During yesterday’s mayoral debate on WROC-TV, challengers James Sheppard and Rachel Barnhart did their best to inflict serious damage on incumbent Lovely Warren. But whether you were undecided or were just leaning toward one of the three, it’s unlikely that the debate did much to sway your decision.
For one thing, none of the three are complete unknowns to most city voters, and their positions on the issues have been well-reported. What a live televised debate does offer, though, is a closer look at personalities, presence, and the special quality that many successful politicians have in common: charisma. The latter is all about a politician’s likeability as a person. Without at least some of that, connecting with voters is difficult.
In that respect, all three were able to come off well in yesterday’s debate. For instance, in a response to a question about the opioid crisis, Barnhart said she would consider a city program letting addicts continue to get their drugs under supervision. It’s an approach that’s been taken by other cities dealing with drug epidemics, and while it’s notably progressive, it’s also controversial. Barnhart said her first priority is to save lives.
Warren countered with a heartfelt objection to the idea, insisting that it doesn’t work, and saying she’s witnessed the suffering that drug abuse has caused to individuals in her own family. She was compassionate and convincing.
At another point in the debate, Barnhart challenged Sheppard’s record as Rochester’s police chief, charging that he failed to discipline police officers when they acted inappropriately. But Sheppard talked about how he regularly visited the scenes of city homicides and met privately with the families of those who were killed. Sheppard spoke from the gut. Many of the deceased were men who looked like him, he said. Neither of the other two candidates had had that experience, and neither could talk personally about what it’s like to be a police officer in those circumstances.
Yet it’s hard to know how deeply Sheppard’s response resonated with many viewers, because of the news involving police use of force in the past several years.
In a race with three candidates hoping to lead a city with multiple challenges, an hour isn’t very long for a televised debate. But all three were able to outline their specific stands on key issues and to challenge their opponents.
Probably the tensest moment in the debate had to do with Warren’s alleged campaign finance infractions. Both Sheppard and Barnhart pressed Warren on the issue. Warren has had to return more than $20,000 to donors in excessive campaign contributions. Another $30,000 from a political action committee, Friends of Lovely Warren, has also been questioned.
Warren, who had lost her temper about the issue earlier in the campaign during an interview on WXXI’s Connections program, did her best to keep her cool during yesterday’s debate, essentially calling the campaign problems an accounting error that has been corrected. Barnhart would have none of it, and accused Warren of committing felonies. It’s an aggressive line of attack that Barnhart has used before, but we won’t k now until the election whether voters view it with the same level of seriousness that Barnhart does.
Did we learn anything new from the debate? Not really; each of these candidates is personable and passionate. There were no knockout punches. The question is whether viewers thought all three were able to go into battle without seeming so combative that they didn’t seem likable. With the September 12 primary just days away, voters watching the debate probably felt that Warren was able to defend her record. But Sheppard and Barnhart probably didn’t disappoint their supporters, either.
Now it’s up to the voters.
This article appears in Sep 6-12, 2017.
Thank you News 8…it was fascinating. what I learned: 1. Lovely is a great Mayor, if she says so herself…and she did. 2. When accused of campaign finance illegalities, Lovely says campaign finance issues are not important. 3. Lovely is a hypocrite. She called out her Democratic primary challengers for challenging her when she did the same thing to Tom Richards. 4. Lovely’s using some plays from the Trump playbook…say something enough and expect people to believe it…about crime and poverty.
Whats most interesting is how closely Democrat Barnharts campaign tactics parallel those of a recent Republican presidential candidate.
In her case new ideas means claiming that property taxes could be cut by 50% but that here would be no negative impact because new economic growth would make up the difference. In the case of Donald Trump, his new ideas included claiming he could build a massive wall between the US and Mexico but that there would be no negative impact because Mexico would pay for it.
Then we have ethics. In Barnharts case that means accusing her opponent of having committed felonies, while Trump accused his opponent of various and sundry crimes and led his followers in chanting Lock her up!
As to experience in public office, both Barnhart and Trump have tried to claim that their total lack of such experience was actually a plus because it meant that they werent one of those nasty political insiders. Such a view reminds me of a statement by Isaac Asimov who referred to the cult of ignorance in the US and, the false notion that democracy means that my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.
And finally, for both Rachel and The Donald, their campaigns are built on nothing more substantial than the name recognition they gained by being media personalities.
So I have to ask, if Barnhart is going to campaign like a Republican, shouldnt she at least run AS a Republican?
Sadly, this thread became a rather sophomoric sandbox fight, so we’ve deleted most of the comments. The purpose of our comments section is to encourage intelligent discussion of issues among adults, not provide a platform for personal insults.
My deleted comment was not a personal insult at all — just wondering where the notion came from that any primary challenge of an incumbent was somehow inappropriate or insulting the the incumbent.
I’m soo sorry, I’ll try to make my comments on the topic of the Democratic City Primary look more like they are from a Republican from the suburbs, in order for my comments to be more acceptable in this rochestercitynewspaper site.
Thank you News 8…it was fascinating. what I learned: 1. Lovely is a great Mayor. 2. When falsely accused of campaign finance illegalities, Lovely basically says no out come yet and innocent till proven guilty in America and the City. 3. Rachel Barnhart and Jim Sheppard are hypocrites, to bring up “party division” while they are they one dividing it. 4. Barnhart and Sheppard using some plays from the Trump playbook, we all know it and Lovely even pointed it out…say something enough (like your a felon, lock her up) and expect people to believe it…also about free internet and 50% tax cut and narrower roads, and don’t for get replacing city schools and town schools with one County School District.