Jack Ciattarelli and Mikie Sherrill wrangled for over 90-minutes on Sunday evening in a town hall-style debate at Rider University’s alumni gym, Save Jerseyans. A record-sized and frequently rowdy crowd took in the debate live and in person. State legislators, party bosses, local activists, students, and ordinary voters sitting elbow to elbow. 1,600 strong, packed to the rafters and yes, it got a bit toasty in there. The TMZ-style “fly on the wall” camera work gave viewers at home an entirely different experience.
Who won? That’s what you want to know, right?
It might be easier to answer who thinks they’re losing. Congresswoman Sherrill’s debate “answers” (and I’m being ridiculously generous by calling them that) consisted of platitudes and shoehorned references to President Trump which, in fairness, is at least consistent since a substance-less, Trump-obsessed messaging strategy has characterized her campaign’s messagign to date. One of the first panelist questions challenged her perceived lack of knowledge depth concerning state-specific issues. She promptly reacted to the question by failing to answer it, and with the notable exception of childhood vaccinations (which brought out her inner angry Karen) and online privacy, didn’t seem able (or willing) to supply specifics on anything.
Ciattarelli, true to form, was confidently hyper-substantive in detailing his plans including freezing property taxes at age 70, capping them at 1% of assessed value for first time home buyers, streamlining the state’s tax brackets, and ending the Mount Laurel (Affordable Housing) Doctrine. He missed a couple of easy opportunities for devastating zingers (like confronting Sherrill with her opposition to the Laken Riley Act), but if you’re in the market for competence this fall? It wasn’t much of a contest.
At times? It felt like watching an experienced CFO debate an aged-out pageant contestant.
Here’s one of my favorites. Sherrill and the DGA have been slandering Jack Ciattarelli for weeks with ads accusing him of trying to implement a 10% sales tax hike. Jack was asked about it at the debate and said “no,” not happening. When given the chance to rule out her own sales tax hike immediately thereafter, Mikie… refused to do so!
I couldn’t believe my ears:
Sherrill: “I’m not going to commit to anything…” https://t.co/1OCrd7ajps pic.twitter.com/tSq0jM1q9P
— RNC Research (@RNCResearch) September 22, 2025
Her non-answer on Sanctuary Statehood wasn’t any better:
@MikieSherrill refuses to answer the question on New Jersey being a Sanctuary State.
New Jersey families deserve safe communities.
On Day One, @Jack4NJ will work to make New Jersey SAFE & END the Immigrant Trust Directive. #NJGovDebate pic.twitter.com/8E2cF2m4gP
— The RGA (@GOPGovs) September 22, 2025
And then she came out in favor of MANDATORY municipal consolidation? What??
Crazy stuff. But what really jumped out at me as much as the substance was Sherrill’s apparent offensive theory of the debate.
Despite the existence of a *public* polling consensus of a mid-to-high single digit Sherrill lead, the amateurish-sounding Democrat nominee presented more like the long shot underdog challenger than the frontrunner throughout most of the debate. Every response followed the same formula as you just witnessed in the cuts posted above: (1) feigned sweetness in her native Virginia Chardonnay accent, (2) word salad, (3) somehow the lack of dressing on the word salad is Trump’s fault, and (4) Jack supports Trump.
Does any of this move the center in 2025? Probably not, but I also don’t think she’s trying to persuade anyone at this point. There’s a growing body of evidence that Sherrill has a base problem, and everything about her performance on Sunday night would seem to validate that her campaign is seeing a base problem manifested in their internal numbers. The most recent Quinnipiac Poll found Jack with an 11-point edge among those who are “very” enthusiastic about their candidate. The Ciattarelli internals show the GOP hopeful moving into a lead position for the first time.
Sherrill debated like a candidate in trouble who also knows she’s in trouble.
For as unprepared and uncomfortable in her own shoes as she came across for most of the evening, she still attacked – with very mixed success – like someone trying to score points with limited time left on the play clock.
I think most viewers picked up on it. Time will tell.
