As it happens, Ken Bagwell forgot to record the on air debate between Goforth and Gorny.
This un-rehearsed debate clearly showed Goforth to be an out-of-touch, bumbling angry boob. Publicity on this debate could have been a great advantage to Gorny. In fact, I could write pages of refutation based on his comments. Now, with no record of the comments, no one can refer to them with any force or credibility.
After the debate, Goforth called AC-T to chastise a reporter for reporting on him. That shows that he is vulnerable in the points made in the report and referred to by Gorny on air. This is where the Gorny campaign can strike and make some gains.
One key point:
Goforth argued that the law he signed in committee does not explicitly state that male teachers can come to work dressed as women without consequence. He is correct. That scenario is not contained in the law.
But Mr. Goforth seems not to understand the difference between crafting legislation and applying the law. The laws against murder do not detail every possible method of carrying out that crime, nor should it. It does not specify poison, knife, gun, rock, paper or scissors. The law should be broad enough to cover those possible cases. And the law that Goforth promoted and signed disallowing discrimination in the school system based on "transgender orientation or expression" is broad enough to cover just the scenario Gorny suggested. The scenario that Goforth denied the law could possibly affect.
For an elected representative, Goforth, to argue in a hostile manner with constituents in a public forum is unseemly, rude and defensive. It demonstrates that his position has weaknesses he'd rather not address. I recommend that Goforth's opponent go for the kill after clearly smelling blood.
Goforth cannot decide if Jim Black is good or bad. He continually defers to the legal process as the determining factor. That is, if Black gets caught, then he's guilty. If Black does not get caught, then he is innocent.
In these cases, Goforth has telegraphed where he is vulnerable: Intellectual rigor, respect and civility, and common moral discrimination.