Who won the mayoral debate between Chow and Bradford? Our columnists weigh in

What was to have been a three-way forum became a two-person show with the exit from the campaign earlier in the day of former federal immigration minister Chris Alexander, who had been polling in the single digits. His departure came the same day advance voting — a critical early sprint for mayoral and council contenders — opened in Toronto.

How did Alexander’s exit change the feel of the contest? Our columnists size up the showdown with their thoughts on whether the incumbent mayor or her only remaining serious rival fared better in a newly narrowed field. 

Richard Warnica: Bradford good enough to put focus to Chow’s flaws

One of the things Bradford told me when we had breakfast a few weeks ago is that he is very coachable. He was an elite figure skater growing up. (He once finished second in junior nationals to Scott Moir.) He still has the competitive athlete’s drive to get better every time out. You could see the tangible results of that Tuesday night. Bradford seems to be listening to the members of his team who (I have to assume) have been begging him to relax and look more natural on stage.

He will never be Barack Obama. Hell, I don’t think he’ll ever be Doug Ford. But he was good enough Tuesday — polished and repetitive without the killer-robot intensity that has dogged him at times in the campaign — to take the focus off his own flaws and put it squarely on the incumbent. I think that could be problem for Chow.

The mayor has never been a strong debater. But I don’t think her biggest problem this time out is debate craft. I think her problem is she still doesn’t have a great answer for what is Bradford’s most effective attack.

I’ve been pretty clear that I don’t think Bradford would be a good mayor. But I do think he has tapped into a very real and pressing frustration many in Toronto feel about public safety, drug use and disorder.

The frustrating thing is that Chow’s city hall has made meaningful progress on those files. Encampment numbers are way down. Chronic homelessness is inching backwards after years of explosive growth. But the problems are still there. They’re a huge issue for many voters. And Chow has yet to show, in this campaign and again on Tuesday, that she can speak to them in a way that actually recognizes many voters’ very real concerns.

Richard Warnica is a Toronto-based senior opinion writer for the Star. Reach him via email: [email protected].

Shellene Drakes-Tull: Chow pokes holes in opponent’s trustworthiness

Chow and Bradford clearly have differing visions and perspectives on what Toronto and its residents need. Both had strong positions throughout the night. Bradford talked about plans to reduce youth unemployment. Chow highlighted her work on transit, including the recent opening of the Scarborough Busway.

But there is something to be said for a current mayor who can point to examples of what has been done versus someone who says what they would do if they had the top job — especially when they’ve been a city councillor for almost eight years.

Chow made it very clear she did not come to play last night.

Bradford talked about the TTC, affordability, jobs and safety, but Chow was able to make voters question Bradford’s trustworthiness. For instance, when the topic turned to supportive housing, Bradford spoke about how homelessness only decreased by eight per cent over a two-year span under Chow’s leadership. The mayor hit back by saying Bradford voted against specific shelter expansions. “Your record speaks very loudly,” Chow said.

While Bradford accused Chow of fearmongering and using scare tactics multiple times, Chow accused Bradford of changing his beliefs to get elected.

So, who won? Zingers don’t win debates or elections, but they can make viewers question a candidate’s trustworthiness — especially when they’re saying something different on the debate stage than what their voting record bears out.

Shellene Drakes-Tull is a Toronto-based storyteller, educator and the founder of Sweet Lime Communications. Reach her via email: [email protected].

Emma Teitel: Key battleground notable by its near-absence

The applause was muted at Toronto Metropolitan University on Tuesday night — a departure from previous debates when Bradford and Chow drew raucous cheers from their respective supporters in the audience. It may be that people have finally grown weary of these things. It feels like there are more debates in this election cycle than there are voters, or more plausibly, would-have-been voters of Chris Alexander.

The former Conservative MP exited the race earlier in the day, paving the way for a one-to-one matchup between the leading candidates in which Bradford was unusually even-keeled. 2026 Bradford is at his best when he channels 2019 Bradford: the keen, vest-clad urban planner who wants to get things done on the housing file. And though vest-less, Old Brad was present on Tuesday night; the Brad of “expediting zoning,” “streamlining process” and “using speed as the primary force” to deliver housing.

Chow, meanwhile, was at her most combative. The mayor seemed to spend less time defending her own record than critiquing her opponent’s. She even got a rare sick burn in. “The only change you’ve ever made is your mind,” she charged, accusing Bradford of flip-flopping on bike lanes and shelters.

Does anyone in Scarborough care? That’s the question that truly matters in a race where winning in the east is of critical importance. Unless my math is off, the word “Scarborough” was only brought up once during the debate, by Chow. If there’s another one of these things, both candidates would be wise to say it a few more times.

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: Why Bradford had a slight edge

With the sudden absence of Alexander, the debate lost the candidate who performed best in this format. Minus an outside critic, the race is down to two people who’ve both had a hand in shaping Toronto. More than once Bradford mentioned how his plans were like Mark Carney’s, seemingly designed to capitalize on the prime minister’s popularity.

Bradford was less angry-seeming than in previous debates while Chow still meandered, as her style is more of a civic storyteller. Fragments of well-honed stump speeches were in full effect, and to watch a debate means girding for a river of cliches from both. Phrases like “firing on all cylinders,” or “in these uncertain times” began to blur. Two that Bradford repeatedly fired at Chow were “fearmongering” and “scare tactics.”

Odd, because she was generally describing positive things, save for one occasion when she warned Bradford’s idea to make Toronto Water a public utility had potential dangers. Odder still, his campaign has placed a heavy emphasis on safety in public space and on the TTC, as well as a promise to hire 1,000 more police officers. To his credit, his concluding statement included the refreshing phrase “Toronto is not broken,” but fear has been one of his campaign staples.

Ultimately the slightest edge goes to Bradford as he delivered his critiques more sharply, while Chow wasn’t always as quick with specifics to counter them, even if they do exist.