation via the legislature. We can’t prevent Biden from ruling by executive edict– that will require a stiffened Judicial branch spine. After the Dobbs decision, I wonder how much backbone the SC will display. Nothing like credible threats of bodily harm to create a somewhat hesitant court.

  51. Kris and the others,

    I have no doubt that a lot of people have the right to be stupid and do great harm to their country with pointless wastes of their votes. Some may even claim that they earned that right. I would prefer to accord that honor to those who died to give it to us.

    Why don’t you do all of us a favor and try to articulate a reason that makes sense? I don’t expect one that will change my mind. Just one that I can accord some intellectual respect.

    The never Trump Republicans have never articulated any rationale that made any sense. None. Every time they have tried they only succeeded in convincing their readers that they are stupid and, in some cases, perhaps bordering on insane.

    What part of Zero Sum Game do you not understand? There will either be a Democrat or a Republican. That’s it. One or the other. Which is it going to be? Which of those two options do you prefer? And anyone who looks around the country and tries to tell me it won’t make any difference which of the two wins has completely lost my respect. That dog won’t hunt.

    It makes a difference. You can either participate or not. Voting third party is a joke. A joke on whoever does it. It doesn’t send a message except that you didn’t take the election seriously. It sends the message that you don’t care. If you want to contend that not participating is somehow “moral”, I can only laugh. Or cry over the moral hubris.

    Moral hubris ain’t good. Fight the temptation. Have the courage to roll up your sleeves, wade into the nasty sewer along with the rest of us and fight. Know that lots and lots of the people fighting along with us are flawed, sinful, nasty, often wrong and usually misguided. Just don’t pretend that refusing to fight with us is somehow beneath you morally. You aren’t that good. You aren’t that special.

    Don’t fumble your humble.

  52. Consider this:

    > Are any of you going to be effectively represented … or disenfranchised … if Fetterman is the win that keeps Schumer in charge of the Senate?

    > Is it of more value to this nation to consistently elect leaders who possess the resolve and reliability to institute policies that respect and protect individual liberty – even if some of those leaders don’t check all the boxes of sainthood, and/or have to be uncivil and obnoxious to institute sound policies in the face of the professional/political complex – or is it of more value to elect Nice People™ we won’t have to explain to our neighbors, but will not advance our rights over top of the complex.

    Electing such leaders to Congress, and the White House, is a test of our priorities – and our ability to actually be nice to our neighbors, instead of acting civil when their rights are trampled right along with ours.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

↑