Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs (D-AZ) should debate her Republican opponent, Rep. Andy Biggs (R-AZ). I also understand why she won’t.
Four years ago, Hobbs refused to debate Republican Kari Lake during their race for governor. She took plenty of criticism for it. Reporters repeatedly pressed her to reconsider. Hobbs argued that appearing onstage with Lake would produce a spectacle rather than a useful discussion of the issues.
Then Hobbs won.
The lesson was hard to miss: refusing to debate might generate some bad headlines, but voters may not care enough to punish you for it.
But the more important issue is not Hobbs. It is the incentive her decision exposes.
Why should candidates debate if voters do not care whether they do?
Now Hobbs is running for reelection, and her campaign has announced that she will not debate Biggs. Her campaign says face-to-face interaction with Arizonans is more useful than participating in a forum built around short soundbites and political theater.
There is an awkward wrinkle.
Hobbs’s campaign has also criticized Biggs for skipping debates and forums. Yet Hobbs herself has now declined to debate him.
That is difficult to square. If Biggs owed Republican voters a debate during the primary, why does Hobbs not owe Arizona voters one during the general election?
Politicians respond to incentives, and increasingly those incentives favor staying off the debate stage.
President Donald Trump made essentially the same decision during the 2024 Republican presidential primaries. He was the dominant candidate and skipped every debate. His opponents stood onstage arguing with one another while the candidate leading them all decided there was little reason to participate.
He went on to win the Republican nomination easily.
The calculation is simple: a strong performance may help a little, while a terrible one can damage a campaign overnight. The possible reward is limited and the downside enormous.
That may sound cynical, but campaign professionals are paid to win elections, not to preserve political traditions.
There is evidence that debates have been disappearing for years. A Brookings Institution analysis of the five most competitive U.S. Senate races found 17 debates in 2010. By 2020, there were seven. In 2022, only six had been held or scheduled at the time the analysis was published.
Which raises a harder question: If we really believe debates are important, why do we make refusing them so easy?
We routinely say candidates should debate. Editorial boards say it. Political opponents say it. Voters say it. Then a candidate refuses, the election arrives, and many of us vote exactly as we would have voted if the debate had taken place.
Candidates notice.
Few voters will abandon their views on taxes, abortion, immigration, or education over a debate invitation.
Refusing to debate should carry some political cost. Supporters can object, editorial boards can make the refusal part of their evaluations, and reporters can keep asking why a candidate seeking public office will not face an opponent. A day or two of bad press is not enough.
Without that pressure, debates stop being an expected part of running for office and become just another campaign tactic: participate when the possible reward outweighs the risk and decline when it does not.
For an hour or two, candidates have to occupy the same space. One can challenge something the other just said. A moderator can press for an answer. Voters can compare not only their policies but also how they respond when someone disagrees with them.
Debates are hardly perfect. They can become theatrical. Candidates dodge questions. Moderators sometimes focus on moments that generate attention rather than illuminate policy.
Those flaws cannot become a blanket excuse for candidates to decide that an opponent is too theatrical, too dishonest, too extreme, or simply not worth debating. If every candidate gets to make that decision, the tradition will not survive for long.
Voters deserve the chance to see the people asking for their votes challenged in public.
CANDACE OWENS DEBATED CHARLIE KIRK’S MURDER. WHO’S INVESTIGATING THE DEATH OF TRUTH?
Hobbs should debate Biggs. But if she refuses, I understand the political calculation. She tried it four years ago, and she won.
The uncomfortable truth is that candidates may keep refusing debates for as long as voters keep showing them that they can.
David W. Falls is a retired Microsoft engineering program manager who spent 33 years leading large-scale engineering and technology programs through major industry transitions, including the rise of personal computing, the internet, and mobile systems. He now writes about technology, science, politics, and culture. His work has appeared in RealClearScience, The Humanist, The Space Review, Interalia Magazine, and other publications. He is the author of God’s AI Reckoning: The Final Revelation and The Great Silence: What Remains After Belief. His forthcoming book is Who Owns You? AI, Identity, and the Fight to Control the Digital Self.