NC SPIN panelists respond to the U.S. Senate debate

We asked NC SPIN panelists to give you their perspectives on Wednesday night’s debate.

JOE MAVRETIC: WOW! What a debate. 

If you are a Democrat, Hagan won. If you are a Republican, Tillis won. If you are an Independent, you should have watched Turner Classic Movies.

 Both candidates stayed on the messages that outsiders are pushing in their attack ads. Answers to the moderator's softball questions were predictable and avoided positions, especially the YES/NO about Syria. 
 The candidates' handlers know that this race is going to be a squeaker and a slip-up could sink the multi-million dollar ship. 

Fortunately, neither candidate was born in a cabin or had to walk five miles to school in hand-me-down shoes. Both are genuinely genuine and they blather well.

Both candidates avoided talking about entitlement units' votes because Hagan has them and Tillis can't get them. The Tillis base is in concrete and Hagan has no jackhammer.  

The candidates don't like each other and both are fuzzy with the numbers. If you want a North Carolina Senator with just the slightest sense of humor, you'll have to wait a few years. 

Neither revealed what their October media blitz will be, but it's not going to be about political philosophies-it's going to be a hatchet job. 

JUST A THOUGHT: When you cast a vote in the US Senate, you must vote either YES or NO. There are no MAYBE or UNDECIDED or LET ME GET BACK TO YOU buttons.
 In the October Tillis/Hagan debate, let's hope there is a moderator who will insist that both candidates answer questions that help Independents determine this race. Fat chance.

HOWARD LEE: I was disappointed with the substance of the debate. They spent too much time trashing each other and too little time sharing insight about how they would function as Senate. I consider it a draw and assign a grade of "C".

CASH MICHAELS: (These are additional comments made by Cash. See original remarks below)

It's like she (Kay Hagan) came in preparing to be a target, instead of being the one holding the rifle. She could have hit Tillis harder on many fronts, and as an incumbent and a woman, she could have gotten away with it.

BECKI GRAY: “It was as if the television political ads morphed into two human beings for the evening.

Nora O'Donnell was not as left leaning as some on the right had feared. I thought she came across very cold - much more of a referee than a moderator.

They are both running on their records. Hagan had a harder time defending hers than Tillis did his.  He's gotten things done - she hasn't done much.

Hagan lost points with claims of her caring about women and Tillis doesn't.  That argument is tiresome.  Women's issues are much more than contraceptives.  Lower taxes, improving economy, safe communities and ensuring a good teacher is in every classroom are issues women care about.  Tillis wins that one.

Tillis needs to come out stronger defending his accomplishments in education.  Spending has increased under his leadership and more importantly, reforms he championed give every child the opportunity to have a good teacher.

If you'd already decided who you are going to vote for, you probably believe your candidate won the debate.  Who matters is the 10%-15% of unaffiliated voters who are still undecided.  Were they persuaded?”

CASH MICHAELS: “I was not impressed with either Sen. Hagan or Speaker Tillis. Tillis seemed nervous in the beginning, but gradually warmed up as he attacked Hagan more and more. Hagan was on the defense a lot naturally, and counterpunched when she could, but I'm not sure how effective she was against Tillis. I was surprised that Hagan did not jab Tillis about his support for voter ID and other voter suppression laws. That would have forced him to justify it, and it would have sent a strong message to black voters that she knows they're there, and that she needs them. A truly blown opportunity!”

DOUG RAYMOND: “From a political standpoint, both campaigns understood that these type of debates don’t attract the average voter. The vast majority of people who watched this debate are politically astute and have made their decision about this race long ago. The goal of this debate was to drive home consistent messages so the media who cover the debate have little choice but to use these carefully crafted sound bites. Votes aren’t often won or lost by those who viewed the debate, but instead by those who read or watch sound bites from the debate the following day.

As someone who has prepared candidates for debates, it is hard not to notice the little things that are so important for the average voter. Appearance is always a key, especially for those aforementioned sound bites.

Tillis did a great job of looking the part of the Senator. He stuck to the classic dark suit, white shirt, blue tie. (Expect to see a red tie when the tone gets a little more serious closer to the election) The Autism Awareness lapel pin was a questionable choice. It matched the outfit well and some would say showed that the Republican did have a caring side, but the average voter will wonder why he was wearing a puzzle piece on his jacket. It also can be distracting. Probably should go with a flag pin next time.

Hagan made a questionable choice in her attire. The light gray jacket with plain white shirt made her look pale, especially against the dark blue backdrop. I would expect to see her in a darker jacket or dress in the next debate. Maybe her biggest mistake was putting on reading glasses for the second question. It drew attention to her having to check her notes and the black rims with a green dot on the side stuck out like a sore thumb.   Obviously one of her advisors told her to take them off when the question went back to Tillis because when the camera returned to Hagan the glasses were gone and we did not see her wearing them for the rest of the debate.

Both campaigns did an excellent job of preparing their candidates on the major issues. They had the facts, but both were lacking any great quips that were sure to be used as sound bites. Tillis’ best line was a shot at Barack Obama, saying the President thought the three branches of government were “the executive, his pen and his phone”.   Although the Tillis strategy is obviously linking Hagan to Obama, they need to remember who they are running against.   Tillis was most effective when accusing Hagan of broken promises and of saying one thing while doing another.

Tillis cleared his first hurdle in the fact that he looked and sounded senatorial. He showed a firm grasp of the national issues and never got rattled. Tillis seemed very comfortable and we often heard the habit of leaving off the “g” at the end of words, (runnin for the US Senate, growin up, raisin a family), a linguistic characteristic of many North Carolinians when they are speaking more informally. Hagan was much more succinct with her words, especially in her opening statement.

However, Hagan too often stumbled on her words and at other times used phrases that were disjointed. There were several examples but the most glaring was her closing statement. “I want to give a story. I want to tell a story about results that I’ve taken. I heard from our men and women in duty at Fort Bragg...” There are three mistakes in that short introduction to a story.   She was clearly rattled and this was most curious since there is no doubt her closing statement was practiced for hours and she should have been in her comfort zone.

There were no surprises when it came to the questions asked by moderator Nora O’Donnell of CBS News. The questions seemed to benefit Tillis slightly, as most allowed him to circle back to his main talking point; linking Hagan with President Obama. Hagan stayed on message as well, consistently coming back to accusations that as Speaker of the NC House Tillis gave tax cuts to the rich, made devastating cuts to education and that Tillis didn’t understand the issues that concern women. Hagan also was well prepared with a response to the Tillis campaign’s attacks against her record on Veteran’s issues. She stated her family’s military service and her responses to Veteran’s concerns and it was an effective response to the questions regarding her record on this key campaign issue.

Hagan used the term “common sense” at least twice when referring to her approach. This is a very effective phrase and was used wisely. However, I question the Hagan campaign’s decision to label her the “most moderate member of the Senate”. Although the target is correct, (trying to appeal to undecided, middle of the road voters) the word moderate may not be the best choice. It often carries a connotation of weakness. She would be better served sticking with the common sense theme, which still reflects an objective, non-partisan approach that would appeal to those voters.

In conclusion, I believe Tillis was the winner in this debate. He pleased his conservative base with several references to limited government and state control, without sounding like a zealot. He also did a good job of engaging Hagan directly without coming across as mean or ungentlemanly. His closing statement began by thanking Hagan for her service, a great move as it shows class, but also draws an inference that her service may be coming to an end. Hagan made the more mistakes, but none that are game changers. She was clearly the more nervous of the two and as we get closer to November and more events that are watched by more voters, confidence is key.

The reality of this debate was that few votes were won because it was not viewed by the masses. Neither candidate gave the other a soundbite to use against them and both can be pleased they stayed on message, often ad nauseam.”

TOM CAMPBELL: “No runs, no hits, no errors. At the end of the 60-minute Senate debate nobody scored but neither did either candidate make any major mistakes. If pressed to pick a winner I would have to give the nudge to Thom Tillis, but both he and Kay Hagan squandered ideal opportunities to score.

Remember the Nixon-Kennedy debate? Nobody remembers the content but everyone remembers an uncomfortable, sweating Richard Nixon. Tillis wisely chose the traditional dark suit and appeared comfortable. Hagan’s advisors chose her wardrobe poorly. The gray jacket made her look washed-out. Others are pointing out that appearances matter and in this game Tillis obviously gained the edge.

This was not good television. While the candidates and content are the main focus we were distracted by the paucity of this set; the blue backdrop curtain stood out and, aside from a three-shot of the moderator and candidates, the beautiful moderator, Nora O’Donnell, was the most interesting visual. One has to wonder why the producers decided to get a high-profile TV newsperson to moderate, since they obviously restricted her role to asking questions, not actually moderating a debate.

Tillis was the more comfortable of the two candidates, however he used bad grammar at least three times. We’ve heard Hagan speak many times but felt that in this setting she spoke in a halting, somewhat disjointed manner, often using a tone of voice that sounded a bit strident.

Tillis’ high point came in his closing, obviously carefully rehearsed, but very personable and designed to make him seem like a regular guy. Again, we questioned Hagan’s closing, which might have been well used somewhere else during the debate but used a very narrow illustration and didn’t close the sale.

It was obvious to the viewer that both candidates had been coached to use specific themes and phrases and drilled on how to revert to those whenever the topic was less than favorable to them or they drew a blank as to what to say. We would love to have had Hagan challenge Tillis as to why he chose to give starting teachers more of a raise than those who had been in the classroom 15 or more years. She could also have asked him to tell the people why so many of the laws he passed have been challenged and overturned in court and why he feels compelled to change voting laws, abortion laws and help for the poor. Tillis could have done more in reminding Hagan about her 2008 campaign against Liddy Dole, challenging her to respond to the same indictments she leveled at Dole. He could have challenged her personal accomplishments in six years, using that as a springboard to tie her to a most unpopular president. Both had great openings to score points but it was obvious they had been told to stay on script.

Out of the gate they sounded like their ads. Neither showed us a vision of who we can be and where our state and nation should be going. Call me crazy but I would like to vote for someone who has a plan and can inspire me to follow.

Did we learn anything new and revealing? Nope. Did it elevate this campaign above the noisy and nasty ads we are tuning out? Nope. Does it cause us to want to see the second and final debate? Nope.