Understand that Democrat Sen. Mary Landrieu’s acceptance of four debates with opponents to her reelection signals definitively that she gets it that her prospects to return to Washington are in trouble.
Back in the good old days,
debates – where candidates actually verbally sparred back and forth for hours,
instead of rushing to drop in as many relevant sound bites as they can before
hustling to the next question as these have become today – served a useful
process for the politically interested who could spread this information to
others that they otherwise could not acquire from any source. These days, the
interested person pretty much can find everything and anything about a
candidate’s issue preferences through watching plenty of television
advertisements and/or reading mail pieces and/or (most comprehensively with
views from all sides) making a few mouse clicks. The casually interested will
pay no attention to these, unless something dramatic happens that gets
reverberated through news stories and campaign communications forcibly
delivered to their eyeballs, eardrums, mail boxes, and in-boxes.
For these reasons, as information
about candidacies increased and became more easily disseminated over the past
few decades, debates have devolved, from candidates’ perspectives, into going
on patrol in a minefield. A candidate can do nothing on his own to derive any
benefit from a debate; rather, he only can harm himself by saying something
stupid that makes him look uninformed, ignorant, or “uncaring” enough to
voters. Any debate participation produces gains only if one or more opponents
make unforced errors that you avoid. In other words, it’s a gamble as to
whether you won’t blow it to your detriment and if others do to your benefit.