DispatchesJURIST staffers from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law are filing dispatches on various aspects of the November 2022 midterm elections in Pennsylvania. Here, Pitt Law 1L Morgan Hubbard reports on the first and only scheduled debate between Pennsylvania US Senate candidates John Fetterman and Mehmet Oz.
Pennsylvania US Senate candidates John Fetterman (D) and Mehmet Oz (R) met in a TV debate Tuesday evening for the first time in the midterm election campaign. This debate was highly anticipated by voters, as it was the first time Fetterman took the debate stage since suffering a stroke in May. He took an early opportunity to remind voters of a letter released from his doctor stating he “should be able to campaign and serve in the US Senate without a problem.”
The debate moderators asked the candidates about issues that are top of mind for many Pennsylvanians as they head to the polls for this election: inflation, abortion access, fracking, immigration, minimum wage, and the fitness of each candidate to serve. As both candidates addressed these issues, much of their designated time to speak to their positions was used to attack the views or character of the other. The language employed by both candidates was reminiscent of the attack ads that have been airing locally as a result of large spending on oppositional efforts in this race.
Here at the University of Pittsburgh law school, Pitt Law Democrats hosted a watch party for students, professors, staff, and local political activists. Jack Olorvida, Vice President of Pitt Law Democrats, spoke to the expectations that members and leadership had going into the debate:
Naturally, a debate against Oz, who has spent a good amount of his career on television, would be a tall task for Fetterman. Many of our members were worried about the impact of polling based on how Fetterman came across at the debate since suffering a stroke. The debate did nothing to subvert these expectations. Oz was in his element.
The most substantial conversation about policy between the candidates came from questions on the issues of abortion and minimum wage. Fetterman stressed his stance that the decision to terminate a pregnancy belongs between patient and doctor. He said that if asked, he would vote to codify the decision from Roe v. Wade as law. When asked about raising the minimum wage to $15 per hour, he supported the idea of a mandate and focused on the positive impact this would have on working Pennsylvanians’ ability to live with dignity. When pressed about the impact this may have on small business owners who fear they could not employ as many at this wage mandate, he suggested it is not the role of the government to support businesses who cannot prioritize paying living wages to individuals.
Oz responded to questions about abortion and minimum wage with more moderate answers than the crowd was expecting, which may appeal to moderate undecided voters. In regard to both issues, he spoke to limiting the power of the federal government to mandate, but admitted the complexities of the issues. On abortion, he agreed with Fetterman that the decision should be made between a pregnant person and the presiding doctor, but expanded that to include the state government authority in legislating limits on abortion care. Similarly, he favored a higher minimum wage to support working families, but stressed the reliance on a market-driven wage increase rather than a federally mandated one.
At the end of the debate, many of the conversations around the room were focused on the issues that were not discussed, rather than the ones that were. Though both candidates were questioned about important and divisive matters, viewers were left with unresolved questions regarding policy. Though this debate was seated within the broader scope of concern about voting rights, protections, and processes, no questions were asked of either candidate about their perspective on contested results or accusations of fraud.
My fellow JURIST correspondent Luisa Gambs, an LLM Candidate at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law who is a German citizen, watched the debate from the perspective of a non-voting but nonetheless invested member of the community. This was the first Pennsylvania political debate she had watched. After the debate, she asked several of the American law students in the room what they believed was not addressed in the debate. Answers varied, but one issue that many students, including Luisa, were left with little informed policy debate about was climate change. Luisa said she “was surprised that foreign policy was only covered in the form of ‘what country poses the biggest threat to America?'” and that climate change was omitted completely: “The focus was more on whether the [candidates] could attack their opponent’s campaign rather than presenting a detailed agenda of substance for this country.”
As election day nears on November 8, these lingering policy questions will be large factors in impacting voters who may be “on the fence”. Thinking about what these next two weeks will look like for undecided voters, Olorvida said:
Pitt Law Dems are concerned that Fetterman’s performance at the debate may not be enough to dispel doubt, though he took time to adjust to the debate and found himself in the groove by the end. How Fetterman’s campaign moves past this debate will be imperative on holding a lead over Oz.
The next two weeks will likely continue with contentious ads and political rhetoric, but it is important for undecided voters to focus on the specific policy issues that are high stakes in this election. Though this debate left many of these issues unresolved for viewers, it will be important for voters to follow the statements and policy discussions on the campaign trails of both candidates in these last few, critical days. Remembering that money is driving opposition but policy is driving platforms will help voters to look beyond the rhetoric and get to the root of the issues at hand.
