Most candidates significantly improved from first debate performance but victory goes to…
Thursday night at the Batavia City Hall, the 14th district Republican candidates had a slightly over one hour candidates forum.
The forum was hosted by the League of Women Voters (LWV) of Central Kane County, and cosponsored by the Batavia Chamber of Commerce, the LWV of Naperville and the Aurora Area LWV.
State Senator Jim Oberweis was not present, per a news release yesterday posted on McHenry County Blog. James Fuller, reporter for the Daily Herald and contributor under a recently signed agreement with Shaw Media, tweeted the following when Oberweis’ absence was announced:
So like last week, this is an open thread to post comments on impressions of the forum, and whom you think, either from watching live or the video replay below, did the best.
First impressions, all of the candidates showed improvement, with the exception of Jerry Evans. Partially, because he had a breakout performance but more because the remaining candidates did much better the 2nd time out. But using sports comparison, Evans appeared to have a let down.
While the remaining five candidates showed significant improvement, please watch the video, and make your comments. And, feel free, based on what is seen on video, or if you attended, whom you think did the best.
Will withhold my comments until late Friday, after posting fundraising numbers that are due tomorrow.
Isn’t Oberwies back in session?
I can’t sit through another two hours of Lauf saying um a thousand times and “absolutely” to answer the questions.
You’d think with the swamp from Washington backing her she would be more practiced and polished.
When it comes to these forums, I’m really less interested in hearing candidates replies to curated questions, than I am in how they would ask and reply to questions posed to each other.
Rather see them in a their true light of chaos and grandstanding, than this standard debate nonsense format.
Casey, the senate was in recess after the governor’s state of the state address on Wednesday so it wasn’t a case of rushing back from Springfield.
DJ, I hear you.
LWV forums are usually like this. Maybe Feb 10 in Will County.
Next forum is Thursday back at MCC.
I’m going to grade them similar to like we did last time.
Catella: C Many of his answers are non-answers to the questions and go down some educational, philosophical path. He’s more intelligent than people think, he has a good sense of humor, and once again he had some decent answers or some decent parts of answers. There was also some really bad stuff and stuff he was unprepared on. Overall, you know why Catella isn’t a top tier candidate. Hard to say whether it was a better night for him than the first debate.
Evans: B- As with a lot of the answers from multiple candidates, we’ve heard much of this before. It bordered on repetitive and canned, but he still had alright answers for the most part and still came across as more of a relatable person than most the candidates. It’s hard to keep up with expectations when the bar is set high which Evans set for himself after the first debate. He had some awkward pauses and at times it seemed like he was reading off a script. People will now doubt whether he can take on Underwood; they’ll question whether the first debate was a fluke. It wasn’t bad, but it wasn’t great.
Gradel: B+ He did better than he did in the first debate. I got the impression that corruption is the issue he wants to tackle the most, and he made a good case for himself in terms of raising money, so now I have some idea of why he’s here. Many of the other answers weren’t that memorable but at least seemed more passionate this time. It helped him that there were other candidates who had a bad night. His specific solutions to healthcare was something most, if not all, the other candidates lacked so that was good. It may be too little too late for Ted. He really needs to get a commercial, mailer, or something big because debates alone, I don’t believe, will get him across the finish line.
Lauf: L I’m giving her the letter L for loss because the A/B/C grading system of last debate isn’t an appropriate range for this debate. The gulf between the contenders and pretenders was HUGE and it really showed last night. Lauf had an awful night. It was brutal. I sincerely felt bad for her. She is unprepared and unknowledgable on issues, possibly worse than Catella in this regard, but also lacking Catella’s optimistic, patriotic, unifying charm. She fumbled with words, still used um a lot, didn’t know about issues, and responded to some questions with little to no elaboration.
Marter: A- Marter showed consistency and quality. We should expect that. Marter’s been saying pretty much the same thing for years now.
Oberweis: He should get the lowest grade possible. Even candidates who didn’t have a good night at least bothered to show up and there’s something to be said about being in the arena like Teddy Roosevelt said. The absence reflects poorly on Jim Oberweis. Look, NOBODY likes the League of Women Voters, but sometimes you have to do things you don’t like. That’s part of life. I don’t know if he had a prior engagement, but voters will wonder what was more important than a debate right before the primary and they may judge him worse for it.
Rezin- A Rezin gave me the impression that she is the only person, along with with Marter, who can go toe to toe with Underwood content-wise, but Rezin is the only candidate who gives me the impression she could also BEAT Underwood in a general election. She makes a strong electability case and she knows a lot about the issues. Even when she differs from her primary opponents, she does so in a thoughtful and respectful way and doesn’t come across as some wacky outlier or spiteful contrarian. For the most part, however, she tries showing how she is in line with the Republican Party.
The debate was too short, there were too many disrespectful women in the audience not following rules, and there were too many questions written by goofball lefties instead of people who are actually going to vote in the Republican primary. On the other hand, they did cover some important topics and the questions were short and to the point. The format had the potential to make this debate better than the previous one, if only they had been given another 30-60 minutes.
Please elaborate on how the audience showed disrespect.
Also big thumbs down to Beth Goncher who didn’t show up to debate Jeannette Ward.
Gradel looked like the only serious candidate up there. Yes Rezin was serious, but man was she boring. I think she mentioned Springfield in every answer.
Gradel looked like the only serious candidate up there.
Yes Rezin was serious, but man was she boring.
I think she mentioned Springfield in every answer.
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:
https://twitter.com/JohnLopezIL/status/1223255809305522179
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.
Cal, it was the the snickering and murmuring when candidates would say something right-wing, like advocating to not kill babies or reminding people that there are already laws that mandate equal pay.
It was mostly from old women who I assume are members of the liberal LWV.
(They promote the women’s march which is mostly about opposing Trump. They are not content neutral and everybody knows it.)
I don’t know if the audio picked up on it or not, but if you were in the audience you know what I’m talking about.
The rules said no audience reaction — some of the people did not listen to the rules or did not care.
Like I said, disrespectful.
Very thorough reviews by Correcting and Lopez. Appears that Catalina far from ready to be a credible candidate and needs to do more work in the years ahead to be a future contender.
The League of Women Voters didnt do the Pledge of Allegiance prior to the Debate start, as was done at the Debate at MCC…
that seems “rude and disrespectful” to me.
Typical of the “uninteresting” women that make up this bunch.
Pink Hat types for the most part—though I could be wrong on a few of them.
Mr. Bob Wire, a reminder, the forum at MCC last week was hosted by the McHenry County Republican Party.
Thursday’s forum at MCC is hosted by the League of Women Voters of McHenry County.
LOL!
Rezin says with a straight face that she opposes higher taxes – after she just voted to double the gas tax!
Rezin thinks voters are stupid.
Rezin accepted over $100,000 in campaign cash from special interests who benefit from her vote to double the gas tax.
Rezin is a never-Trumper.
Beware of Republicans in Name Only
Bob Wire, the LoWV would have said the pledge of allegiance……. if only they had found an old USSR flag.
All they had to do was borrow one from the many MCC lecture halls, but alas, they were too lazy to do so.