Reader Poll: Who “Won” Tuesday’s GOP Senate Debate?

Your thoughts after Tuesday’s GOP Senate debate? Who “won’? What do you think about Mehmet Oz’s and Dave McCormick’s absence?

Reader Poll: Who "Won" Tuesday's GOP Senate Debate?


  • Jeff Bartos (37%)
  • Kathy Barnette (19%)
  • Carla Sands (15%)
  • Undecided / Not Sure (13%)
  • George Bochetto (8%)
  • Sean Gale (8%)

Total Voters: 62

Loading ... Loading ...

14 Responses

    1. My goal was to convey the key take-aways regarding POLICY without relying upon what the typical viewer might have absorbed vis-à-vis how info was conveyed; it was necessary to expose Carla’s venom [which was personally noted during prior chats, but not to this degree of perseveration] and to emphasize what Bartos was SAYING rather than just recognizing his positive interpersonal skills [which were personally noted during prior chats during the past half-decade].

      This empowered the reader to assess concomitantly my credibility and what I’d discerned; as opposed to my assessment of debate #1, I took notes rather than depending upon memory, yielding lengthier summaries.

      Clips of these debates have appeared on CNN/MSNBC, illustrating their “legs” beyond whatever real-time viewers might have absorbed; the emphasis of national coverage was noting realty to The Donald, whereas it was desirable to flesh-out additional less-recognized-but-vital quotes that differentiate stances among the candidates.

  1. I am voting for Dr. Oz. Why, you may ask? It is because our true leader of freedom, Donald Trump, is endorsing the great Oz!!

    1. …and he’s been lambasted for having done so, noting the undeniable defects in his past.

  2. It’s only fair that a third-level critique emphasize both the overlap of positions and the positive ways some were conveyed; for example, Carla citing Dinesh’s flick [which I’m going to see on Monday] showed she’s “with it” regarding election fraud, and her Zuck/buck highlight reflected awareness of lotsa new state-level legislation.

    Carla also cited the non-machine methodology of French as Sean became tiresome when almost every response was “negative” [against people present and absent]; Bochetto was “politic” when sidestepping the McConnell gambit, properly resisting commitment without complete knowledge.

    Annoyed that the devious query asserting [c/o the Inqy] that Sen. Tim Scott wants universal taxation was not found on the Internet [prompting Sean to support it!?!]; to the contrary, the only “universal” tax proposal [h ttps://w ww.ecf a.o rg/Content/Legislation-Introduced-to-Increase-the-Universal-Charitable-Deduction] was intended to “introduce the Universal Giving Pandemic Response Act (S. 4032).”

    It’s necessary to pounce on Bochetto’s priority, the Decision by Hannah Leavitt on Act 77 by noting he “mistakenly said it shouldn’t be retroactive to 2020, ignoring ‘ab initio’ from page 46 of opinion”; I analyzed the Commonwealth Court Order [htt ps://coalitionforelectionintegrity.or g/articles/] and invite critique.

    The camaraderie exuded by Bartos when supporting a few of Kathy’s comments and the side-comments between Bartos and Bochetta while Carla was closing, these were desirable; regarding Carla’s closing, her grammar was problematic when asking “WhoM do you trust?”

    During the post-event chat, it was notable that Dom repeatedly said Kathy was “rising”; I’d predicted this under the aegis of “let you and him fight” referring to the dueling Oz/McCormick ads.

    The only “negative” comment from Kathy was delivered as an overall warning rather than as a direct shot; she advised arming Formosa prophylactically rather than procrastinating as McCormick might advise.

    She could have cited the absence of peer-reviewed articles supporting Oz’s “Miracle Cures” [ht tps://delaw arevalleyjournal.c om/delval-doctors-diagnose-dr-oz-u-s-senate-bid/]

    She also could have cited Carla having been formally reprimanded for using her official position to engage in political activity [ht tps://osc.g ov/Documents/Hatch%20Act/Reports/Report%20of%20Prohibited%20Political%20Activity%2C%20Carla%20Sands%2C%20HA-20-000091.pd f].

    *

    A suggestion for future debates would be to note what the two commentators observed, to wit, that the rationale for “yes/no” replies be invited; furthermore, the “asked and answered” bor-ring aloofness of Carla should be undermined by persisting in posing a question she consistently evaded by filibuster.

    Took notes and have more analytic observations, but these were the major take-aways that focus on quotes rather than just perceptions; if I missed anything crucial, critique invited.

  3. [NOT CARLA]

    Those who watched are invited to critique; it will be replayed on PCN @ 4 a.m.

    *

    Regarding the inflation issue, Kathy’s answer/reply by invoking the spilled-water simile was clever and on-point; she noted the Fed’s excess printing, but she pivoted to a remedy. This was rare, as the two commentators noted thereafter; she functioned as a Senator, as a legislator, rather than solely as a Brandon critic [a desirable trait, as per post-event commentators].

    As far as I’m concerned [and I believe Dom shares this view], Bartos self-immolated when he failed to recognize the import of voter fraud; my comments yesterday are adopted by-reference, and his constant refrain that he loves PA became a bit off-putting. Otherwise, he was lucid and showed no evidence of having undergone a subtotal thyroidectomy last week; he smiles appropriately [unlike Carla, who does so while spitting bullets] and conveys content in digestible packets.

    It was a bit surprising that Bochetto used the word “harvesting” when it’s better to use “trafficking” when referring to the drop-boxes [as an experienced election lawyer]; he also used “less” [qualitative] rather than “fewer” [quantitative] when providing stats [minor syntax point].

    That I concur with both his generic judicial activism [a view Dom shares] and his specific support for The Donald [although why he twice disclaimed “fraud” was unstated] won’t translate into allegiance [even when noting his Columbus Statue tenacity] because it seemed he is “wrong” for the job of “Senator,” despite the stated respect he holds for the position.

    Carla’s best moment was when she defended herself against the Inqy-attack on her having monitored her absentee-vote; she also was wise to cite the CCP, albeit it was a conduit to lambasting McCormick.

    She was scolded by the moderator for her “asked and answered” smugness, clearly off-putting to the typical voter; this wasn’t a depo and she indeed avoided specifics on numerous occasions [while pivoting aggressively, without a segue, to whatever was on her mind].

    It was a bit annoying when Ukraine/NATO was raised, that the issue of sending troops allowed everyone to avoid addressing the specific commitment of the USA to Ukraine based upon the 1994 Budapest Pact [that led to Ukraine relinquishing its nukes in exchange for border protection from Russia]; this was a major defect in queries that otherwise were fair/balanced throughout [except when Bochetto kept demanding lotsa time to discuss election integrity].

  4. Carla Sands is the only candidate that can be trusted with a proven record that she has put America First and many are threatened and intimidated by her strength, truth and her honesty. A political commentator with a personal story is not what we need to represent us and able to fight for us against the establishment and DC swamp. Carla has a proven track record of doing so and thinking identity politics will win the fall is a huge mistake—it doesn’t work—PA voters are smarter than that. Don’t vote with your heart-vote with your head. This country and its constitution is on its last lifeline—and we need someone STRONG and ready to go on day one. That person is Carla Sands for Senator.

    1. [NOT CARLA]

      That the two monied absentees were lambasted suffices to suggest why they were not supported by the PCN callers during the subsequent hour; the key-question is whether either debate had sufficient viewership to impact their status, noting that Trump’s endorsement appeared to Dom Giordano as having rescued Oz’s campaign [although the Oz/Carson Doctor-Tandem did well in Bucks County a few days ago, as far as their talking-points would carry them].

      Kathy showed great restraint when constantly attacked by Carla [who slipped in every talking-point she could memorize] and intermittently attacked by Sean; Carla was the big loser, not only because she demonstrated the folly of negativity [even after a query was posed to her along this theme], but also after the debate [when she walked forward to her supporters while the others shook hands with each other].

      It’s unwise to argue with the moderator about the rules, a standard Bochetto repeatedly violated; he obviously was compelled to tell his story regardless of the chosen-question [mirroring Carla’s behavior] instead of conveying the ability to be an “active listener.”

      Kathy quietly answered the pro-life question in a fashion that was both unique and authentic; she shared the “from conception” definition and then clarified what her exception would be. Sean said “none” [thus, sacrificing the mother, in-extremis] and the others opted for the customary rape/incest disclaimer. Kathy differentiated her personal/professional viewpoint by stating that she would only have an exception for the physical life of the mother AND THEN EXEMPTED HERSELF. Thus, because she is so ardent, she would [Biblically] sacrifice herself if necessary to deliver a living child.

      No one caught this because she hurriedly stated she wouldn’t honor an exception for the psychological well-being of the mother, but this was a peak moment; this isn’t my personal viewpoint, as Kathy knows, but it shines a neon-light upon her internal ethics that was unmatched throughout the rest of the 90 minute event.

      1. The only reason Bartos did better than the rest, is not because he is “more likeable” as a candidate, but because he kept his mouth shut, and didn’t jump into the fray of yammering angry adults, like the rest of them did.

        They were all uncomfortable up on stage, all of them. And it showed.. the fake smiles when they really wanted to punch their opponent for slamming them, etc… angry women, angry men.. etc.. I am tired of “that” kind of politics..

        WE ARE ALL PISSED OFF THESE DAYS, but it just makes it that much harder to choose a candidate, when they start going off the rails on a one hour debate show.

        And the stupid bell “dinging” produces a pavlov dog response.. Really Stupid.

  5. That the two monied absentees were lambasted suffices to suggest why they were not supported by the PCN callers during the subsequent hour; the key-question is whether either debate had sufficient viewership to impact their status, noting that Trump’s endorsement appeared to Dom Giordano as having rescued Oz’s campaign [although the Oz/Carson Doctor-Tandem did well in Bucks County a few days ago, as far as their talking-points would carry them].

    Kathy showed great restraint when constantly attacked by Carla [who slipped in every talking-point she could memorize] and intermittently attacked by Sean; Carla was the big loser, not only because she demonstrated the folly of negativity [even after a query was posed to her along this theme], but also after the debate [when she walked forward to her supporters while the others shook hands with each other].

    It’s unwise to argue with the moderator about the rules, a standard Bochetto repeatedly violated; he obviously was compelled to tell his story regardless of the chosen-question [mirroring Carla’s behavior] instead of conveying the ability to be an “active listener.”

    Kathy quietly answered the pro-life question in a fashion that was both unique and authentic; she shared the “from conception” definition and then clarified what her exception would be. Sean said “none” [thus, sacrificing the mother, in-extremis] and the others opted for the customary rape/incest disclaimer. Kathy differentiated her personal/professional viewpoint by stating that she would only have an exception for the physical life of the mother AND THEN EXEMPTED HERSELF. Thus, because she is so ardent, she would [Biblically] sacrifice herself if necessary to deliver a living child.

    No one caught this because she hurriedly stated she wouldn’t honor an exception for the psychological well-being of the mother, but this was a peak moment; this isn’t my personal viewpoint, as Kathy knows, but it shines a neon-light upon her internal ethics that was unmatched throughout the rest of the 90 minute event.

Comments are closed.

Email:
  • Do You Agree With the Supreme Court Decision to Overturn Roe v. Wade?


    • No. (50%)
    • Yes. (47%)
    • Not Sure (3%)

    Total Voters: 109

    Loading ... Loading ...
Continue to Browser

PoliticsPA

To install tap and choose
Add to Home Screen