Our 4 columnists watched the first full Toronto mayoral debate. Here's how they scored Chow, Bradford and Alexander

Was it incumbent Olivia Chow? Leading rival Brad Bradford? Or former federal cabinet minister Chris Alexander?

Was there a decisive blow? A memorable moment? Something that might shape the next five-plus weeks of campaigning for the Oct. 26 vote?

Here’s what they saw.

Matt Elliott: I’m calling this one a draw

The first debate between mayoral contenders Chow, Bradford and Alexander, hosted by the Daily Bread Food Bank, saw all three candidates get a few good bites in, but none of them really made a meal of it.

Chow was at her best when needling Bradford about his voting record on things like shelter and transit funding. But her habit of deflecting when answering direct questions — often just launching into a very specific story about an interaction with a resident — got her in some trouble. She needs a better answer for why she’s not sitting on the police board, for example. It’s a simple question. It deserves a simple answer.

Bradford, meanwhile, really hit a groove talking about development charges toward the end of the debate. His experience as an urban planner is one of his best assets. But a lot of his attempts at political attacks — like linking Chow’s property tax increases to increased food bank use — fell flat.

Last, as a newcomer to municipal politics, Alexander actually came off as pretty endearing. I got the sense he’s come to this campaign with a wide-eyed desire to learn as much as possible as quickly as he can. But I couldn’t really get past something he said in his opening statement about his entry to the race. “I got in late. I’m sorry about that,” he said. I’m not sure an apology is enough to overcome his inexperience — his most fundamental issue.

Matt Elliott is a Toronto-based freelance contributing columnist for the Star. Follow him on Twitter: @GraphicMatt.

Emma Teitel: Real policies and people lost amid folksy anecdotes

There was no definitive winner of Monday night’s mayoral debate but there was a definitive loser: the folksy anecdote. Chow was full of them — so, too, occasionally was her rival, Bradford. We heard about Jason, Sylvia, Larnetta, and Maza, all lead characters in heartfelt anecdotes about what is right or wrong with the city, depending on who you ask. The debate was lighter on actual policy — as in how will the candidates make life materially better for these allegedly real people?

Yet, despite a brief foray into stream-of-anecdote territory, Bradford did quite well, particularly on youth jobs and transit. Critics may point to his cited transit safety ideas as overly cosmetic (for example, “universal lighting and cleanliness standards”) but cosmetics are not a small deal in municipal elections, where voters often measure success by what they see when they step outside their front door or board a train.

Chow, who waffled during an unfortunate “yes or no” speed round involving cardboard paddles that honestly would have confused me, too, might have been better off making a clear, evidence-based case for progressive policies as the long-term answer to the visible poverty and suffering we see in our city. Instead, she allowed anecdote to replace rather than support the substance of her arguments.

Finally, it is not the determination I expected to make at the end of the debate, or perhaps ever in my life, but Alexander had a great night. At least 25 more people now know who he is.

Emma Teitel is a contributing columnist to the Toronto Star, a senior consultant at Crestview Strategy and a former member of the Toronto Star’s editorial board. Email: [email protected]

Shawn Micallef: A heap of cliches, but Chow comes out on top

At a rowdy debate full of partisan supporters, all three candidates relied heavily on political cliches and vague stories of residents dealing with various issues that ultimately rang hollow.

As incumbent, Chow bore most of the attacks and was at an additional, unmentioned disadvantage: hers was a truncated, three-year term rather than the usual four to get things done. Still, Chow could mention accomplishments such as achieving a new deal for the city with the province, starting to build affordable housing and securing federal money so development charges could be lowered.

Despite Bradford leaning heavily into his “people don’t feel safe,” vibe-based campaign talking points, Chow could rightfully point out crime is largely down across the city.

Chow’s challengers listed many things they’d do differently, but rarely addressed how they would pull it off, such as Bradford saying he’d install subway platform doors. A good thing and easy to say in passing, but no explanation of how their $1.4 billion cost would be paid for.

Alexander had an advantage in critiquing two people who are in office, and had courage bringing up that he’d allow more density in the so-called “yellow belt” of protected single-family homes. He also managed a good point by asking why Chow isn’t sitting on the police board herself, though didn’t mention the elephant in that question: police corruption and ballooning costs. Still, though her record isn’t as robust as it could be, it gave Chow the incumbent’s advantage and she came out on top.

Shawn Micallef is a freelance contributing columnist who writes about where and how we live in the GTA. Wander the streets with him on Bluesky: @shawnmicallef.bsky.social.

Martin Regg Cohn: Bradford scores by moderating attacks

The democratic appeal of campaign debates is that they let voters see and hear the candidates for themselves, unfiltered by the media. Which is why I’m always leery of political columnists or campaign columnists who “score” debates like a prizefight. In truth, everyone in the audience has their own truth, seeing and perceiving the match-up differently.

To be fair, Chow had a tough night defending her record in a format that pitted her as the incumbent against not one but two challengers. Bradford and Alexander both criticized her record on transit safety, her conspicuous absence from the police board, increased food bank use, encampments in public parks and the rise in hate crimes in the last few years (which, they noted, disproportionately affect Toronto Jews — prompting a defensive Chow to read and then reread scripted comments saying antisemitism is unacceptable).

Bradford had a good night because he modulated and moderated his attacks on Chow — stressing his criticisms were political, not personal — while citing his credentials as a professional urban planner who worked at city hall before serving as a councillor.

Alexander had the oddest night because it wasn’t clear why he was onstage, beyond showing off his putative debating skills from Oxford and House of Commons days. He confessed to boning up on his “homework” about Toronto. His talk of newcomers rang hollow, given his failed campaign as a federal Tory pushing the notorious “Barbaric Cultural Practices” dog whistle. In light of his low poll numbers, what makes this doomed candidate run?