(October 11, 2007)
With Election Day less than a month away, negative ads are hitting television sets, direct mail is being stuffed in mailboxes and many candidates across the state are anxious to get some face time with their opponents and debate.
Debate challenges are coming fast and furious from underdog candidates and those who think a debate showdown with their opponent will net them some points with local voters. But, just whom do political debates help in legislative elections like these — especially when the debates turn ugly?
“Well, the mudslinging doesn’t really help anyone,” said Matt Eventoff, president of Princeton Public Speaking Associates, a consulting firm that specializes in providing speech coaching for public figures from politicians to CEOs. “But that being said, there is often a very fine line between what is mudslinging and what is raising a legitimate issue.”
Last week’s debate between 12th District Senate candidates Ellen Karcher and Jennifer Beck at the Monmouth Reform Temple in Tinton Falls provided no shortage of mudslinging or serious and thoughtful exchanges on the issues, regardless of which camp the observer fell into.
The hour-long debate consisted largely of the same rhetoric both candidates have employed throughout the campaign season, with each trying to emerge as the “real reformer.”
“These debates really just provide more fodder for the media than they do for voters,” said Monmouth University pollster Patrick Murray. “Nobody is really [paying attention], so the only thing that matters is what comes out in the press the next day.” The debates are occasionally broadcast on local public access television stations, but most of those that see the debates watch them in person.
While most of the key legislative races in 2007 have already seen at least one face-to-face meeting between opponents, debate challenges and charges that politicians are “ducking” debates seem to outnumber the actual face-to-face meetings between candidates.
In the 12th District, the Republican slate originally called on their opponents to agree to a series of twelve debates before Election Day. In the race for Freeholder in Burlington County, Republican Joe Donnelly has issued debate challenges to his Democratic opponent, Tom Bader, for more than a month now. Donnelly wants a series of five debates.
Similar debate challenges were issued in recent weeks in the 1st and 2nd Legislative Districts where state Assembly candidates are itching to get their incumbent opponents on the same stage.
“Stuff like that makes a nice press hit, but I don’t think it really affects any voters,” Eventoff said.
The reality, said one Democratic consultant, is that candidates often have good reason to duck debates at the local level, citing the possibility of a “Dukakis-like debate moment,” that could grab headlines and have the potential to end an otherwise well-run campaign.
Last month at a campaign forum in the race for Atlantic County Executive, Democrat James McGettigan was accused of using a racial slur against Hispanics. As it turned out, the charge wasn’t true, but it took a tape of the event to surface before McGettigan could effectively refute the charge.
“Too many debates can be dangerous for candidates” Eventoff said. “That’s why less is oftentimes more. [Candidates] shouldn’t feel like they have to answer everything an opponent throws at them in a debate, and talking more [in a debate] is often not the best strategy.”
