Who won the debate? Our Opinion staff weighs in.
Mehmet Oz and John Fetterman faced off for the first and last time on Tuesday night.
Welcome to Opinion’s commentary for the Oct. 25 debate in Harrisburg between the two candidates to represent Pennsylvania in the U.S. Senate: Republican Mehmet Oz and Democrat John Fetterman. In this special feature, Inquirer Opinion writers rank the candidates on a scale of 1 to 10. 1 means the candidate performed worse than the 2015 Phillies; 10 is a decisive win. Here’s what our columnists, editorial writers, and contributors thought about the debate.
John Fetterman: 4.3/10 Average Score
Look, it’s clear that Fetterman’s post-stroke speaking abilities haven’t caught up with the rapid-fire format of tonight’s debate, and that will likely hurt him. So will the substance of a few muddled answers — especially on fracking. That said, the directness of Fetterman’s support for a living wage, unions, college debt relief, compassionate immigration policies, and ensuring reproductive rights showed this was a debate between a candidate with a heart issue and an opponent who barely has one. (6/10)
Fetterman has repeatedly said that in January, he will be “much better” following his stroke but “Dr. Oz is still going to be a fraud.” Well, Fetterman got better the longer the debate went on, too. He struggled, more than many were comfortable with, I’m sure. But that says more about us, than him. He was clear on immigration and on women’s rights — and on the issues that should matter to us most. (5/10)
Fetterman’s stumbling and verbal gaffes made the debate a complete cringefest from beginning to end. Just when I thought it couldn't get any worse, he closed by announcing he's rooting for the Steelers. Argh! (2/10)
I should be clear from the start that I’m not speaking on behalf of the Commonwealth Foundation, which does not endorse candidates. I also wouldn’t want my comments to be construed as a personal endorsement of either party’s nominee. Speaking as a contributing columnist who’s followed this race closely, I thought that John Fetterman’s and Joe Biden’s policies were both on the debate stage tonight and they ended where they began: on the defensive, with Fetterman unwilling to mount a counter argument to Oz’s policy specifics. He was unable to refute Oz’s claims that Democratic policies have made Pennsylvanians’ lives worse. (4/10)
Fetterman performed well enough against lowered expectations. But more basic mistakes — like refusing to explain his recent change of heart on fracking, and insisting, without evidence, that Oz will cut social programs — made him look inflexible and unmoored from the facts. (2/10)
Fetterman’s campaign staffers spent the last few days lowering expectations for this debate. Perhaps they should have started earlier. I support John Fetterman, so it pains me to say this: He was a disaster. He didn't substantively refute Oz’s false claims about his allegedly “radical left” positions on abortion, crime, fracking, and more. The only good thing you can say about Fetterman's performance is that he didn't put on airs. He is authentically inarticulate. (2/10)
One of Fetterman’s best moments came in his opening statement, when he lowered expectations by mentioning that his stroke affected his speech. Later, he said, “I believe in fighting for health care — the kind of health care that saved my life.” I wish he’d had time to expound on that, because that was a moment of human connection. While Fetterman was clear on his support of Roe v. Wade and raising the minimum wage, many of his other answers were muddled and at times unintelligible. (5/10)
Mostly direct, thoughtful answers ... delivered very clunkily. He stumbled badly on fracking, but delivered solid hits on the minimum wage, abortion, healthcare, and immigration. (5/10)
The debate stage was not Fetterman’s strong suit given his stroke, especially against a polished TV personality. Despite Fetterman's speech challenges, he understands the struggles of working families and seniors, and especially believes that women — not the government — should be free to make their own choices surrounding their own bodies. (5/10)
Fetterman, as expected, didn’t shine in the debate format, and voters got a window into how he’s adapted to his stroke. Still, he reinforced his campaign’s values of uplifting forgotten communities and securing abortion rights nationwide. (4/10)
He had zingers, saying that Oz has never met an oil company that he doesn’t “swipe right” on. Hearing Fetterman say that Roe v. Wade should be the law led me to audibly sigh in relief. Abortion should be a choice between a pregnant person and their doctor. (7/10)
Mehmet Oz: 4.1/10 Average Score
Rather than counter his reputation as a snake-oil salesman, Oz leaned into it for most of the debate, with slick answers that were as empty as the diet pills that he once promoted (despite his ridiculous dodging answer) on TV. Typical was the unbearable lightness of his answer on the minimum wage, which said that fracking will magically solve all problems (and didn’t mention climate change). And for all the talk of Fetterman’s stroke, Oz had the night’s worst gaffe when he said abortion is between “a woman, her doctor, and local political leaders.” (2/10)
Did he have as many verbal bumps and mashups as Fetterman? Obviously not. But here are the words everyone should have heard loud and clear: He said he’d support Trump if he ran in 2024. And that should be automatically disqualifying for any Pennsylvanian who cares about the future of this country, and our incredibly fragile democracy. Maybe his debate performance is worthy of another TV show — but it isn’t worthy of our vote. (3/10)
Oz’s smirking, smugness, and TV ready-appearance contrasted sharply with Fetterman's frequent fumbles and frumpiness. He came off like a slick salesman looking to close a deal without making a convincing case for why he deserves to represent Pennsylvanians. (3/10)
Mehmet Oz delved into policy specifics at the top of voter’s minds — inflation, energy independence, crime — and successfully cast a vision for how his ideas would help Pennsylvanians escape the current morass. But what won Oz the debate was illuminating his policy ideas with personalized stories of the Pennsylvanians he met on the campaign trail. He provided real world examples of how his policies will impact voters, showing Republicans everywhere that a non-Trumpian small gathering campaign strategy can provide substance to the policy debate. (7/10)
Focusing on a theme of moderation and anti-extremism, Oz explained his positions well and tried his best to contrast them with Fetterman’s, which he called “radical.” Occasionally, Oz perhaps drove too hard at his opponent, which might have the effect of evoking sympathy for the Democrat. (8/10)
Oz has spent his career on TV, and it shows. If I was grading him on acting alone, he’d get a 9 or a 10. But as I tell my students, you can’t get the top mark if you won’t say what you really believe. Oz obfuscated on abortion, guns, and pretty much everything else. Smooth talk, zero substance. (4/10)
Oz is clearly a television veteran, and the format — which gave the candidates very little time to answer — benefitted Oz. However, Oz came across as very unlikeable. Smirking as Fetterman answered questions, interrupting both the female moderator and his opponent. He seemed arrogant and rude. While he often changed the subject from the questions in favor of attacking Fetterman, he certainly hit his talking points effectively, repeatedly describing Fetterman as “radical” and “extreme.” (6/10)
Didn’t answer about suspending the gas tax. Didn’t answer about raising the minimum wage. Didn’t answer on abortion. Didn’t answer on gun control. He was predictably smooth, and did an effective job of turning back to Fetterman with each response. But he managed to avoid almost every question. (5/10) (Bonus: Moderators (10/10) - For their insistence on addressing him as “Mr. Oz.”)
For all his years on TV, Oz came across as a fast-talking used car salesman. The second Oz said that he would support the return of the twice-impeached former president who incited a deadly insurrection and tried to overturn a free and fair election, he disqualified himself from holding public office and his score went to zero. (0/10)
Oz mostly accomplished what he came to do: appeal to the police-friendly, suburban voters who powered Brian Fitzpatrick and Pat Toomey to victory. But his statement that local officials should have a say on abortion likely undermined those efforts. (6/10)
His plan to “unleash the energy beneath our feet” is frankly frightening. I’d encourage Oz to listen to the parents of kids with leukemia who live near fracking sites. Also: leaving abortion up to the states will create pockets of the country that feel like the The Handmaid’s Tale. No thank you. (1/10)
About the Authors
Will Bunch (@Will_Bunch) is the national opinion columnist at the Inquirer.
Helen Ubiñas (@NotesFromHeL) is a columnist at the Inquirer.
Jenice Armstrong (@JeniceArmstrong) is a columnist at the Inquirer.
Jennifer Stefano (@JenniferStefano) is a contributing columnist at the Inquirer.
Kyle Sammin (@KyleSammin) is a contributing columnist at the Inquirer.
Jonathan Zimmerman is a contributing writer at the Inquirer. He teaches education and history at the University of Pennsylvania and is the author of “Whose America?: Culture Wars in the Public Schools.”
Solomon Jones (@solomonjones1) is a contributing columnist at the Inquirer and the author of “Ten Lives Ten Demands: Life and Death Stories and a Black Activistʼs Blueprint for Racial Justice.” Listen to him weekdays from 7 to 10 a.m. on WURD 900 AM.
Jeff Barg authors The Grammarian column at The Inquirer.
Paul Davies is opinion editor-at-large at the Inquirer.
Daniel Pearson (@DPearsonPHL) is a member of the Inquirer editorial board.
Devi Lockwood (@devi_lockwood) is the commentary and ideas editor at The Inquirer.
Staff Contributors
- Editor: Devi Lockwood, Alison McCook, and Richard G. Jones
- Digital Editor: Evan Weiss