Your columnists are proud political junkies who watched every minute of Utah’s congressional primary debates. We explain why and what we learned.
In today’s ever-changing political environment, most Americans and Utahns do not watch debates. Are they still relevant to the Democratic process, or are they relics of the past with no impact on elections?
Cowley: Debates rarely change hearts and minds unless there’s a significant blunder that goes viral. They have produced iconic moments over the years, including Reagan’s, “I am not going to exploit for political purposes my opponent’s youth and inexperience,” Romney’s, “binders full of women,” and Bentsen’s, “Senator, you’re no Jack Kennedy.” Debates’ usefulness lies in producing sound bites that candidates use for social media and campaign ads.
Campaigns are won on contrast. The debate stage provides a forum for candidates to flesh out those differences. Front-runners approach debates with precaution. Their goal is not to have any blunders. Dark-horse candidates use it as an opportunity for airtime, exposure and landing a few well-prepared political punches without draining campaign coffers.
Pignanelli: “Deliberation and debate are the way you stir the soul of our democracy.” — Jesse Jackson
Over four decades, I participated in multiple debates as a candidate or in other advocacy roles. Furthermore, I advised and prepped candidates from both sides of the aisle.
Political debates are like family reunions. Attendance is important, as it shows respect. The shrewd come prepared to answer multiple questions from relatives with pleasant responses that do not self-incriminate. You depart the event hoping to reaffirm your persona as a sensitive, kind person who defends principles without undue agitation. But a major mistake in behavior will haunt you for years.
The risk of making mistakes limits most incumbents’ engagement. They strive for no major faults. Challengers hope to score fatal wounds on opponents.
Debates remain a critical element of the democratic process, helping candidates refine their positions and allowing voters to learn them by watching the debate or through media reports.
What were the important results of the congressional debates?
Congressional District 1 Debate: Nate Blouin, Michael Farrell, Ben McAdams, and Liban Mohamed:
Cowley and Pignanelli: The Democrats may be in the minority, but they certainly have no problem unsheathing swords to wound each other.
Also, Utahns now know that far-left progressives are an established presence in Utah, exhibited by statements from Blouin, Mohamed and Farrell. They advocated abolishing ICE, supporting Medicare for all and prohibiting data centers. McAdams presented more nuanced positions on these issues, while reminding the audience he voted to impeach Trump. Blouin touted endorsements from Bernie Sanders and the Sierra Club. Farrell leveraged his tax expertise to promote working families. Mohamed used his personal immigrant story to champion lefty causes.
McAdams is the most polished candidate in the field and has the most experience on the debate stage. He deflected multiple personal attacks with humor and ease. He was, hands down, the best performer across all the debates.
Underdog candidate Mohamed’s convention victory propelled him into relevance and viability. His charisma appeals to younger and progressive voters. The seat is McAdams’ to lose, but how well Mohamed performs in the primary may signal the future of the Democratic Party in Utah.
Congressional District 3 Debate: Celeste Maloy, Phil Lyman:
Cowley and Pignanelli: The starkest contrast in these two conservative candidates is their chromosomes. Their policy positions are virtually indistinguishable. However, Maloy’s service on the House Appropriations Committee helped her craft substantive responses. The candidates are differentiated mainly by positing themselves as the “get-things-done candidate with a track record,” or the “anti-establishment outsider who will shake things up.”
The decision in this race isn’t about who has more conservative chops, but rather if voters — who already have rising distrust of institutions — favor the rabble-rousing outsider or newcomer incumbent with a growing, impressive list of accomplishments.
Congressional District 2 Debate: Blake Moore, Karianne Lisonbee:
Cowley and Pignanelli: Tension between Moore and Lisonbee centered around redistricting and living inside or outside the district. Lisonbee came locked and loaded to remind voters of Moore’s role in Proposition 4, which handed Utah Democrats a safe seat in Congress. She articulated well her belief that the Constitution provides that the Legislature shall draw boundaries, not an unaccountable commission. Moore rebutted that, at the time, independent commissions were gaining popularity, and he didn’t know how it would play out.
Lisonbee’s allegation that Moore’s departure from the Armed Services Committee created problems was countered by his very legitimate argument that his position in Republican congressional leadership is even more beneficial to the district.
There were mostly nuanced differences in their concerns over Kevin O’Leary’s proposed data center (located in the district) and the usual federal issues. The big difference was Lisonbee’s refusal to accept $1 billion in federal assistance to save the Great Salt Lake, citing budgetary concerns. The distinctions between these two candidates are less about substance and more about style in solving northern Utah’s big issues.
Were there any overall trends or themes common to all the debates?
Cowley and Pignanelli: It is a rare occurrence that the most well-funded candidate is defeated without a major upset in debates or a swing in public perception. In this case, the “three M’s” — McAdams, Moore and Maloy — remain front-runners in their respective races.