Via Eye on Williamson, an article about the ins and outs of ducking debates.
At present, none of Austin’s congressional incumbents are planning to debate their challengers. Not Lloyd Doggett, D-Austin; not Lamar Smith, R-San Antonio; not Michael McCaul, R-Austin; and not Carter.
“There’s nothing good that can happen as a result of debating your opponent when you’re an incumbent,” said Sean Theriault, an assistant professor of government at the University of Texas. “The only thing you do is give your challenger a chance to appear on the same stage as you, which equalizes the playing field.”
Equalizing the playing field is not something incumbents are interested in. Two of them, Smith and Doggett, already have to make sure their new constituents know them after a court shifted their districts this summer. McCaul’s campaign officials say they are still looking for an opportunity to debate even though the campaign has not proposed a date and has turned down several offers to face off with Democrat Ted Ankrum and Libertarian Michael Badnarik on local TV and radio stations.
The League of Women Voters offered to hold debates in Austin and Houston, the two major cities at either end of the district. McCaul accepted neither. Those venues were “two weeks in the making,” Ankrum said. “So if McCaul couldn’t find time in his schedule for it, it was because he didn’t want to.”
Local TV stations offer airtime as a public service, but when the incumbent refuses, that offer is often withdrawn, costing the challenger potential TV exposure.
When Carter declined to debate Harrell at a recent PBS forum, it was canceled, she said.
Instead of at debates, Carter’s campaign is communicating with voters at town hall meetings and on telephone calls, campaign spokesman Jonas Miller said. “A debate does not fit into his campaign strategy at this time,” Miller said. “Carter strongly believes that there are more effective ways for him to reach out to constituents, rather than debates.”
Harrell said that tactic costs voters.
“It tells you everything you need to know about my opponent,” Harrell said. “They’re saying they think he can’t win if he shows up at a forum. It’s not about what’s best for voters, it’s all about winning.”
Both Smith and Doggett’s offices released statements on their debate decisions.
“When the congressman’s opponents are so far behind, there is no reason to give their campaigns any help,” campaign spokesman Gerardo Interiano said. Smith, who is in a special election because of redistricting, faces six opponents including Democrat John Courage and Libertarian Jim Strohm for his 21st District seat.
Doggett, who is also in a special election and faces three challengers, including Republican Grant Rostig and Libertarian Barbara Cunningham, said in a statement that “since I haven’t seen my opponents as I crisscross the new parts of this district, from Flatonia to Kyle, from Wimberley to Halletsville, nor have I met anyone else who has, I’ve made no final scheduling decision.”
Since I’ve been hard on various Republicans for their achievements in debate ducking, I’ll say that Lloyd Doggett shouldn’t be doing it, either. I agree that he’s got no-profile opposition, but democracy demands participation. Frankly, the fact that he and Lamar Smith are in largely new districts puts a bigger onus on them to engage in candidate fora and debates, especially in the new areas where they haven’t served before. I would not say that the onus is on Doggett (or any incumbent) to organize such events – if his opposition is so amateurish that they can’t at least make contact with the League of Women Voters or a campus political group, then it becomes harder to criticize him for ducking – but if such things are out there, he owes it to his constituents to show up. Incumbents get a zillion advantages. This is the least they can do.
(Obviously, everything I said I the paragraph above, other than the remarks about Doggett’s opposition, go for Lamar Smith as well. He does not have the excuse of there being no organized debates for his district.)
And I do think that every once in awhile, not debating becomes a bigger negative for an incumbent. I think Carter’s silly excuses have worked against him in an election cycle where his buffoonery has been on display multiple times. I think a nontrivial number of voters will agree with Harrell’s reasoning for his actions. I suspect the reason John Davis has agreed to debate Sherrie Matula is precisely because he recognizes that she’s being taken more seriously than he is right now. I just think it shouldn’t be about the calculations but about what’s best for the voters. That means giving them every opportunity to see what their choices are and make the best decision they can. Idealistic of me, I know, but every once in awhile you’ve gotta believe in that. Is this really so much to ask?