Political debate is often framed in terms of how it shapes public perceptions and election outcomes. The debates are seen as an opportunity for candidates to shape their political messages and present themselves in a way that might persuade voters, though research has found that these effects are modest and often erased over time. In the case of presidential debates, they can also serve as a window into a candidate’s character and style.
In addition, the process of selecting and scheduling debates is a complex task. It is subject to logistical challenges including the availability of venues, negotiating arrangements with local broadcasters and other media outlets, as well as factors like early voting, religious and federal holidays, and major sporting events. These considerations, along with the objective criteria that the debate organization applies to extend invitations, can make it difficult for candidates who have a strong chance of winning to participate in debates.
A third issue is the asymmetrical dynamic between the debate moderators and the campaigns. The moderator—typically a journalist with extensive experience in live television broadcast news— selects which questions to ask, and has no direct communication with the campaigns. This can lead to questions that advance a particular narrative or point of view, and creates a sense for the candidates of being engaged in a Sunday show or gladiatorial clash rather than a substantive discussion about their policies, priorities and positions.
Heightened polarization has made many Americans frustrated with the notion of political debate. They believe that the debates are not helping them learn more about candidates, and they can be uncomfortable or even hostile.