LOWELL — By the time the second of two debates at UMass Lowell wrapped up Sunday afternoon, it became clear again that the 3rd Congressional District race is still defined more by who the candidates are than by what they have to say.
There were some noteworthy policy differences among candidates, particularly regarding presidential impeachment and wage stagnation, and a handful of not-so-veiled critiques thrown. But in the first debate featuring the full Democratic field, the candidates agreed on most issues and instead separated themselves with frequent pivots to their upbringings, their experiences and their accomplishments.
In a field of 12, that may be the best way to stand out, although the occasional remarks about the role of money hint that top fundraisers such as Dan Koh and Rufus Gifford may come to face attacks from their opponents on that topic.
Organizers at UMass Lowell and the Boston Globe, which co-sponsored the debate, used results of their poll released last week to split the candidates into two groups. Those in the bottom half of the poll participated in the first one-hour session, while those in the top half went second.
Questions were mostly different in both debate sessions, although they focused on the same central topics of the economy, opioids, immigration and infrastructure.
—-
FIRST DEBATE: Jeff Ballinger, Beej Das, Leonard Golder, Patrick Littlefield, Bopha Malone, Keith St.John
—-
The run-up to Sunday’s first debate was tense as two participants, Das and Littlefield, criticized organizers — at times in colorful language — for separating the field based on those poll results, which found close to 60 percent of likely Democratic voters still undecided in the race.
The debate itself, however, was mostly civil. Candidates presented positive, albeit sometimes general, messages, often repeating similarly progressive policy suggestions in slightly different language from their opponents.
On the first question about student loan debt, all candidates said the federal government should be more involved in addressing the issue, whether by allowing refinancing of student loans or establishing a national service program for students to earn financial credit. Malone and Das specifically suggested the government wipe out all student debt, a topic Das said he would address in a full plan Monday.
Candidates mostly agreed on a question about immigration, too. All six supported establishing a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants who are already in the country and have not been involved in criminal activity. Malone, who came to the United States as a young refugee from Cambodia, and Das, whose parents immigrated from India, emphasized their personal connections to the issue.
A question on opioids drew broad language about the importance of treatment and the urgency with which the government must respond, but little specificity. Candidates were asked how much of a role illegal fentanyl trafficking plays in the epidemic, particularly in light of Trump’s claims that Lawrence is a major hub for fentanyl.
Most spoke generally about the scale of the epidemic, suggesting more investment in treatment centers and the need to crack down on doctors overprescribing legal opioids. St.John noted that a large portion of fentanyl enters the country through the mail from China, and Das called distributors of fentanyl “animals.”
Differences emerged during the two “lightning rounds,” when candidates were given only a few words to respond. Asked if they would support impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump, Malone, Ballinger, St.John and Das said yes, while Golder and Littlefield said they would prefer to wait more time.
The second lightning round asked candidates who they would like to see clinch the Democratic nomination for president in 2020. Ballinger and St.John said U.S. Rep. Seth Moulton, who represents the neighboring district, Das said former Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick, Golder said former Vice President Joe Biden, Malone said U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris and Littlefield said he would support someone from Massachusetts, but declined to name an individual.
There was virtually no back-and-forth between candidates. Moderator Shira Center, politics editor at the Boston Globe, offered candidates a 30-second rebuttal if they were ever referenced directly by an opponent, but that never happened during the first debate. At times, candidates make vague references to opponents who had more money or high-profile support.
Das was the only member of the first debate to criticize two other candidates by name. While answering a question about transportation infrastructure, he described his work on the North-South Rail Link, he called out two members of the second debate.
“Lori Trahan and Dan Koh signed up to that board and haven’t shown up yet,” Das said.
The six candidates stood apart from one another most in their closing remarks when, as if making sales pitches, they drew on individual traits to describe why they should be elected to Congress.
Ballinger returned to his major theme of curtailing corporate abuses of power. Das touted his experiences in both constitutional law and small business. Golder specifically referenced a wide range of progressive issues. Littlefield criticized “establishment influence” in the race and portrayed himself as the most competent candidate. Malone described her journey as a refugee and the challenges she has overcome. St.John called for on-the-ground interaction with constituents.
—-
SECOND DEBATE: Alexandra Chandler, Rufus Gifford, Dan Koh, Barbara L’Italien, Juana Matias, Lori Trahan
—-
Even more so than the first debate, participants in the second session made a point to personalize their answers to most policy questions.
On immigration, a topic on which all candidates once again called for a pathway to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and a bill to support Dreamers, the differences came in how the points were presented. Matias spoke about her journey to the United States as a young Dominican girl, while Trahan and Koh both described their family’s immigration history and L’Italien cited her work on the issue at the Statehouse.
Like the first debate, candidates were agreement on most policy questions. All called for stricter federal action to curb gun violence, offering support for a nationwide ban on assault weapons and mandated background checks. Every candidate criticized the tax bill passed last year as disproportionately giving benefits to the wealthy.
And just as in the first debate, questions seeking specific answers often drew general ones. Candidates were asked how they would prioritize use of $10 million to address the opioid crisis, and none said exactly what they would spend money on first or how much should be allocated. Chandler came closest, saying the “bulk” should go to medication-assisted treatment programs, but the others spoke broadly to support treatment or to criticize the Trump administration’s response.
A question about how to address economic stagnation brought some of the most varied responses, answers that may indicate where candidates’ priorities lie. Koh, Matias, Trahan and Chandler all mentioned support of a $15 minimum wage, among other initiatives. L’Italien spoke about the importance of unions and innovation groups such as Lawrence’s EforAll, while Gifford cited green jobs as a strategy to boost employment in the district.
In the first lightning round, most candidates graded Republican Gov. Charlie Baker’s job performance poorly, most often pointing to issues with public transit. L’Italien and Chandler gave him a D, Matias gave him a C-, Gifford and Koh gave him a C, and Trahan was the most positive, giving him a B.
The second debate was virtually as polite as the first, although after closing remarks, the moderator gave Koh a chance to respond to comments about his connections to Boston’s City Hall. Koh declined and allowed the event to end, saying candidates had “taken too much of your Sunday.”
Closing remarks provided the most crystallized version of each campaign’s central theme: Chandler’s small-campaign emphasis on “big ideas, not big money”; Gifford’s optimistic charisma, perhaps a result of his work with former President Barack Obama; Koh’s promise to “stand up” to the Trump administration; L’Italien’s years in elected office; Matias’ hard-working rise that took her into social work and law; Trahan’s local roots and local support.
With candidates so close to one another on policy, those differences could prove to be the fulcrum of the race.
Follow Chris on Twitter @ChrisLisinski.