Who won the Philadelphia mayoral debate — Cherelle Parker or David Oh?
The candidates faced off for the first and last time on Thursday morning.
:quality(60)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/RVDITDINLJGPPO5S54PHQLMXBI.jpg)
Welcome to The Inquirer Opinion Desk’s commentary on the first and only debate between Democrat Cherelle Parker and Republican David Oh, who are vying to become Philadelphia’s 100th mayor when voters head to the polls on Nov. 7.
In this special feature, Inquirer Opinion writers rank the candidates on a scale of 1 to 10. A 1 means the candidate was just as disappointing as the Phillies’ loss in the National League Championship Series Tuesday night; 10 is an unquestionable win. Here’s what our columnists, editorial writers, and contributors thought about the debate.
Cherelle Parker | Average score: 7.22
:quality(60)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/XB3LSR3EOFFLVJVBZENHBCTQOA.JPG)
Jenice ArmstrongStaff ColumnistCherelle Parker held her own, as she typically does in political debates. She also scored when she repeated her position several times about not increasing property taxes, and again when she challenged David Oh to discuss programs he had created that made life better for Philadelphians. (8/10)
:quality(60)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/ANZBE2AL7VBYFDQKIIYKSUXLPM.JPG)
Will BunchNational ColumnistGlib, smart, and passionate, the Democratic mayor-in-waiting offered flashes of the charisma that won the spring primary debates and propelled her May victory. Less impressive was the substance, including an overly aggressive policing regime from drones to National Guard troops that smacks too much of Eric Adams’ disastrous reign in New York. (5/10)
:quality(60)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/TTUGK56H5NFWBAVAFGQLETXMKY.jpg)
Luis CarrascoDeputy Opinion EditorParker is smooth and a total political pro — for better or worse. This debate was just another stop on her path to the coronation. No surprises. (8/10)
:quality(60)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/UE6TWEKPRBGDLJKQYUKR5I23SY.png)
Devi LockwoodCommentary and Ideas EditorParker shines in this format — it’s hard to believe that she resisted debating Oh for so long. I appreciate her focus on transparency, public health, and safety. (8/10)
:quality(60)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/3ZEH7YIJFZFZXIMH7JFKGUJYMI.jpg)
Alison McCookOpinion Features EditorParker often outshines her opponents in a debate format. She lost some of that gleam in this audio-only format, but I give her higher marks for including more specificity in her plans to address the city's biggest problems. (8/10)
:quality(60)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/RTNNYMDZFJD27PLFQPVDIU2IJU.JPG)
Daniel PearsonEditorial WriterI have no idea why she doesn't do this once a week. Cherelle Parker is a dominant debater. (9/10)
:quality(60)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/Z4WK7XC7KBAZJMID33XDMBDX54.JPG)
Kyle SamminContributing ColumnistParker succeeded in the aim of any front-runner in a debate: not saying anything bad enough to be disqualifying. Her tough-on-crime approach is a welcome departure from the current state of affairs, even if the idea of using the National Guard seems poorly thought-out. Her clear understanding of tax matters, too, led to a rare example of specifics in her plans. But on most other questions, Parker’s answers were simply calls for “stakeholders” to “collaborate,” with everyone having a “seat at the table” for a “holistic” approach. That is not, in itself, a principled strategy for success. It’s just a series of meetings. (4/10)
:quality(60)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/JBEWXL674BA5PJ77SKUIUFB55M.JPG)
Jennifer StefanoContributing ColumnistParker wobbled on a key issue but gets high marks for saying she'd bring together all sectors of education (public, charter, private, parochial) to find “synergies” — which sounds like the beginning of school choice (a question Oh whiffed on). When Parker called out Father Judge High School, an all-boys Roman Catholic school, for its excellent trades program, it was a hopeful sign that a Philly mayor contender could sees the value in giving kids opportunities beyond district schools. (6/10)
:quality(60)/cloudfront-us-east-1.images.arcpublishing.com/pmn/TBYOSQF33ZCIVEVJBKL4F7T3YQ.JPG)
Helen UbiñasStaff ColumnistLook, no one is going to out-debate the high school award-winning orator. If debates were won on catchy phrasing, Parker would win hands down: “earn while they learn,” “guardians not warriors.” And my pick for a potential new Philly drinking game: “safest, greenest, cleanest.” But voters should listen more closely to the words actually coming out of her mouth, not just the way she says them, because there are some potential reg flags: stop and frisk, welcoming the National Guard ... not to mention to amount of times she refers to herself in the third person. (9/10)
David Oh | Average score: 6.33
Jenice ArmstrongStaff ColumnistDavid Oh gave many respectable, commonsense answers to questions about complex issues facing the city, but his use of Republican dog whistles was disappointing, as well as a turnoff. (6/10)
Will BunchNational ColumnistLocally-minded and pro-small-business, Oh is a throwback of what Republicans used to sound like before the national party’s MAGA meltdown. The City Council veteran came off as knowledgeable, if slightly bloodless, given the crises facing the city. But his commonsense answers on stop-and-frisk — “it has been used to harass and bully” — and the Sixers’ arena impressed more than Parker’s posturing. (6/10)
Luis CarrascoDeputy Opinion EditorIf I was on Parker's team, I would have asked for a TV debate. The medium and the format played to Oh's strengths. What I'll call his “public radio energy level” was a good match, while having to keep the answers short reined in his tendency to drone on. On policy, he didn't do much to convince voters to choose him over the Democrat. (7/10)
Devi LockwoodCommentary and Ideas EditorHe was strongest on housing, Kensington, and his questions on the Sixers arena, and weakest on education. I agree with Oh that bringing the National Guard into Kensington is not the best solution to the opioid crisis. (6/10)
Alison McCookOpinion Features EditorOh came off well in this non-televised format. I give him kudos for his sportsmanship in acknowledging Parker is a “good candidate.” (7/10)
Daniel PearsonEditorial WriterOh did well when Parker demanded that he name his accomplishments in office, but it wasn't enough to change the trajectory of this race. (6/10)
Kyle SamminContributing ColumnistCalm and thoughtful in his answers, Oh represents the Republicans’ best hope in a generation. His emphasis on enforcement of the criminal law is what the city needs. Unfortunately for him, his answers on crime are not so different from his opponent’s to cause enough Democratic voters to cross party lines and vote for him. Zero-based budgeting and expanded vocational education are great ideas, but not enough to carry David Oh into the mayor’s office. (7/10)
Jennifer StefanoContributing ColumnistDavid Oh needed to come on strong with a bold vision for Philadelphia and hammer home policy specifics, particularly on crime and education, that distinguish him from Parker. He didn't do it, but gets high marks for his zero-based budgeting plan and saying he'll deputize attorneys and call on federal prosecutors to prosecute crime when Krasner won't. (5/10)
Helen UbiñasStaff ColumnistDavid Oh comes off as a nice man who means well and wants to do right by the city. But he spent more time debating outgoing Mayor Jim Kenney and District Attorney Larry Krasner than his actual opponent, who he called "a good candidate." Sir, this is a debate, not a family picnic. (7/10)
Jenice Armstrong (@JeniceArmstrong) is a columnist at the Inquirer.
Will Bunch (@Will_Bunch) is the national columnist at the Inquirer.
Luis Carrasco is deputy opinion editor at the Inquirer.
Devi Lockwood (@devi_lockwood) is the commentary and ideas editor at The Inquirer.
Alison McCook is opinion features editor at the Inquirer.
Daniel Pearson (@DPearsonPHL) is a member of the Inquirer editorial board.
Kyle Sammin (@KyleSammin) is a contributing columnist at the Inquirer.
Jennifer Stefano (@JenniferStefano) is a contributing columnist at the Inquirer.
Helen Ubiñas (@NotesFromHeL) is a columnist at the Inquirer.
Staff Contributors
- Editors: Devi Lockwood, Alison McCook, Luis Carrasco, and Richard G. Jones