You know the underdog or who is down in the polls during a campaign by who wants more debates. Still, the lack of forums involving candidates for top jobs at the local and statewide level is unfortunate. As the general election approaches, I wonder if voters actually know the candidates’ various positions or even who many of them are.
The value of debates is that they can catch a candidate off guard and force them to answer questions they may otherwise avoid, such as, “Do you support Obamacare?”; “Are you pro-life or pro-choice?”; “Do you think federal lands should be transferred to the states?” Of course, many candidates are gifted at serving up platitudes and vague talking points to avoid answering questions, but every so often they reveal a position that was previously unclear.
That is not to say a candidate should take seriously propositions from opposing campaigns that challenge them to 17 debates across Montana. There is such a thing as too many. In 2012, Gov. Steve Bullock and his challenger, former Congressman Rick Hill, debated a half-dozen times across the state. That seemed like a lot, even though I hosted one of them, because it’s difficult to cover new ground after about three meetings. But Bullock and Hill were in a tight race and embraced the platforms, for better or worse.
Entering a presidential primary is perhaps the best way to over-debate. Between May 2011 and February 2012, various Republicans participated in 20 debates. In all, eventual winner Mitt Romney agreed to 19 of them. But apparently that wasn’t enough. Newt Gingrich consistently challenged Romney to a one-on-one, Lincoln-Douglas-style debate. Romney declined.
The Lincoln-Douglas-style debate challenge, where there is no moderator and fewer time limits, is popular among presidential primary candidates. In 2008, Hillary Clinton made the same proposal to President Barack Obama. “Unfortunately, Sen. Obama has not agreed yet,” Clinton said at the time, “and he’s turned down every debate that has been offered.” Obama, in fact, participated in a whopping 25 of 26 Democratic debates during that election cycle.
Comparatively, the series of Montana gubernatorial debates in 2012 seems downright reasonable, which then makes the current schedule for both the state’s U.S. House and Senate candidates exceptionally sparse. Yes, the candidates debated in June in Butte. But even fewer voters are paying attention in the early summer as they are now, and one of the participating candidates, Democratic Sen. John Walsh, has since dropped out of the race following a plagiarism scandal.
As of this printing, just one debate between Montana’s U.S. House candidates, Republican Ryan Zinke and Democrat John Lewis, is scheduled in Bozeman between now and the election. In the U.S. Senate race between Republican Rep. Steve Daines and Democrat Amanda Curtis, there is one debate tentatively scheduled in Billings.
According to Lee Newspapers’ Mike Dennison, several news organizations, including the Daily Inter Lake, are still waiting to here back from the campaigns. Refusing to debate at all is not unprecedented in Montana. In 2008, then Democratic Sen. Max Baucus declined to share a stage with Republican candidate Bob Kelleher. But it is more unusual when none of the candidates are incumbents in the offices they’re seeking.
Let’s hope the candidates agree to meet at least a couple more time before the election, for which early voting begins in just a few short weeks. That also goes for Flathead County Commission candidate Phil Mitchell, who has declined to debate Stacey Schnebel, telling the Inter Lake, “There is no debate as to where I stand.”
That’s fine. But why not declare those positions in a public forum? Because I don’t think everyone knows.