| The Chamber of Commerce is generally seen as unfriendly territory for Democrats, who are generally pro-union and thus aren't seen as the best policy-makers for business interests.
That being said, DFLer Ashwin Madia turned in a solid performance this morning before a neutral crowd, unfriendly question framing, and often facing two opponents at once.
Madia aggressively stuck to his talking points, repeatedly using the word "specific" to describe his proposals on various issues. This is his strength: succinctly framing the issue at hand, and offering bullet-list proposals for solving it.
Republican opponent Erik Paulsen displayed plenty of message discipline as well, but at a higher, more meta-level. Paulsen was careful to slip in notes about how he has worked in a bi-partisan fashion in the State Legislature, citing an initiative on which he worked with Sen. Larry Pogemiller (I was reminded of former Pennsylvania Sen. Rick Santorum's 2006 ad in which he said he'd even worked with gasp Hillary Clinton...) even to this committed Democrat watching the debate, it's clear Paulsen knows his stuff, and his answers about education are somewhat reasonable (one issue among many).
 But given the environment, Madia's performance stood out. He answered poison-pill questions about free trade (in which the moderator asked whether the candidates supported the Colombia Free Trade Agreement, which was likely to find plenty of support in a business-interest-oriented debate) by focusing on government's goal in ensuring an equal playing field on labor and environmental standards. On a question about the Employee Free Choice Act, Madia stood his ground despite a clearly anti-EFCA environment, by sticking to the facts (the EFCA will NOT remove the secret ballot in unionization votes) and by pivoting smoothly to large-scale economic policy changes.
This was my first chance to see Independence Party candidate David Dillon, and regardless of my preference in this race, he didn't do much to impress. He repeated his own rhetorical stylings several times ("we've heard that {issue x} is important, and it is..."), and came off as siding with Paulsen on several more issues than with Madia -- all that, in the same breaths as he derided partisan politics as a whole for causing the problems we face.
Dillon's answers were short, and his attempts to engage the other candidates by challenging them to follow his lead on a no-earmarks pledge (thus building his own leadership meme) fell flat. Madia engaged him only once, to pivot effectively back to his talking points on transportation policy, and Paulsen engaged him exactly never. If Dillon hopes to be a factor in this race, it will take more than today's performance to make it happen.
Bottom line from today's debate: Erik Paulsen is a nice guy, but he should have owned the debate from start to finish. Friendly audience, friendly questions, and he came off as merely so-so. Madia took tough questions, stuck to his guns, and hit yet another debate home run to deep left-center field.
Check out my liveblog from this morning for a blow-by-blow of the entire debate. |
