Replies

Meh. O'Donnell did OK, but she meandered a lot and had trouble when challenged with specifics. She doesn't speak particularly well, especially when speaking at length. She worked hard to hit all the conservative buttons, but she mostly spoke in generalities and was often in trouble when pressed on details. Her discussion of the Ground Zero Mosque was rather painful to watch. Her discussion of recent supreme court decisions was downright embarrassing. Her attacks on Coons generally came across as rather silly -- "what will you tell Obama about X....?"

Coons is a consummate Democrat, who holds a lot of very noxious positions (that will, however, undoubtedly play well among Delaware voters). But he speaks extremely well, with fully formed and well-constructed arguments, and he almost never stumbled on his words. He had a command of detail that was in sharp contrast to O'Donnell.

O'Donnell needed to be at least as good as Coons tonight, in order to reverse the numbers among independents. She didn't do that -- she lost this debate.

If you need to hear before every answer a sentence about how much time is needed to answer the question, Coons did well by you.

I think a funny youtube would be Coons saying over and over “oh, where do I start” and the like.

Christine was on point, answering the questions.

And Christine doesn’t poison people. So, she has that advantage over Coons, the poisoner.

Who wouldn’t have some rough spots when debating THREE PEOPLE? And how often did Coons get really pressed to provide specifics? Yes, he gave “fully-formed arguments”, because every other sentence wasn’t interrupted, as was often the case with O’Donnell. I’m not ready to annoint Coons as the second coming.

Her discussion of recent supreme court decisions was downright embarrassing.

ROFLOLOLOL.

What disagreements would conservative Christine have with RECENT SCOTUS RULINGS WITH THE ROBERTS SCOTUS?

No need to reply.