Reader Poll: Should There Be a Lieutenant Gubernatorial Debate?

Cawley-StackA candidates’ debate is perhaps the most important yet overrated, overhyped but most-watched, event of any campaign.

Last week, it was revealed that gubernatorial candidates Tom Corbett and Tom Wolf will debate three times in the fall. These will be the only occasions throughout the long horse-race that is a political campaign where both candidates will face off one-on-one.

This got us to thinking about whether in addition to the three gubernatorial debates there should also be a debate between the candidates for Lieutenant Governor, Jim Cawley and Mike Stack.

Much like the Vice President, the Lt. Governor is a second-in-command with little powers who could have to step in at any moment. This begs the question, if the position is so potentially powerful and is included on the gubernatorial ticket, shouldn’t we have the opportunity to see the candidates debate one another?

Vice-Presidential debates have become a tradition and oftentimes are far more enlightening (and entertaining) than their counterparts. Perhaps this would also be the case with a Cawley-Stack encounter.

So, we decided to ask you our readers, should the Lt. Gov candidates hold a debate?

Should There Be a Lieutenant Gubernatorial Debate?

  • Yes (65%)
  • No (35%)

Total Voters: 508

Loading ... Loading ...

6 Responses

  1. Although it wouldn’t really matter or make a big difference to the final count a debate on issues might be of interest to those of us who actually think issues are important.

    Charisma is nice but the competence of those being paid as Governor in waiting should be able to articulate their approach to the many problems in our state.

    I believe that both candidates should be vetted.

  2. To Robbie:

    I long got over being wrong about McCord. I own it then and own it now. But clearly you’re not capable of winning well as you’re still dancing in the endzone….

    And BTW, was I basing my opinion, Robbie, my OPINION on any historical facts? As you have so exhaustively noted…NO, I did not. Besides, past history is no indicator of future results anyway.

    The only thing we do diasgree on is that the LG does matter. And in at least 2 occassions in the past 30 yrs, it mattered greatly.

    So Robbie, why all the fury over an opinion?

    An opinion I will stand by until November.

  3. Fog – Lt. Gov. nominees mean nothing. You think the Lt. Gov. nominees could swing the election for Governor? What tells you that? Probably the same political instincts that made you think Wolf “really is no big challenge” as soon as McCord gets his huge air campaign and ground game going. Good prediction. McCord lost by 41% and finished 3rd out of 4 candidates in a huge blowout.

    The Lt. Gov. candidates are “a window to the future” and “the next wave”? I wonder how many recent gubernatorial nominees were Lt. Gov. nominees previously? Since 1982, just 3 of 18 major party candidates for Governor were nominees for Lt. Gov. previously. That is less than 17%, almost identical to Rob McCord’s pathetic 2014 Democratic primary vote total.

    No previous Lt. Gov. nominee has been elected Governor since Raymond Shafer almost 50 years ago. Hardly “a window to the future” and “the next wave.”

    Maybe you should leave the fog and come to grips with McCord getting crushed by Wolf in the primary.

    2014 = 0 of 2 (Corbett and Wolf were never LG nomnees previously)
    2010 = 0 of 2 (Corbett and Onorato were never LG nominees)
    2006 = 0 of 2 (Rendell and Swann were never LG nominees previously)
    2002 = 1 of 2 (Rendell was never an LG nominee previously, but Fisher was LG nominee in 1986 but he lost in 1986 and 2002)
    1998 = 0 of 2 (Ridge and Itkin were never LG nominees previously)
    1994 = 1 of 2 (Ridge was never an LG nominee previously, but Singel was LG nominee in 1986 and 1990 under Casey, but lost running for Gov.)
    1990 = 0 of 2 (that Bob Casey and Barbara Hafer were never LG nominees previously)
    1986 = 1 of 2 (that Bob Casey was never an LG nominee previously, and Bill Scranton was an LG nominee in 1978 and 1982 under Gov. Thornburgh, but he lost the Gov. election)
    1982 = 0 of 2 (Thornburgh and Ertel were never LG nominees previously)

  4. Yes, please. And put it on at 10 PM – I have been having trouble falling asleep, and this would be just the thing for it.

  5. These two candidates for LG would be infinitely more entertaining in a debate than the two Gubernatorials.

    Besides, it will be a window to the future. These aren’t done and both parties see these guys as the next wave.

    Actually one might speculate that the current Governors race could turn on how the LG’s effectively stump for their principals. Each are aggressive, articulate and charismatic.

  6. The real question is should there be a lt gov for the state? I say it is a waste of money!

Comments are closed.

  • Reader Poll: Have You Requested a Mail-In Ballot?

    • Yes. I enjoy mail-in voting. (50%)
    • No. I am going to the poll. (50%)

    Total Voters: 121

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser


To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen