The Debate That Could Push Pennsylvania

John Fetterman’s health remains the main issue in his debate with Mehmet Oz Tuesday night.

By
56
Republican U.S. Senate candidate Dr. Mehmet Oz greets supporters following a community discussion in Philadelphia (Photo by Mark Makela/Getty Images)

It has long been clear that control of the U.S. Senate could come down to the race in Pennsylvania. With Republican Mehmet Oz surging—and lingering questions about Democrat John Fetterman’s health—Tuesday’s night’s debate is shaping up to be a key moment in that key race. 

Oz now trails Fetterman by 1-2 points in most polls. A month ago, the Republican lagged Fetterman by roughly 8 points, according to FiveThirtyEight’s polling average. With the race a toss-up, a poor debate performance so close to Election Day could affect the news cycle even if viewership is low and with early voting already underway. 

Fetterman, is expected to zero in on Oz’s celebrity television background and new reporting from Rolling Stone that claims former President Donald Trump plans to contest Republican midterm losses. Abortion is another lightning rod in the race: Oz identifies as “strongly pro-life” but supports exceptions for rape and incest, while Fetterman has said repeatedly that he opposes abortion restrictions of any kind at any point in the pregnancy.

Throughout the campaign, Fetterman has characterized Oz as a rich  carpetbagger from New Jersey who is out-of-touch with working-class voters. In recent months, though, rising crime has become a central talking point in the race. Oz, whose campaign has called Fetterman the “most pro-murderer candidate in America,” points to the Democratic’s previous tenure on the board of pardons as a warning to voters that the Democrat will be soft on crime. 

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
56
By
Comments (56)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    Montana78gal

    I am curious about something that I hope you address. Would you consider addressing the difference between the electorate’s view of clips of the debate versus watching a whole debate?

    I was not paying attention to that debate; however, after the Dispatch Live, I specifically looked for clips of the debate from the right wing Twitter. I was expecting a far worse performance based on the comments on Dispatch Live. I am assuming that watching the whole debate allowed the viewers to see the cumulative effect of the stroke. However, only watching the clips made it seem as though he just stumbled over a few words and is a poor public speaker. Since most people do not sit and watch a whole debate any longer, how do clips affect the perception of a candidate and their performance in a debate?

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Daviseaj

      I'm a non-partisan PA voter, and I watched the whole debate. Fetterman’s stumbling over his words was expected. The general incomprehensibility of his answers wasn’t.


      If I had to isolate one moment that typified his answers, it would be when Fetterman was asked about fracking. His anti-fracking politics are very well-known here in PA, and his switch to a pro-fracking position is very recent, so he and his campaign should have expected to be asked about it. Fetterman incomprehensibly waffled back and forth from "I do support" to "I don't support" to "I do support" to "I stand", which leaves Pennsylvanians wondering what his actual position is on fracking. Given America’s lack of a comprehensive energy policy, which is playing a large role in the energy and fiscal crises we’re experiencing today and is something a US Senator can address, his response was unsatisfactory.

      Unfortunately, Fetterman’s answers to what should have been obvious questions went the same way throughout the debate. He couldn’t point to what he has done as either lieutenant governor of PA or mayor of Braddock that prepared him for the Senate (and his references to his time as mayor of Braddock just aren't resonating here in the Philly suburbs - many of our high schools have more students than Braddock has residents). Crime isn’t something a Senator usually addresses – those are predominantly state and local matters - but his answer about why he disagreed with the state parole board so often or how he would address criminal justice reform weren’t much clearer than his responses on fracking and led me to believe he’s still supporting no-cash bail and releasing felons the rest of the parole board wouldn’t release.

      To be fair, neither candidate has any legislative experience, and I have no issue with Fetterman raising that point in regards to Oz, but he did it by bashing OZ as nothing more than a “TV Doctor” and not a “real” immigrant. Given Dr. Oz’s many professional accomplishments (medical: LVAD, Mitroclip; television: Emmy-award winning and ran for 13 seasons), and that Oz never claimed to be an immigrant (he’s always said he’s the son of immigrants), it made Fetterman look unaware of even the most basic facts about who he was campaigning against. But what was worse is that Fetterman’s replies were clearest were when he was making those personal attacks on Oz, and since Oz didn’t make any personal attacks, that looked really bad.

      The moderators did an outstanding job of keeping a lid on and keeping it moving, but they did have to rein in Fetterman from talking over Oz multiple times. They only had to stop Oz once, on a question that they then asked him later (and it was about fracking, and Oz is supporting an all-in approach).

      Collapse
  2. Donald Wissner

    I was looking forward to the Dispatch's take this morning on this debate and was disappointed it was missing. That said, in thinking of how an institution such as the Senate works, I have a very hard time seeing Mr. Fetterman function in that environment. It is also a shame that he is the candidate of a major political party who was chosen to replace one of the most effective Senators in recent years who was able to get something done.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Adicesa14

    I don’t watch debates. For me, they’re meaningless. The moderators are often biased, usually toward Democrats, but that’s not why because knowing of that unfairness, the ‘one-sidedness’ can be accounted for. I don’t watch because the debates aren’t really debates, they’re performative nonsense. The facilitators ask questions, good or bad, and the participants usually answer with ‘talking-points’ whether they’re related to the questions or not. Ergo, debates are a waste of my time. You will not be surprised that I did not watch the Fetterman-Oz ‘debate.’

    That said, this morning, I read numerous accounts of the debate (the Hill, New York Post, National Review, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, MSNBC, the Washington Free Beacon, Politico: Note that the Bulwark+ so far seems to have avoided the subject). Though some attempted Fetterman defenses, most of the descriptions focused on his physical condition. The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette mainly discussed issues but did not avoid Fetterman’s comportment. I’m left with a depressed feeling that these candidates are awful. In a year that ought to be a major rebuke of Democrats, it may not happen because Donald Trump will not shut-up and go away. The PA, Arizona, Georgia, and Ohio Senate races should be ‘lay-ups’ but they’re not. Trump’s interference caused the fielding of sub-par nominees. Any of these races that are lost, as well as others, can be blamed on Trump. Further, none of this would be occurring if primaries weren’t the mechanism for choosing contestants. To repeat myself, once again, we will be better off when the major parties rid themselves of primaries, Progressives and Trump.

    Aside: This is not a complaint. Last evening, I sat at my desk to listen to “The Dispatch Live.” When I entered the site, the icon was nowhere to be found. It’s likely I got an earlier email with the entry URL, but as always deleted it in lieu of the Dispatch home page icon. If that’s the case, I won’t do it again. Unfortunately, I missed the ‘broadcast, and can’t wait until the site reaches optimization and my routine is appropriately modified. I suppose it’s very conservative that I have difficulty with change.

    Collapse
  4. Andrw4488

    Reports indicate this key moment didn't go Fetterman's way. I'm sure there will be spin tomorrow

    The clips I've seen look awful. The guy is not OK since the stroke. His campaign must be staffed by national democratic operatives and not anyone loyal to him personally. He should not have gone out there.

    Collapse
    1. BenP

      Fetterman didn't sound good, but the substance of what he said was the same standard fare platitudinous fluff we get from the great majority of people running for office. Oz was no less inclined toward non-sequiturs, he just did it in the normal slick way. Fetterman's problem is that standard-fare fluff sounds a lot worse after a stroke.

      Mehmet Oz seemed to be trying as hard as possible to be unlikeable. He attacked Fetterman ferociously, as though he wasn't a man who just had a stroke. Seems like this was a perfect opportunity to come across like a decent, relatable human being. All he had to do was make his own case, let Fetterman make himself look like someone who isn't up for the job, and voice his criticisms of Fetterman with undertones of pity and soft condescension . Instead he went after him like a pit bull.

      I'll admit my own bias - I have a white hot contempt for Oz . He got famous peddling pseudoscience, and as a practicing surgeon he knows better. So maybe others won't have seen it how I saw it. But from my point of view, Oz came off as a nasty, unlikeable person. Fetterman struggled with his words but at least he seems decent.

      Collapse
    2. Avatar photo
      Seth

      The amazing thing is how dishonest the Fetterman campaign has been about his condition until forced to admit the truth the last few weeks. Fetterman was entirely absent for about three months after his stroke. I joked to a friend, "Just wait, he can't talk after the stroke and he's hiding it." I was being jocular but regret the joke given the seriousness of his stroke. He is genuinely unwell but all the more troubling is the unwillingness to admit it and the attacks on anyone who raises sincere questions about his fitness.

      Collapse
  5. Kroneborge

    " Fetterman “had a hard time understanding our conversations”—an observation Fetterman’s wife later called “ableist.”"

    Yeah, shame on people wanting senators to be able to understand a conversation. I mean what type of crazy high bar are we talking about here.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Stephanie

      If you were a little more familiar with the story, it would help.

      Dasha Burns made what I thought was an incredibly ignorant remark, in saying that Fetterman didn't do as well without the close captioning. As a supposed journalist, I'd expect her to understand that if someone has an auditory processing problem, they're going to exhibit it if thy don't have the adaptive technology to compensate for it.

      It certainly was ableist. It's equivalent to pointing out that a hiring impaired person did well with thei hearing aids in, but then acting surprised when they didn't hear everything said when their hearing aids were out. DUH!

      And yes, he can be fit for serving in government and still be disabled. We have Senators who are disabled. "Give him a break"--nothing wrong with accepting that the guy needs (at least for now) technology.

      Collapse
      1. Retired Prosecutor

        Your narrative is different than yesterday, when you claimed Fetterman was perfectly fine. Many owe that journalist an apology but have instead chosen to “double down” on the “don’t believe your lying eyes” defense.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Stephanie

          I still think he's perfectly fine. I have no problem with his occasional receptive/expressive difficulties. The important thing is that he appears to be intellectually/cognitively normal.

          Collapse
          1. Retired Prosecutor

            You’re free to believe that but the electorate who saw this (“Good night everyone”) may have a different take on it.

            Collapse
      2. Avatar photo
        Seth

        I have to be honest, this is a distortion of our language. He isn't disable, rather he hasn't recovered. That's a big difference. A deaf, blind, mute, wheelchair bound, etc. person can make a fine Senator if his or her condition is stable and the nature of his or her limits is clearly articulated to the public from the get-go.

        That is not the case with Fetterman. He is undergoing an active recovery, the outcome of which is yet to be determined. We use the term disabled to describe the steady state of a long term condition that is being managed. Someone who is born blind and knows how to navigate that condition is disabled. Someone who just went blind in a tragic accident isn't disable, they are an active patient who's end state and ability to navigate the world is unclear.

        FDR was left disabled by polio. Reagan wasn't "disabled" the moment he was shot. Rather, he was responding to an active health issue that had an unclear end state. The public had every right to demand full transparency during Reagan's recovery and be able to render judgment on his end state.

        Collapse
        1. Avatar photo
          Stephanie

          With all respect, that is no definition for "disabled."

          Disability can be temporary or permanent, it can be progressive or non progressive. The blind person in your example is definitely disabled.

          People who've had a stroke are not all equally disabled, but by 6 months, strokes have stabilized.

          I don't know what you base your definition on, but I've been a health professional for 40 years and have some experience here; treated lots of people disabled by strokes and many other conditions . . . last job did a lot of workers comp--all about disability; and also am disabled myself.

          Collapse
          1. Avatar photo
            Seth

            By having such an expansive definition of disability, you've proved my point. The Fetterman campaign is simultaneously arguing he'll make a full recovery but also that he's disabled and any questions concerning his condition is ableism.

            Which is it? Is he going to make a full recovery or his this a long term disability?

            When Miami Dolphin's QB Tua suffered back to back concussions he wasn't described as "having a neurological or intellectual disability". Rather, he had suffered multi concussions with an unclear outcome. People rightly questioned his ability to return to the field.

            Conversely, someone with Down Syndrome is commonly described as someone with an intellectual disability, meaning it is long term, permanent, with a predictable outcome. Society generally understands the limits associated with this condition and the reasonable accommodations we should all make. That's how we often understand disabilities. It isn't clear what accommodations, if any, Fetterman will require in a month let alone a year.

            Questioning Tua's ability to return to the gridiron isn't ableism. He isn't disabled, at least not yet. That's the conversation most voters are having about Fetterman 1.) is he disabled and 2.) if he is, does it impede his ability to serve as a Senator.

            You're essentially arguing 1.) he is disabled and 2.) because of this, any question regarding his fitness to serve is illegitimate.

            What I'm arguing is 1.) I'm not sure if he is disabled, meaning he may make a full recovery 2.) Given that, I'm not sure of his fitness to serve. He may make a full recovery and be fit to serve, be disabled and fit to serve, or be disable and unfit to serve. I should have as much information as possible to figure out which one it is.

            Having these prudential questions doesn't make one ableist.

            Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Mmaughan0

    Mastriano having negative coattails probably doesn't help - a lot of people may stay home.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Rickschwartz711

      As a former PA voter, I don't think a lot of people stay home. Unlike here in Virginia where I live now, there is pretty much nothing to vote for in off year elections in PA. Only the real apathetic voters won't show up for the midterms since there is so much on the ballot.

      Collapse
  7. Raincheck

    We need the option to vote “No” and forego Senate representation in cases like this and Georgia.

    Collapse
  8. L. McKee

    Neither.

    Collapse
  9. Avatar photo
    Robert Knudson

    I don't have much time for Fetterman or Oz, and I don't expect very much of voters (people), but its kind of sad that the typical voter looks at a candidate as either disabled or in good health, as if the two can't be compatible.

    Collapse
  10. Avatar photo
    Philbnichols

    Thanks for this article, Audrey. Good to hear concise reports on important races.

    Collapse
Load More