Moderators shine in Oz-Fetterman debate — but the format is broken

The biggest night of Pennsylvania’s U.S. Senate campaign came Tuesday in Harrisburg when Lt. Gov. John Fetterman (D) and Dr. Mehmet Oz (R) squared off for the first and only time. The debate mattered nationally, not just in the Keystone State, because Pennsylvania is one of only four or five states with Senate races that are widely considered toss-ups, and what happens there could well determine which party controls the Senate in January.

After 60 minutes on stage, two things were abundantly clear: 

First, Fetterman’s performance was so poor and so uncomfortable to watch that this race may be irreversibly swung in Oz’s favor. Axios called it “painful” while MSNBC’s Joe Scarborough said Fetterman’s ability to communicate is “seriously impaired.” 

“Pennsylvania voters will be talking about this obvious fact even if many in the media will not,” Scarborough added. 

Second, the moderators from Harrisburg’s ABC-29 station (owned by Nexstar, which also owns The Hill) asked solid, relevant questions and were in complete control during the debate. 

But on this latter point, the format felt too rushed, as it does in most modern American political debates. Often, questions were asked on complex issues (inflation, energy, crime, education) and the candidates were allotted only 60 seconds to answer. And that’s where anything resembling a comprehensive solution or a nuanced argument goes out the window. 

How to tackle inflation, for example, is something an entire college course semester might require. Cutting government spending would be a good start, as Republicans have promised to do if they take back the House of Representatives following the Biden administration’s injection of trillions of dollars into the country’s economy. But there’s a series of other measures at the Federal Reserve, along with global supply-chain factors, that figure into this complicated issue, too. 

In other words, to explain to voters how one will beat back inflation as a senator requires much more than one minute. The same goes for crime, which is more than a matter of adding police officers. It includes addressing limp bail laws that put violent criminals back on to the streets, and how to attract new police officers when resignations and retirements are at all-time highs — or adding more resources and money for mental health facilities and treatment. To educate voters on how to achieve this laundry list requires more than the time it takes to trim one’s toenails. 

That’s not to say the format used last night in Pennsylvania didn’t produce memorable or potentially game-changing moments in this crucial race for control of the U.S. Senate (and flipping Pennsylvania’s Senate seat from Republican to Democrat is considered essential for the Blue Team).

What was most telling was that Fetterman rarely used the full 60 or 30 seconds allotted to him to answer questions. This was most apparent on the issue of fracking. The candidate once declared that he would “never” support fossil fuels, only to say during this debate that he now supports fracking. 

When pressed on this by ABC-29’s moderators, after initially not providing a clear answer on his past stance, Fetterman could not gather himself. For four long, agonizing seconds, he was silent after his own quote was read back to him before answering this way, per an Associated Press transcript and media reports: “I do support fracking and I don’t, I don’t — I support fracking, and I stand, and I do support fracking.” 

Fracking is considered a top issue in Pennsylvania, as well as other states; many jobs depend on it. And with gas prices currently above the national average at $3.92, energy policy in general is also near the top of the list of voters’ concerns, along with inflation and crime. 

It was at this moment when the format of the Lincoln-Douglas debates might have come in handy. 

Those debates, seven of them, occurred in 1858 ahead of the Senate election between Stephen Douglas and Abraham Lincoln. There were no moderators, just an open-ended discussion of policy positions concerning big issues of the day — slavery and territorial expansion chief among them. Instead of a rushed 60- or 90-minute format like those we typically see today, each of the Lincoln-Douglas debates lasted about three hours, with one candidate speaking not for 60 seconds but for 60 minutes, followed by a 90-minute response and a final 30-minute retort by the candidate who spoke first.

The fracking moment  (or when Oz and Fetterman jousted over the economy, crime or abortion) was when voters sitting at home likely yelled at their TV screens and phones, begging the moderators to ditch the time constraints and allow the candidates to have at each other. 

John Fetterman was short on details and clarity about his positions on inflation, crime, fracking and illegal immigration. As a result, the betting markets have shifted the race from him being the favorite to win to being a decided underdog. 

He’s fortunate this is 2022, not 1858. Because if the format used in Lincoln’s day were applied now, it’s hard to imagine how the Democrat would have performed in such a grueling but informative format.  

When the presidential election comes in 2024, three debates are likely to be scheduled, as usual. The future of the country will be at stake. Given that public interest in politics has skyrocketed, a three-hour rhetorical steel-cage match might be embraced by voters who are hungry for candor — and for real solutions.

Joe Concha is a media and politics columnist.