Let's have a debate about debates
Whether Hobbs participates in a debate, or how she performs if she does, will likely have little effect on the general election outcome.
After ducking debates in the primary election, Katie Hobbs is being coy about participating in one for the general. She says, for example, that she has problems with the proposed format for the debate hosted by the Clean Elections Commission.
Some political observers believe that this a grievous strategic error. If Hobbs isn't willing to go toe-to-toe with Kari Lake, goes the analysis, how can she convince voters she can handle the big chair in state government.
The contrary view here is that the number of votes Hobbs would lose for declining to debate is vanishingly small.
If Hobbs wins, it will be because she isn’t Kari Lake.
Some will vote for Hobbs out of policy preferences and in support of a more liberal direction in state government.
Hobbs’ margin of victory, however, won’t come from those who strongly prefer her on policy and even from those who aren’t too hot on a more liberal direction for state government. Her margin of victory, should it materialize, will come from those who don’t want to see a complete Trumpian takeover of state government.
That’s a real possible outcome of this election. If Republicans keep control of the Legislature, their caucuses will be markedly more Trumpian. Lake is a fully committed Trumpian.
What a complete Trumpian takeover of state government would mean is far from clear. The Trumpians are much more clear about who and what they disdain than what they might do if put in charge. However, it certainly wouldn’t be quiet, competent, commonsense governance.
The prospect of a complete Trumpian takeover of state government, if adequately conveyed, will be deeply alarming to the Ducey-Sinema voters who now hold the balance of power in Arizona general elections. In 2018, there were roughly 225,000 Arizonans who voted for Republican Doug Ducey for governor and Democrat Kyrsten Sinema for U.S. Senate. In this election, their ranks are likely to be considerably larger.
Electing Hobbs rather than Lake as governor is the most direct and effective way to prevent a complete Trumpian takeover of state government. As governor, Hobbs could check a Trumpian GOP Legislature. It’s the most potent and persuasive argument for her candidacy.
Hobbs doesn’t have to debate Lake to establish that she is not Lake. She just needs to demonstrate to the Ducey-Sinema voters that she is safe and sane. She has that case to make. Her political experience directly tracks that of Jane Hull and Jan Brewer before they occupied the big chair: legislative leadership followed by a stint as secretary of state.
There are an infinite number of ways to convey the safe and sane message to Ducey-Sinema voters other than a debate. In fact, a debate, as they are conducted today, is a very ill-suited mechanism for communicating that message.
On the other hand, I don’t think Hobbs would risk much by participating in a debate, or debates, with Lake. Debates for state offices just aren’t that important of political events. No one could perform more poorly in a debate than Brewer, who actually froze on camera for an extended and highly disconcerting period of time. And she still won handily.
The other argument for participating in debates is that it is something candidates owe to democracy. But debates as conducted in the modern political era are unproductive contributions to the democratic process.
All that happens in today’s debates is that candidates regurgitate their unilluminating talking points while the hapless moderators try and fail to keep the discussion on point. The last candidate debate I saw that was a productive contribution to the democratic process, offering voters useful information about the choice at hand, was the 2000 vice presidential debate between Dick Cheney and Joe Lieberman.
Nor does performance in a debate reveal any useful information about how a candidate would perform in office. The skills involved in this artificial performance theater have little overlap with the skills involved in successful governance.
There is one debate I would like to see that would provide useful information for voters, given the ongoing Trumpian claims about the 2020 election.
This would be a real, formal debate with opening statements, rebuttals, and surrebuttals, all within time limits and uninterrupted. The topic would be, Resolved: The Arizona 2020 election was legitimate, fair, and accurate.
The con side would be Trumpian conspiracists Lake and the GOP secretary of state candidate Mark Fitchem. The pro side would be Maricopa County Recorder Stephen Richer and Supervisor Bill Gates.
That debate would amply demonstrate Lake’s superficiality on the subject and Fitchem’s obtuseness.
Reach Robb at robtrobb@gmail.com.