In politics, you’re either on message or you’re losing. Let’s get to it.
Welcome to On Message, a weekly look at where the battle lines are drawn and who is winning the war of words.
This week… THE GREAT DEBATE.
Last week, the Utah Republican Party went public with demands for the non-partisan Debate Commission, insisting on control over the selection of moderators and questions that would be asked of candidates.
Their rationale? It’s a closed GOP primary so the issues discussed should be controlled by the GOP.
As Utah GOP chair, Carson Jorgensen put it, “It simply doesn’t make sense for the debate commission to decide what issues will be discussed and who will ask the questions. This is a Republican primary to be voted in by registered Republican voters.”
Ally Isom, who is running against incumbent Mike Lee in the U.S. Senate race, jumped on the story saying, “I’ve been in politics long enough to know a scheme when I smell one.”
She says the Party is trying to protect Lee from having to debate and added she would, “debate anytime and anywhere.”
Lee’s other challenger, Becky Edwards, joined the fray tweeting, “I’ve never known Mike to shy away from an opportunity to be on TV. Let’s have a debate!”
Lee’s campaign responded saying they are planning to participate in the party-sanctioned debates… indicating they’ll skip the Debate Commission event.
Now, for most voters, political debates during a campaign are just part of the tradition but to candidates and their campaign teams they are much more complex than that.
Decisions about how many debates to commit to, where those will be held and even which part of the stage you stand on are all considered, analyzed and fought over.
All that usually happens behind closed doors between candidates and debate organizers.
Because every chamber of commerce, rotary club and dozens of other groups wants to host a debate, Utah created the Utah Debate Commission to ensure every statewide and congressional race gets a televised debate or a handful of debates. They’ve generally been the debates campaigns will do and use it as the excuse to skip all the others.
So, if you are incumbent with high name-recognition, you have little to gain by doing a debate. Challengers want the opportunity for a side-by-side comparison to show voters just how well they stack up to the current office holder.
In truth, the debates at a state level are rarely as high-stakes as they can seem to a campaign. They don’t draw large audiences and a small percentage of those who do watch are truly undecided.
Which is what I find interesting. From polling I’ve seen, Lee has a sizable lead with time running out. He’s a sitting U.S. Senator who knows his issues and can articulate his positions. It’s highly unlikely he would do any worse than a draw in a debate – so, why turn the whole thing into an issue that the non-delegate crowd might actually notice?
Do the debates and, worst case scenario, Lee take a few punches in front of a modest audience.
And what if Isom and Edwards show up for the Debate Commission event without Lee? They’ll have a full half hour to attack him when he can’t defend himself and make their respective cases for being an adequate replacement.
Why not just keep the drama low, show up, play some error-free baseball and stroll to a victory?
In truth, Lee’s lead may be so large that there’s no real danger in either scenario.
But giving your opponents the chance to hype up an event that wasn’t on anyone’s radar and make it look like you are ducking the competition… that seems like an unnecessary risk.
That’s it for this week.
More On Message in the next issue of the Utah Political Underground.
Make sure you visit the site and sign up for our weekly email update. You can find more On Message videos, in-depth Utah political stories and analysis, plus podcasts and more at utahpoliticalundergound.com.
