Low and Liccardo face off in a highly anticipated debate

SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA. – The race for California’s 16th congressional district in the South Bay is Democrat versus Democrat. California Assemblymember Evan Low and former San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo faced off tonight in a highly anticipated debate hosted by NBC Bay Area, Telemundo 48 and KQED.

The debate was postponed after Liccardo said he lost his voice to laryngitis. It was the first time Liccardo and Low faced each other on the debate stage, as both made their case to voters ahead of November’s election.

The candidates are vying for MP Anna Eshoo’s seat, which she has held for more than 30 years.

Tensions were high early on and continued into Friday’s debate as both candidates emerged with momentum.

“We should agree on one basic principle: every vote should be counted. And we can agree on that, with the exception of Evan Low; his ethics.

“It is important that we talk about our record and not just rhetoric. “You’ll hear a lot about a plan, but records are important,” Low replied.

Low made it into the November election thanks to the results of not one but two recounts after the March primary, an issue that Liccardo focused on.

The candidates traded blows over discussions of homelessness, crime, technology regulation and immigration. Although they belong to the same party, they offer different solutions to the myriad problems facing District 16’s South Bay cities.

Proposition 36 is an area where the candidates showed a stark contrast. The proposal will go before California voters next month and, if passed, would impose harsher penalties for some people convicted of drug or theft crimes.

When asked if he supported the proposal, Liccardo said “yes.”

“I do, I will vote for it. I think it’s an imperfect suggestion. I would probably do things a little differently, but fundamentally we need accountability for crime. That doesn’t mean people have to go to prison for it.” “Five or 10 years, that means every time a crime is committed, there has to be an arrest,” Liccardo said.

Low is strongly against the proposal.

“I’m not for it. I refuse to return to the era of mass incarceration. If Mr. Liccardo would pay attention to what we have done at the state level to ensure that we record a package of retail theft bills, then that would be helpful to ensure that we address the issue of total loss to ensure that it in the case of stolen goods, it is a total of these losses, to ensure that if a theft occurs there is damage that will be prosecuted, and to ensure that this is also the case “If a car is broken into and there is no damage , that person also faces penalties,” Low said of his position.

Record versus rhetoric remained on the table as Low attacked Liccardo’s record on crime and homelessness.

“When I speak with business owners, public safety is a key issue they care about. You don’t feel safe. That’s why I’m the best candidate. My opponent decimated the San Jose Police Department,” Low said.

Liccardo sought to convince voters that he is a far more experienced and effective leader than his opponent, citing his support within Low’s caucus.

“The colleagues Evan Low has worked with every day for the past 10 years do not trust his leadership. He has never held a leadership position since he was removed from his post. And he can’t lead them. “What can we expect from them, the Republicans in Congress, to respond to his leadership?” Liccardo said.

The most recent survey on the district was released late last month by the University of Southern California. In a poll of likely California voters, Liccardo was leading at 31%, while Low was at 20%. In this survey, 40% of voters were still undecided. So the big question is: How might that change after tonight’s debate?