New Campaign Strategy: Don't Debate

Candidates Increasingly Forgo the Sacred Tradition of Facing Their Opponent to Debate Ideas

In a tense debate Thursday in Georgia, Democratic Sen. Jon Ossoff called his rival a bigot: "You hired half of the Third Reich."

In Michigan, Democratic candidate Abdul-Sasid rejected former Rep. Mike Rogers, calling him a "weak, cowardly, cowardly guy who won't stand until his poll numbers drop."

And in Maine, Democratic candidate Troy Jackson denounced Sen. Susan Collins as a war profiteer: "Senator Collins and her husband are making money off this war, and so are a lot of other people."

The three Republicans in that marquee Senate race had their own objections — trying to frame Youssef as a trust fund kid, Al-Sayed as having family ties to terrorist networks, and Jackson as anti-abortion rights. But it was the Democrats' shenanigans that spread across social media like the viral moments they were meant to be.

It's that dynamic that explains why Tuesday night's Thursday was an anomaly in this election season's high-profile debates. In dozens of races up and down the ballot, candidates are eschewing the hallowed tradition of confronting their opponent to discuss real policy.

In more than half of the gubernatorial and Senate races, the two major party candidates are not expected to participate in any debates before Election Day. This trend continues even in competitions that are considered competitive. The nonpartisan Cook Political Report ranks five gubernatorial races as true tossups. Three—Georgia, Nevada, Ohio—probably won't be debated. The same is true so far for two of the tightest Senate races -- Texas and Ohio.

Strategists explain the evolution as a response to how voters consume information. Few voters watch the debates themselves, they say. The more in-depth coverage of a debate by local journalists rarely reaches the electorate who gaffes and gaffes from the event are cut and amplified by the partisan media.

It's a cliché in the political class that no one really wins a debate, only that someone loses. Senator Darlene Graham learned this last lesson the hard way. After being appointed to fill the remainder of his late brother's term, his bid for a full term in August was defeated in his first debate, saying, "I'm just going to be honest here." "I'm not that knowledgeable about national security." The audience gasped at how closely Senator Lindsey Graham's legacy is tied to shaping US foreign policy.

What made the situation even more awkward last week was when Trump inserted himself into the discussion. With Talarico absent from the trail for days — his campaign said he was recovering from the flu — Trump mercilessly mocked Democrats at a rally in San Antonio, saying he was absent because he's a secret vegetarian whose body rejects the barbecue he eats on photo shoots.

The president then rattled off the messages on his way out of Texas, asking Paxton and Talarico to get it together for a debate to show voters they could physically do it.

"Ladies and gentlemen, it is on information and belief that James Talaferco, a candidate for the United States Senate in Texas, is missing in action!" Trump wrote on his social media Wednesday night. "He should report immediately to a debate stage against Ken Paxton, who is ready, willing and able."

"President Trump said Ken Paxton needs to debate. I agree," Talarico said in a blunt opening. "The ball's in your court, Ken."

Onstage debates have long been seen as the defining moments of the race — the event where the candidates, unable to rely on spin doctors or teleprompters, reveal who they really are.

According to a recent ABC News analysis, of this year's 36 gubernatorial races, 21, or 58 percent, will not see a debate between the two major party candidates. The same ABC News analysis puts the share of Senate races likely to reach Election Day without a debate at 60 percent.

The Brookings Institution has followed this trend for a quarter of a century. In 2000, the top five Senate races had a total of 17 debates. This figure became a single digit in 2018.

Some political insiders also question how much debate matters, especially in tight races when voters are bombarded with ads. In the tight Texas Senate race, for example, voters there have already seen more than $425 million in political advertising and counting. Or as a savvy ad buyer, more than four times the cost of the final season of Game of Thrones.

Two years ago, Donald Trump won the presidency for the third time without a debate with any of his fellow Republicans. His argument at the time was that he was so far ahead in the polls that there was no point in raising rivals.

A similar argument is being made this cycle in Alabama. Sen. Tommy Tuberville, who is running for governor, has declined to debate former Sen. Doug Jones, saying the evening will be "about disagreement" and not actually governing. Republicans argue that they're already guaranteed to win the race, and putting Jones on the same stage would undercut Tuberville.

And then there are those who insist that they reject a principled argument. Amy Acton, in a tight race to become Ohio's first Democratic governor since 2011, has declined to debate Republican candidate Vivek Ramaswamy. Acton's campaign says it refuses to "platform" Ramaswamy. Or as Acton recently put it: He doesn't want to argue with "a chronic liar."

Absence from the midterm debate stage may be a foreshadowing of what's to come in 2028 — which is shaping up to be dominated by two crowded and high-profile battles for the Republican and Democratic presidential nominations. As recently as 2024, lagging Republican candidates have struggled to make their way onto the main debate stage, lest they sit in undercard debates that have often been unfavorably compared to the kids' holiday table. Looking ahead, candidates may rethink this strategy, forgoing the potentially tough questioning of televised debates in favor of viral and dramatic moments they can better control.