If the Sharice Davids-Kevin Yoder debate had been a boxing match, Yoder would have won every round. Had it been a little league game, the umps would have invoked the mercy rule and called the game after the second inning.
How lopsided was the debate? Consider the following comment from the Kansas City Star editorial board. Yoder “was the clear aggressor in the debate. He showed more of a mastery of policy details, while repeatedly criticizing Davids for vague answers and inconsistent positions on issues such as health care and immigration.”
The editors continued, “Davids had several opportunities to defend her views on important topics in the debate, yet did not do so. Instead, she sought to attach Yoder to Trump.”
The unfortunate truth is if the two had debated two months ago on television, there would not be a competitive race today. Instead, Davids is on the odds-on favorite to win, her campaign sustained by a handful of empty talking points—“raised by a single mom,” “Trump’s values”—and a whole lot of outside money.
The Star, both in its news coverage and in its editorial, tried to give Davids a round based on Yoder’s criticism of the EPA. The problem is that Yoder, unlike the Star or Davids, knows what he is talking about, and the voters don’t care.
To Yoder’s criticism that Davids moved to the Third District solely to run for Congress, she had no answer save that she was raised by a single mom.
Yoder’s most devastating stroke, one that he made well and often, was that Davids supported House Resolution 676, the Democrats’ single payer legislation in Congress.
Yoder asked more than once why Davids would not be honest with the voters about her support for HR 676 and why she approved denying her constituents private health insurance, the insurance of choice of 2/3 of those constituents.
It should be noted, by the way, that the Star editors endorsed Sharice Davids. If they had any integrity, they would take the endorsement back. Davids is not yet ready for the Overland Park City Council, let alone Congress.