Last week, I had the pleasure of being invited by the Raleigh County Republican Executive Committee to come cover their debate, featuring the top four GOP candidates for governor of West Virginia at the beautiful Resort at Glade Springs.

The event was interesting for several reasons. For one, it was a paid event, meaning one had to pay to be there unless specifically invited (such as media). Despite this, the ballroom we were in was packed and it was filled with people from all across the state who made the trek to Daniels right outside Beckley.

The level of interest in the debate says a lot, especially since one had to pay for a seat. Outside the Republican race for attorney general, the race for governor is the most interesting primary race in the state. There is little doubt who will win the presidential primaries here, and unless the dynamics begin changing I see little change in the short-term in the GOP U.S. Senate primary.

As for other statewide races below governor, they never really garner much interest until much closer to the May primary. The exception to that is the attorney general’s race, where state Sen. Mike Stuart is trying to make waves against State Auditor J.B. McCuskey’s money advantage.

But the Republican governor’s race is huge in West Virginia, dominated by Attorney General Patrick Morrisey, former House Judiciary Committee Chairman Moore Capito, Huntington businessman Chris Miller, and Secretary of State Mac Warner. The winner in May will go on to face a well-qualified Democratic candidate in Huntington Mayor Steve Williams. And the winner of the November general election will fill the large shoes of Gov. Jim Justice, who himself is seeking the GOP nod for U.S. Senate in May.

WV MetroNews Talkline host Hoppy Kercheval moderated the debate, and I was honored to help provide some debate questions. There is audio from the debate at wvmetronews.com, and WOAY-TV will hopefully put the video of the debate online after Sunday.

As far as debates go, I actually thought it was pretty good. I felt it really gave each candidate an opportunity to lay out some public policy goals and their takes on key issues of interest to primary voters. It also allowed people to see how the candidates act under pressure from their opponents and how they respond to criticism.

I don’t believe in calling winners for debates, and think it is also silly when campaigns call themselves the winner of a debate. But I do have some observations.

First, it’s certainly apparent that everyone on the stage saw Morrisey as the biggest target. Up to that point, he led in all of the polls last year and he has been a fundraising juggernaut. But Morrisey has a support ceiling, and Capito, Miller, and Warner all want to try to peel off potential supporters and woo any undecided voters.

Morrisey was hit for the perceived overuse of outside counsel for major and complicated legal cases by the Attorney General’s Office. He was hit for not securing enough settlements in major opioid cases over the years and leaving money on the table. He was hit for his former life as a lobbyist and being an outsider to the state. He was hit for talking too much and too long.

Capito, I felt, was too scripted. He could have been more direct with his answers, but instead he stuck with what seemed to be very rehearsed answers. When attacked, he went back to the script.

At one point he was attacked by Warner for quitting the House of Delegates to campaign instead of being in the Legislature and being a “get-it-done conservative.” When questions arose about being the son of U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., and having things handed to him, his answer wasn’t very clear. But it was also clear his fellow candidates see him as a threat.

Warner came across as very measured, which was a welcome surprise given his campaign to date, which has sometimes struggled to decide who it was appealing to. At the beginning of the debate, Kercheval asked each candidate to explain why they were the most conservative candidate on the stage. Instead of taking the bait, Warner said experience mattered more than who was more conservative.

But Warner, in several cases, was a bit too deferential. When asked directly about key issues, Warner would tell you his opinion, but would pivot to saying he would do what the Legislature thought was best on the issue. On one hand, it’s actually a pretty good way to govern. But on the other hand, if one is looking for assertive answers one might be disappointed in such an answer.

Chris Miller was probably the best when it came to giving direct answers, being able to pivot quickly, being able to take a criticism, and dropping one-liners. However, I think he was trying too hard to maneuver to his fellow candidates’ political right. I also think he showed naivete when he recommended a complete end to the personal income tax without offering a real plan on how to replace the $2 billion the state would lose. The other candidates all agreed a phase-out was a better plan.

However, the conservative Club for Growth must see Miller as a threat that can pull voters away from Morrisey, because they dropped a $1.4 million ad buy in West Virginia TV stations attacking Miller and using negative reviews of his car dealership against him.

We definitely need to see more debates between these four candidates.

(Adams is the state government reporter for Ogden Newspapers. He can be contacted at sadams@newsandsentinel.com)