From a comment by John Lopez about “Correcting’s” grading of the Batavia 14th congressional district debate:

Correcting, great minds think alike. Time stamp on your detailed comment exactly same as my tweet with my grades, and there is consistency. You can see the tweet here:

My candidate grades of #IL14 1/30 debate:

A-: @SueRezin
A–:@JimOberweis, frontrunner & 1 missed debate doesn't change that
B++: @TedGradel14
B+: @marter4congress
B: @CatalinaLauf
B-: @JerryEvans2020
C+: Anthony Catella

Please watch debate vid & comment https://t.co/q1WRqiTxXb

— John Lopez (@JohnLopezIL) January 31, 2020

For this debate, I put on my “hiring manager” cap, and used the STAR (Situation, Tasks, Actions, Results) to grade candidates, in addition to a few other factors for a debate.

Now, some detail:

Winner, with grade of “A-” is Sue Rezin. Using STAR, she could speak from a “I’ve done this”, or “from what I’ve done” perspective. Very few if any “false STARs”. She defended her position on the ERA with conviction, and even if one does not agree with her, her position can be respected, and was consistent to her mailer from last week. She responded to several questions by tailoring it to her audience, given the event was a joint LWV & chamber of commerce sponsored event. Rezin got the only effective jabs at absent frontrunner Jim Oberweis in her closing statements and it was substantive, as well as her proven ability to win tough electionss. She would have gotten an “A”, but her non-words “UMs” were most present with her.

Jim Oberweis, I give him an “A–“. I first thought, like you, I should give him a “D” or “F” for not showing up, but he is the frontrunner, and whether what his campaign said was true that he had a long-scheduled conflict, or if that was an official cover story, one missed debate does not change the fact Oberweis is the frontrunner. As said above, the state senate recessed for the weekend after Wednesday’s State of the State address by the governor, so he wasn’t conflicted with official Springfield state senate commitments.

Ted Gradel, “B++”. He was the most improved debater last night from his very rough first debate. No healthcare gaffe last night, and his answers were heartfelt & original. Most thorough answer on health care and the ERA, though he had the benefit of going last on the ERA question. Here is where the false STARs begin to hit, though, and several of his answers start using the “would” tipoff for “false STARs”.

James Marter, “B+”. Graded him lower than Gradel, because his responses usually sound unoriginal, as they are President Trump, etc. Marter assumes the audience knows what the House Freedom Caucus is. Not good assumption for average voters. Covered the bases better on immigration than any of the other candidates. Very classy of Marter, given the article published here on the blog, he publicly thanked Jerry Evans for attending the March for Life when the Pro-Life question was answered. I did not see any of the mean/glaring he did at the MCC debate, so he was improved stage/camera presence.

Catalina Lauf, “B”. I hear Correcting what is being said about unprepared, and this is where my false STARs really hit. She, along with most candidates, continue to miss opportunities on immigration and sticks to canned answers. She did not claim to be the only Millennial in the race, so improvement from last week there. The ERA question exposed something both her and fellow Millennial Jerry Evans that they need to be better prepared, especially since neither of them lived through the original ERA ratification timing. ERA is relevant, given Virginia being the 38th state to ratify it, and a terse, 1-word “NO” answer doesn’t cut it. She definitely worked on her non-words from first debate, and while she had a few, wasn’t near as disturbing as her first debate and or Rezin’s usage more in Batavia. She also worked her best to keep her hands in front of her, and out of her hair, but she is caught on camera doing a couple of quick hair fixes at her side. Like the non-words not nearly as distracting as last week’s MCC.

Jerry Evans, “B-“, as stated in the article, he had a let-down plus the many improved performances over 1st debate by most other candidates overshadowed a decent showing. Already addressed the ERA, showing major opportunity. On healthcare, for the man with the most detailed written plan, should have done much better, especially missing the prescription drug pricing component (all of the candidates overlooked cost of meds, but Evans only one to have it in writing). Applying his Faith to the pro-life question was good, but sounded too much like an afterthought, instead of quickly saying God forgiveness available for all if it is wanted.

Anthony Catella, “C+”, but as Correcting said, too philosophical. Provided the best comic-relief on the corporate PAC question with self-deprecating humor. He’s not going anywhere, but last night was a little better than MCC, though he didn’t take direct shot at Underwood like last week.

Will discuss specific questions in an update/separate article, given could not cover them above. Now, back to watching for FEC year-end filings, six for the 14th district, and all three for the 6th.