Have presidential debates outlived their usefulness?

Am I the only person in the country who is dreading televised presidential debates this year? As a member of the press, I realize that puts me in an awkward position. On Sunday, a dozen national news outlets — including all major TV networks and cable news organizations, the Associated Press, and USA Today — released a statement urging the presumptive candidates, President Biden and former president Donald Trump, to “publicly commit to participating in general election debates before November’s election … If there is one thing Americans can agree on during this polarized time, it is that the stakes of this election are exceptionally high. There is simply no substitute for the candidates debating with each other, and before the American people, their visions for the future of our nation.”

I respectfully beg to differ. There are better ways for the public to hear from presidential candidates, less corrupted forums for undecided or swing voters to engage with candidates.

The truth is that, during this polarized time, most voters have made up their mind about who to vote for.

“Debates don’t have much influence on how voters decide, even if some voters say that the debates have influenced them,” Dean Lacy, a professor of government and director of the program in politics and law at Dartmouth College, said in an interview.

Nor is it definitive that televised debates, watched by tens of millions of viewers, serve as galvanizing events to get the vote out, according to Lacy. “There’s not a lot of good evidence ... My concern is, even if there is evidence that the presidential debates energize voters that it will be based on prior debates. And if the debate this year turns into a circus, it may turn off voters.”

Lacy hits the nail on the head. There used to be a time when televised presidential debates, which have been around for roughly 60 years, were treated as legitimate stages for candidates to discuss policy positions. The first

I say good riddance to the televised presidential debate. In this polarized time, the forum has become painfully anachronistic.

presidential campaign I followed as a journalist in Boston was 2008. I remember watching the last presidential Democratic primary debates between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton 16 years ago. Compared to the one in September 2020 between the current candidates — dubbed “the worst presidential debate in American history” when Trump kept interrupting Biden, prompting him to say, “Will you shut up, man?” — Obama and Clinton’s skills, expertise, and substance were outsized.

There is an art to debating, and it takes a ridiculous amount of preparation, critical thinking, and performative prowess. Those are decidedly not qualities associated with Trump — except for the last one, if by “performative prowess” one means what is displayed in a WWE cage match or on a reality TV show.

It’s probably why Trump has been publicly pushing Biden to debate him. The former president’s campaign wants more and earlier debates, whereas Biden has been noncommittal. Why gift Trump a platform to be nasty and probably spew misinformation or conspiracy theories to a large audience? Why should

Biden agree to that?

On the other hand, there is a risk for the president if he avoids debating Trump. “Biden does potentially have to prove that he’s not undergoing cognitive decline and that he can do a presidential debate,” Lacy said.

Aside from Trump — and the TV networks, given the commercial enterprise nature of televised events like presidential debates — who would potentially come out as winners if debates are held? “It seems pretty clear that third-party candidates can benefit, like John Anderson and Ross Perot, from being on stage with the major party candidates to appear legitimate,” Lacy told me. If independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. makes it that far ... now that would be a spectacle. Even so, I’ve had enough.

I say good riddance to the televised presidential debate. In this polarized time, the forum has become painfully anachronistic. Of course, I understand tradition is important in presidential politics. As Lacy said, debates have become something that voters expect so “not meeting expectations of engaging” in one could hurt candidates.

At the very least, the TV networks should change the format to make debates more palatable and less cringey. For instance, organizers should “have automatic timers on the microphones” if candidates don’t stick to their time limits,” Lacy said. And moderators have to improve their game with pointed policy questions.

Undecided voters have ample opportunities to get informed about Biden and Trump, opportunities that are not billed as a “smackdown” or “must-see TV.” Even if the format changes, count me out of the presidential debate watch party.