Debate night: Tina Kotek versus Christine Drazan

Nobody screwed up.

Both candidates are smart and articulate.

Drazan is a Republican. Kotek is the Democratic governor. That is the takeaway from last night's Oregon gubernatorial debate.

Back to the slugfest of negative ads.

A debate like this one is an exercise in earnestness. It is a celebration of sober, intelligent, good-government citizenship: people making reasoned, rational choices about their future.

Southern Oregon University partnered in it; SOU is an institution in the business of informing a citizenry. It is a public-service feather in the cap of KOBI, a locally owned TV station, to have produced and aired it, and it did so acting like a public utility, not a commercial station with a hot ticket to surround with fast-food ads. They are proud of being a civic asset; I counted six KOBI NBC5 logos on the screen. Here is a YouTube link to the debate.

Both candidates spoke in complete sentences; indeed, complete paragraphs. They are both pros.

My takeaway: from a competency point of view, Oregonians are in good hands either way. We have two informed, reasonable, articulate people who aren't kooks. Whew.

Drazan had a point to make, and she worked it into answers to questions: Oregon isn't doing so well, and Governor Kotek is at fault. Drazan cited businesses leaving the state, Oregon's high taxes compared to other states, and poor educational performance. She cited Oregon's estate tax as a reason people leave and she said that she would end it. She said our regulations are more burdensome than other states'. Drazan said Oregon has one-party rule and Democrats don't share power with Republicans, so if there are problems (and there are), blame Democrats. 

Kotek made her own point in her one-minute answers: Oregon is doing OK, problems are being addressed, and the big problems facing Oregon come from policies initiated by President Trump, policies Drazan supports. Oregonians stressed by unaffordable health care and closing hospitals? Trump's Medicaid cuts did that. Oregon businesses hurting? Trump's tariffs did that. Kotek cited instances where Drazan stood with her party and with Trump, including on Trump's attack on our vote-by-mail system.

Drazan never said "Trump." She neither defended nor criticized him. Kotek said "Trump" repeatedly: She protects Oregon from him.

Drazan and Kotek appear to hold essentially the same position on data centers: a moratorium now, with future permits only for projects that prove they will pay their own way.

They clearly disagree on reproductive rights. Kotek holds the standard Democratic position that abortion is health care. Drazan is endorsed by anti-abortion groups and opposes abortion even in cases of rape and incest. But there is an odd wrinkle: Drazan acknowledged she would be powerless to change Oregon law, at least as long as Democrats hold a majority in the legislature. She would obey current law.

Drazan argued repeatedly that she would simply govern better than Kotek. She would cut waste. She would make state agencies more effective. She would maintain roads and bridges better, with the same amount of money. "I will deliver efficient, accountable, transparent government." There is no real rebuttal to that except the partisanship viewers bring with them. I expect Republicans to find it plausible and Democrats to dismiss it.

Kotek doesn't have a startling can-do success like Pennsylvania Governor Josh Shapiro's 12-day reopening of I-95 after a bridge collapse in Philadelphia. The quick rescue of Southern Oregon University doesn't have the same impact. Homelessness is reduced but not eliminated. But Kotek does have a card to play: a Trump card. Trump, and now Republicans, are not a symbol of prudent, sensible, effective government. Quite the opposite. Trump represents chaotic destruction.

I expected Drazan to criticize Trump over something, to give herself room to show she was different. She deviated from GOP orthodoxy in only one small way: recounting her girlhood dependence on food stamps and other public benefits. Her family needed them, she said, because her father had trouble finding work. She said those programs need to be well administered, and she did not criticize Trump's changes to SNAP, but her tone toward people who need public benefits was compassionate, not contemptuous.

I suspect nearly everyone who watched was already a partisan, so few votes were changed. Anyone looking for a campaign-killing gaffe was disappointed. 

The debate solidified the one big choice that will decide the election:

Are Salem Democrats the problem, or are President Trump and Republicans who go along with him the problem?

 

[Note: To get daily delivery of this blog by email go to Https://petersage.substack.com. Subscribe. The blog is free and always will be.]