Casey and McCormick Clash in High-Stakes Pennsylvania Senate Debate

The Pennsylvania Senate debate between incumbent Democrat Bob Casey and Republican challenger David McCormick revealed sharp contrasts on key issues, offering voters a clear choice between a long-serving politician and a self-styled outsider. Held just weeks before Election Day, with mail-in voting already underway, the debate encapsulated the central themes shaping both the race and broader national politics.

Casey, Pennsylvania’s longest-serving Democratic senator, is seeking a fourth term, presenting himself as a pragmatic leader with a bipartisan record. McCormick, a former hedge fund CEO and Gulf War veteran, is positioning himself as a Washington outsider capable of bringing fresh leadership to the Senate. In a race that could determine control of the Senate, the stakes are high, and the debate reflected the intensity of their competing visions.

On clean energy, Casey defended the Biden administration’s policies, highlighting the benefits of the 2021 infrastructure law, which he argued has accelerated the country’s clean energy transition while creating jobs. He emphasized the importance of investment in renewable energy as part of the broader effort to combat climate change. McCormick, however, took a different tack, criticizing the policy as a boon for China at America’s expense. He argued that the Biden administration’s clean energy agenda increases U.S. reliance on Chinese technology, particularly in the production of solar panels and batteries, and advocated for expanding natural gas exports to help reduce global emissions by displacing coal-fired power plants abroad.

The two candidates also clashed over abortion rights, an issue that has become increasingly polarizing since the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn *Roe v. Wade*. Casey, once known as a “pro-life Democrat,” has since shifted his stance, voting in favor of restoring abortion rights under the pre-Dobbs *Roe* standard. He explained that most Americans do not believe their daughters should have fewer rights than their mothers, framing the issue as one of equality and fundamental rights. McCormick, while supporting the Supreme Court’s decision to end federal protection for abortion, sought to downplay the impact of his position, arguing that voters, not courts, should decide abortion policy on a state-by-state basis. He also made clear that he would not support a federal ban on abortion, an effort to moderate his stance in a closely divided state.

Gun control was another point of contention. Casey argued in favor of expanding background checks for gun purchases, criticizing McCormick’s support for the Senate filibuster, which requires 60 votes to advance legislation and has frequently been used to block gun control measures. Casey claimed that McCormick’s defense of the filibuster was a way of avoiding action on common-sense reforms that enjoy broad public support. McCormick, on the other hand, rejected further gun control measures, arguing that most gun crimes are committed with illegal firearms, and that additional regulations would do little to curb violence. He positioned himself as a defender of Second Amendment rights, arguing that law-abiding gun owners should not be punished for the actions of criminals.

The debate also saw the candidates align, if only briefly, on foreign policy. Both Casey and McCormick expressed strong support for Israel amid the ongoing war in the Middle East, agreeing that the U.S. must continue its support for the country. They also concurred that Israel should be allowed to determine how to confront its adversaries, such as Iran, without undue interference from Washington. This rare moment of agreement underscored the seriousness of the issue, even as the candidates otherwise remained sharply divided.

Throughout the debate, McCormick sought to paint Casey as a do-nothing career politician, out of touch with Pennsylvanians after decades in office. He repeatedly referenced Casey’s long tenure in the Senate, portraying him as ineffective and overly reliant on partisan talking points. Casey, in response, attacked McCormick’s background as a hedge fund CEO, emphasizing his connections to China and accusing him of making his fortune at the expense of American workers. Casey argued that his own record in the Senate, marked by bipartisan accomplishments, was far more reflective of a commitment to public service than McCormick’s business dealings.

With tens of millions of dollars pouring into the state, Pennsylvania’s Senate race is one of the most expensive in the country, second only to another high-stakes contest. The outcome could well determine the balance of power in the Senate, and both candidates have leaned into their respective strengths. Casey’s experience and long record in the Senate offer him a solid base of support, while McCormick’s outsider status and military background appeal to voters seeking change.

As the election draws nearer, the race remains tight, with both candidates vying to define themselves—and their opponent—in the eyes of Pennsylvania’s voters. Their final debate highlighted the clear choice facing the electorate: a decision between experience and continuity, or new leadership with a different approach to governance.