Political debates matter if we treat them as more than theater

Every campaign season brings the same question: Do political debates actually matter? The honest answer is uneven and maybe unsatisfying — it depends.

It’s worth acknowledging right at the top something we don’t say out loud often enough: The skills required to campaign well and the skills required to govern well are not the same. Some people who are excellent public servants are not natural performers. Some people who are excellent performers are not natural public servants. But as debates are part of campaigns, we’re still going to talk about them.   

At its best, a debate (or forum or conversation — whatever it’s called in the moment) can be a chance to inform voters, demonstrate judgment, and show how a candidate responds under pressure. Unfortunately for voters seeking information, a debate can also be a performance or a carefully rehearsed sequence of talking points that never quite addresses the question asked. And at worst (at least for the candidates and their supporters) it can be embarrassing, highlighting their lack of subject matter knowledge or skill in performing. 

Related: As Senate race tightens, Flanagan and Tafoya make their final pitches

“Pivots” — where the candidate answers with information that doesn’t really address the subject they were asked about — are especially frustrating when the questions come from the audience. If constituents take the time to submit something they genuinely want answered, they deserve a real response — not a detour into whatever message the campaign wants to push that day.

Increasingly, candidates have been deciding that debates aren’t worth the risk. And the political incentives seem to back them up. In recent years, skipping a debate hasn’t meaningfully penalized candidates. Social media gives them direct access to voters. They can control their message, avoid uncomfortable moments and sidestep the possibility of handing their opponent a clip that goes viral.

Minnesota has seen this firsthand. In 2018, U.S. Sen. Tina Smith skipped a major TV news debate. In 2022, Gov. Tim Walz did the same. The reasons vary — not wanting to “platform” an opponent or an “unfriendly” host, not wanting to lean into a format they’re not good at, or simply deciding the downside of messing up on camera outweighs the upside. At the national level, we’ve certainly seen bad debate performances shape the campaigns more than good ones. 

Most candidates choose to avoid the “unfriendly host” dynamic, but I see it as an opportunity. At the legislative level, many debates are organized by the League of Women Voters, sometimes in partnership with other local organizations. The LWV is a legally nonpartisan organization, but (just like legally nonpartisan local elected offices) that doesn’t mean every volunteer or participant is free of political leanings. Just like every media outlet and other civic organization, they may not be 100% free of bias or the perception of bias. 

Candidates sometimes worry about the framing, the questions or the tone. But the presence of imperfect hosts shouldn’t erase the value of the opportunity. 

Community Voices: Finally, a real debate on government and the economy

This isn’t to say candidates should automatically accept every debate invitation. There are only so many hours in a day, and candidates have to be careful with their time. So there is some prioritization that needs to happen. But saying no to every debate opportunity isn’t a good decision.

In the divisive environment that our campaign season becomes, debates can feel like a trap. But debates, at their best, are not about the host. They’re about the audience.

Debates are about respecting voters enough to show up. They’re about articulating values and ideas, whether or not the audience shares them. They’re about sharing perspectives outside siloed social media. They’re about believing in the process enough to participate in it. And they’re about practicing the skill we claim to want more of in politics: the ability to disagree without dehumanizing. (Come to think of it, all of these things could be said about the willingness to raise your hand and run for office in the first place.)

Do debates matter? They do if we treat them as more than a stage. They do if candidates engage honestly with the voters in the room. They do if voters still give candidates credit for an honest but maybe imperfect performance. And they do if we remember that democracy isn’t strengthened by avoiding one another — it’s strengthened by showing up.

Shannon Watson is the executive director of Majority in the Middle, a St. Paul-based nonprofit. She’s also a longtime State Capitol observer and provided occasional Voices commentaries during the 2026 legislative session. You’ll find Watson’s previous Middle Aisle columns here.

The post Political debates matter if we treat them as more than theater appeared first on MinnPost.

Originally reported by MinnPost by Shannon Watson. Read the full story at the source.