Debate Diary: Why would one candidate want to debate and another wouldn’t?

This is part of a series of articles examining and explaining the debate process in preparation for the U.S. Senate debate between Mark Warner and Jim Gilmore. The two will debate live Oct. 3 in Roanoke. Read related articles.

There are several factors that influence campaigns whether it is to their advantage to engage in one or more public debates. Obviously, if a candidate is behind in the polls and has limited funds for advertising and campaign activities, it is usually to their advantage to engage in as many debates as possible. Such debates generate publicity and perhaps controversy surrounding the opponent. In contrast, a candidate who is well ahead of the opponent does not want debate, especially close to Election Day in fear of making a misstatement or offering free publicity to the opposition. Another factor for candidates is the quality of debating skills. Some candidates are good in free flowing, give and take forums while others prefer the carefully written script format of public presentation. Finally, media pressure may influence or encourage a debate arguing they perform a needed and essential role in a Democracy. While without question, debates are helpful to all the citizens, campaigns generally view them as a “necessary evil.” They prefer venues where they can have as much control as possible over an event.