To two specific panelists, whose identities I will make clear:
These ad hominem remarks are laughable; namely, my apparent "abrupt attitude," to which Dem so coolly referred, and which apparently results in "snippy remarks," as CSP had almost ostentatiously added. Am I condescending and headstrong at times? Without a doubt I am; however, how on Earth is that a major issue? Although you mentioned the obvious two problems of my recent recruitment failures and my not having the backing of a political organisation, it seems as though you went digging for more.
Now, if most of what the voters are looking at are "who's nicer," and in so doing make that a priority ahead of past Senate performance (which you had not mentioned at all), then we have a very serious problem. Having said that, I do not think that we have such a problem. As such, I would like to ask you, Dem and CSP, why you think my character holds relevance to how many votes I will get; more specifically, how it is more relevant than my contributions to the Senate, as you have implied through failing to mention them at all; considering that I have conducted myself professionally and have been helpful during my entire Senate career. If either of you do decide to respond, I would like it if you keep your answers focused to that, rather than go off on a tangent concerning the things that could actually cost me votes.