Post-debate analysis:
And in the Buckeye State:
We recently attended a Fetterman rally. He spoke for 15 or 20 minutes clearly and with little difficulty. The format of the “debate” would have worked against almost anyone. I don’t think he should have debated Oz at all. There was nothing to gain by it. Debating a seasoned performer like Oz (who’s as slick a snake oil salesman as they come) would be like me shooting hoops against Kareem Abdul Jabbar.
Like you, the independents concern me. People who’ve paid no attention to the candidates’ factual positions and would be swayed by attack ads and events like this.
By the way, Oz made a notable gaff. Regarding abortion, he said (over and over again) that the choice should be made between a woman, her physician, AND LOCAL POLITICIANS! I wouldn’t trust the opinions of my local politicians (one who was neck-deep in the insurrection) on how to change a frickin’ lightbulb.
The headline in the NYT says it all: John Fetterman’s Debate Showing Raises Democratic Anxieties in Senate Battle.
The debate performance on Tuesday night by Lt. Gov. John Fetterman, the Democratic nominee for Senate in Pennsylvania, left party officials newly anxious, injecting a fresh dose of unpredictability into one of the country’s most important contests less than two weeks before Election Day. Five months after surviving a serious stroke, Mr. Fetterman cut a sharp contrast with Mehmet Oz, a quick-spoken former talk show host, as he haltingly provided answers to questions using closed captioning to accommodate the auditory processing impairments he has been confronting. At times, Mr. Fetterman seemed to pause to seek the right words or offered a jumble of sentences to express his positions. In some cases, he contradicted himself or appeared to state the opposite of his actual view.
I can’t get the link to the article to work on my phone but I’m worried he blew it in a big way.
Wouldn’t refusing to debate have gone against the image he’s been building up during the campaign? Others, usually Republicans, have been mocked for doing so, so I’m not sure refusal was a reasonable option.
Somewhat opposing viewpoint on the debate itself (“somewhat” because there isn’t complete overlap between this and the NYT article): Fetterman deserves our respect, not ridicule, after the U.S. Senate debate | Editorial
Using this interactive 538 tool, if Fetterman and Warnock can both hang on, the chances of Dems holding the Senate go to 92%. And through some algorithm, that would bring Dems up to a 40% chance of getting the House.
Explore The Ways Republicans Or Democrats Could Win The Midterms | FiveThirtyEight
White nationalist Nicholas Fuentes has endorsed Fetterman. The only explanation I have is because of Oz’s ethnicity.
For me, the race in Pennsylvania was about democracy and policy. Given the extent of the differences there, I was not going to vote on the basis of abstract competence.
So I voted for Fetterman, by mail, without waiting to see a debate.
If Fetterman’s stroke recovery plateaus where it is now, he will likely resign. Then Josh Shapiro, who has a comfortable lead in the gubernatorial race, will appoint a center-left Democrat somewhat like himself.
By contrast, if Walker wins, and then plateaus in terms of his ability to effectively legislate on the issues he cares about, Georgia Republicans are stuck with him for the next six years.
Well, sure. That would be a one seat pick up for the Democrats. In that scenario they can still afford to lose one (i.e. Nevada) and hold the Senate.
We’re not talking about a stutter or a stammer here. The reason that Fetterman has difficulty is because (1) he certainly has trouble understanding what’s being said to him, and (2) he very well may be having trouble processing information from his brain to his mouth.
And since a senator’s job consists entirely of receiving and transmitting information of one variety or another, it is clear that Fetterman is medically unfit to do the job.
Fetterman will continue to improve, and does not have cognitive troubles. There have been many other senators who were in worse shape than he holding office.
One could alternately say that the core job activities are drafting legislation, and voting on it.
Not being lawyers, neither man can do the first.
I based my vote on how I think they will vote on the Senate floor, and in committee.
There also are non-core activities, like convincing other senators how to vote. Should I vote for someone who is good at getting others to vote in a way I don’t want? No.
Deep competence is nice, just as having deep roots in Pennsylvania is nice. But I’d only base my vote on those as a tie-breaker.
I didn’t see that in the clip anymore than other politicians. And having aphasia is not a disqualifier for office. If he had to debate, he could type up his points and have a colleague read it. It’s like saying Patterson was not qualified to be governor of New York because he could read the bills he had to sign.
Are you a doctor with experience treating stroke patients who has examined John Fetterman?
I’m only asking because a doctor with experience treating stroke patients has examined John Fetterman and he disagrees with you.
Overall, Lt. Governor Fetterman is well and shows strong commitment to maintaining good fitness and health practices. He has no work restrictions and can work full duty in public office.
FEC records show that Dr. Chen also donated to Fetterman’s campaign four times. He might be just a tad bit biased.
He might not be.
Come back with something real next time.
I prefer to err on the side of caution. Has Lt. Gov. Fetterman been medically evaluated by a doctor who is not also a donor?
So your theory is that Dr. Chen knows that Fetterman is too cognitively impaired to serve in the Senate, but he is still donating to Fetterman’s campaign.
And you think that adopting that theory is erring on the side of caution.
Hilarious.
I never said any such thing. Has Fetterman been evaluated by a doctor independent of his campaign?
It would have made far, far more sense to ask that question of THIS poster.
Yes. Dr. Chen is independent of his campaign.
Do you think making a donation to a campaign automatically makes the donor part of that campaign? That’s wild, man.
Go ahead and ask that poster. Why are you holding back on making a post that makes so much sense?
That said, your deflection is noted. If you don’t want to support your own post you can just not support it. You don’t have to initiate this childish, “He did it too,” game.