SD 10 Special Election Debate Recap
SD 10 Special Election debate was last night. Here are my takeaways.
- I was quite impressed by the Libertarian candidate Joseph Lanzendorfer
- Marino got a bum mic, but he is a right-wing Republican through and through
- Stephanie Hansen did well and needs to win this election
- The Crossfire rounds did not work
Local media reports are here: Delaware State News, The News Journal, and WDEL. Below is a FB video of the debate in case you missed.
Marino surprised me by appearing to be opposed to the death penalty, consistent with his claimed “sanctity of life” position. Although as I recall his wording left some wiggle room about how he would vote on a death penalty bill.
Both candidates were flummoxed when Loudell asked them to describe one issue on which they disagreed with their party.
My impressions;
I thought the Libertarian did well also. He sounded like he had some carefully considered points of view. Hard to say who he takes more votes from; if he gets 100 votes I’d guess 70 of them come from Marino and could make a difference.
Hansen was at her best when she was giving prepared answers to obvious questions. I didn’t like her “Fiscally conservative, socially liberal” answer to how to approach the $350 million deficit. I would probably describe myself that way too but its so vague its not really an answer at all. I thought her response to the one-party rule question was unexpected but pretty good – she tried to turn it around by saying R’s are in control nationally and we need a D state gov’t to counter balance. When she had to think on her feet or respond to an attack, I didn’t think she came across well. She was much better with pre-planned responses and on the offensive. When she pointed out that Marino campaigned against the Appo Referendum (which he did not deny) she scored some points – I thought she could have pressed that harder. When she said its not 44 years of Democratic rule its really only 12, that’s not a response that’s going to resonate.
Marino’s “party doesn’t matter” response seemed at odds with his “one-party rule” reason for being elected – that seemed to be an inconsistency that could have been exploited. I noticed that none of his campaign literature has the word Republican on it. His answer to the coastal zone question made it pretty clear he’ll be on the corporate / development side. That’s a wedge issue that Hansen needs to go after.
This is going to be a close one. Saturday practically guarantees a low turnout.
A note to anyone who goes to debates; it’s not a damn pep rally, stop trying to out cheer the other side or shout over the candidate when they are talking. People are there to hear the candidate, not you. If you think you are winning undecided voters over to your side you’re not – just the opposite.
Great recap, Rufus.
Yeah, the ‘fiscally conservative’ answer tells us that, as usual, we’re being forced to settle on the ‘least bad’.
Can’t she, as a Democrat, point out that the wealthy have been the undeserving beneficiaries of government policy, and it’s time that they, not 99% of her constituents, bear more of the burden? And that cutting services would hurt her constituents?
Of course not.
Rufus – it was definitely an applause arms race. Loudell should have laid out rules and called people out when they were violated. I don’t think either side would have been able to stop without some assurance that the other side would stop cheering.
The best expression of Democratic values came from the Libertarian:
“A measly zero-point-two percent on public assistance–I’m a fiscal conservative, and even I think we can spend a little more money to help people out,” said Lanzendorfer.
Hansen and Marino both ruled out tax increases. Both suggested dealing with the deficit with spending reductions. Loudell missed the obvious opportunity to pin them down on exactly what they proposed to cut.
Marino volunteered that tired old red herring about cutting administration and putting the money into the classroom… which is a good thing but if you know anything about education, you know there is not that much money there. Unless you go for major district consolidation, which wasn’t mentioned.
“Can’t she, as a Democrat, point out that the wealthy have been the undeserving beneficiaries of government policy, and it’s time that they, not 99% of her constituents, bear more of the burden?”
In other words, you want her to raise her own tax rate. Not gonna happen.
Even at the general election debate for the 14th RD (Schwartzkopf vs. DeMartino), the speaker was floating tax increases.
Pretty sure Delaware isn’t going to be able to cut their way out of a $350m budget gap.
Hansen professed she was fiscally conservative, then tried to backpedal on that later on in the debate ….if there is a tax increase this year, she will certainly be voting for it. She’s trying to skate through the special without being tarred as a big spender. Carney will need every single vote he can get from the Dem caucus at budget vote time in June .
None of these fiscal conservatives could tell us what they wanted to cut.
@chris: The budget is hammered out in the JFC before it’s ever released for a vote. The final vote is never close.
@Alby. That’s because they’ve been kicking the can for years. With tax increases and fee hikes, the vote will be 13-8 this year.
Marino didn’t get a bum mike.
Before every debate, I tell the candidates to sit close to the mike and speak up. In the dozens of debates I’ve produced since 1999 (including the one where Lt. Gov. Minner fell off her chair in the middle of the debate), I swear Marino is the first candidate to sit close to the mike AND speak up. It’s usually one or the other. I was running his mike super low (that’s me in the tie sitting next to Allan), and it was still too much. I was going to pass him a note or speak to him, but didn’t want to be seen as coaching a candidate. So maybe that’s my fault.
And I was OK with the applause. It was the most lively debate we’ve had in a long time.
The problem I had with the crowd noise was this; The order of the candidates’ responses always had Hansen following Marino and Marino’s supporters were free to extend their “applause” into the beginning of Hansen’s response. It got to be where it wasn’t applause at all but (seemed to me) just noise designed to drown out the first 5-10 seconds of Hansen’s response.
Marino was generally louder anyway – and he was able to talk overtop of any noise in a way Hansen wasn’t. I was OK with his loudness but I wish Hansen had been able to do the same thing.
Again, I’m there to listen to the candidates, not the supporters.
I’m not blaming WDEL – I love that they set these things up and I think DE is a better place because of Allen Loudell.
Any votes against the budget are strictly for show.
Hansen should consider saying in such suburban settings that she was proud to be a Democrat because of our historically provable record of consistently working successfully to reduce government deficits compared to Republicans who put huge bills on the national credit card, again historically provable. This has hurt us locally where again we are been fiscally responsible (conservative is a dumb characterization of being financially careful).
She could show independence by saying as a Democrat she opposes much of the international interventionism our Party has supported in favor of not spending our national treasure in lives and funds when little evidence exists that our country is at risk in many of those cases.