Let's have some good, old-fashioned debates

Debates are good. 

They give voters a chance to hear from political candidates in an unscripted environment where they must be able to think on their feet, respond quickly, and articulate a clear, confident message that reflects who they are, what they stand for and why they deserve your vote. 

Debates, those which allow candidates to make points and counterpoints, can be effective for giving voters a good look at how well someone stands under pressure. 

Voters should be able to hear from candidates on the stage, unfiltered, fielding questions that they were not given in advance. Given time, any candidates can offer up sound bites with clever quips. But how do they respond when something unexpected comes their way? Do they seem flustered, or do they offer solid, thoughtful answers. 

Debates can influence the outcome of a race. Remember the famous debate between John Kennedy and Richard Nixon in 1960? It swung the election toward Kennedy. And who doesn't remember the debate between President Joe Biden and Donald Trump? Biden's performance cost him dearly.

Debates matter. That's why we're hoping to see debates between now and the general election on Nov. 3, but we're not holding our breath.  

Here's why. 

In general, challengers want debates. They are underdogs, facing an uphill battle, and a debate gives them a chance to make headway with voters who may know little about them. Debates provide the opportunity for a challenger to share the stage with someone who is already holding office, to speak to the same audience, and allow voters to make their own comparisons and conclusions. 

Incumbents, on the other hand, generally see little reason to agree to a debate unless a race seems to be tightening up. Incumbents, those with a lead in the polls, have less to gain and more to lose in a debate. It's unlikely they will pick up new supporters in a debate but could lose some if their lesser-known opponent simply holds their own. By agreeing to debate their opponent, it could be seen as a sign of weakness. Dismissing a debate, on the other hand, can be seen as a sign of confidence and strength and their adversary is not worth their time. 

But the voters are. 

We believe debates benefit the most important group, which is the voters. We hope incumbents and challengers agree. 

Yes, voters can read about candidates on their websites. They can check their Facebook page and perhaps even read some advertisements in the media. And that's fine. It's a start.

At The Press, we interview candidates when they stop by on their campaign swing and publish stories. We recently covered a forum with independent candidates. We will be publishing a voter's guide next month, with candidates fielding questions from us. And those are informative and helpful to voters. 

But debates offer another, more spontaneous avenue in which to learn about candidates that should be part of the political process, not discounted. It gives voters a chance to see candidates in a close setting that can be more revealing than a social media post.

President Herbert Hoover once said this: “Honest differences of views and honest debate are not disunity. They are the vital process of policy making among free men.”  

And President Theodore had this to say: "A typical vice of American politics is the avoidance of saying anything real on real issues."

These two men have a pretty good idea of what they are talking about.

May the debates begin. When they do, we'll be there. 

So will the people.