Elias Weiss
Audio By Carbonatix
Reader support matters more than ever
We're in the final stretch of our summer campaign. Our goal is to raise $15,000 by August 9 to support the journalism our community relies on. Reader support is helping shape the future of local news.
On Thursday evening, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs’ campaign announced that she wouldn’t be participating in a debate against her GOP opponent Rep. Andy Biggs ahead of November’s election.
Phoenix New Times readers had an unexpected reaction. Far from dinging Hobbs for ducking a traditional rite of American democracy, they celebrated the fact that Arizona voters would see less of Biggs.
For months, the debate conversation had been swirling in political circles regarding what that decision would be. Hobbs infamously hadn’t participated in a single debate during her first gubernatorial campaign against the newscaster-turned-MAGA-talking head Kari Lake in 2022. This time around, Republicans had already taken to calling her “No Debate Kate” and criticizing her apparent unwillingness to debate Biggs.
In last week’s cover story, Phoenix New Times unpacked that debate question. We spoke to longtime political consultants, former campaign managers and one-time statewide candidates to take a peek behind the curtain into Arizona’s longstanding history of debate dodging and how that history plays into today’s conversation.
We wondered: Do debates matter? Do voters notice them? Do they affect electoral outcomes?
The short answer is, the Hobbs campaign is placing an informed bet that news media, more than voters, care about seeing candidates sparring on a debate stage. It’s also clear that a few voters are pissed that they won’t have a chance to make that comparison in real time.
On social media, folks continue to debate debates. On Instagram and Facebook, more than 700 readers weighed in on whether Arizona’s gubernatorial race should have debates. Here’s what they had to say.
On Facebook, John advocated for debates, writing that:
“Debating shows your critical thinking and your ability to defend your views, beliefs and strike down your opponents’ views using facts and logic,” he wrote. “If your ideas are so great then defending them and striking down counterarguments would be easy.”
Deanne was also pro-debate. She wrote on Facebook:
“A debate should be mandatory, or you can’t run for anything. Don’t care what side you are on.”
On Instagram, Maelinn wrote that Hobbs isn’t a gifted public speaker: “She needs an iPad for EVERY speech.” Still, she appreciated depriving Biggs of a debate stage. She wrote:
“I support the idea of let’s not give another R the chance to spew their conjecture, hate and overall ignorance on another platform that they don’t need.”
A striking number of readers supported skipping debates, often citing Biggs’ denial of the 2020 election results. (Biden won, guys.) Joe asked on Instagram:
“How do you debate a man child that can’t accept the factual reality of Joe Biden winning the 2020 election? It’s like talking to a brick wall.”
Kelly agreed, asking on Instagram:
“Why would she waste her time debating an election denier, aligned to the big orange doofus, who continually votes against a woman’s right to choose?”
In her own way, Margeaux asked:
“Can you have a big-kid debate with a man who has a moist sponge for a brain?”
JP also viewed the expedition of debating an election denier as futile, writing on Instagram:
“Debating a MAGAt election-denier insurrectionist traitor cultist is like banging your head against the wall.”
Nora agreed:
“You can’t have a debate with a bad faith politician who doesn’t care about the truth.”
On Instagram, Camille wrote:
“I personally don’t want Biggs and his grotesque ideas to be spread around.”
Along with the “banging your head against the wall” theme, many readers viewed debates as a venue for candidates – notably election deniers such as Biggs — to lie and chase sound bites. That example was on full display during the 2022 GOP primary election debate, in which the crowded stage of Lake, Scott Neely, Karrin Taylor Robson and Matt Salmon crumbled into a shouting match. Hobbs cited the debate as an example of their effectiveness. Instagram user Christopher agreed with that assessment, writing that:
“They often devolved into name-calling and yelling,” he said. “Candidates make up complete falsehoods and deny everything their opponents say.”
Many New Times readers said it wasn’t something they cared to tune into. On Instagram, Nick wrote that:
“I vote on policies and past actions, not debate performance.”
On Instagram, Jessica agreed:
“Debating the right right now is ridiculously futile and not satisfying. So I don’t feel like she needs to debate him.”
Ryon wrote on Instagram that Biggs is essentially just clip-farming.
He’s “just looking for a sound bite he can manipulate and spoon-feed those who lack critical thinking skills.”
Wes agreed. On Instagram, he offered a different solution.
“Debates are pointless; it’s all sound bites and lip service,” he wrote. Instead, candidates should be “forced to play a Jeopardy!-style knowledge game with economics, criminal justice, policy, history and ethics questions. If they fail to secure a certain threshold, they’re removed from running.”
Now that sounds like something the public would tune into.
