Why So Many Candidates Keep Dodging the Debate Stage

When the Boston Globe ran its editorial on July 8, 2026, titled “If candidates won’t debate, voters should wonder why not,” a handful of readers felt compelled to write in. Their letters, published on July 21, paint a picture that’s more than a collection of isolated gripes—it’s a growing trend of elected officials and hopefuls quietly skirting public, unscripted conversation.

Jason J. Galui, director of the Endicott Center for Civic Participation at Endicott College in Beverly, reminded us why debates matter. He explained that his students spend a semester learning to research, argue, and engage without a prepared script. “If the next generation of leaders can be trained to think on their feet,” Galui wrote, “then it’s a shame we deny voters the chance to see that skill in action from the very people who claim to represent them.”

In the realm of state‑wide offices, the story feels especially stark. Alex Hagerty, campaign manager for Republican challenger Elizabeth Dionne, notes that Dionne’s team sent not one, but three letters to incumbent Treasurer Deb Goldberg back in May 2024, each asking for a series of six in‑person debates. “We never heard back,” Hagerty said, quoting a response from Goldberg’s office to State House News reporter Michael P. Norton: the treasurer would “review all invitations for debates by reputable news organizations.” No debate ever materialized.

That same pattern shows up in other races. Roy Lincoln Karp, a volunteer for Persis Yu’s campaign against State Senator Mike Rush, points out that Rush – a longtime Democrat from the Norfolk & Suffolk district – has declined every request to share a stage with his challenger. Karp argues that the lack of debate coverage means “voters in Boston’s suburbs are left with a one‑sided narrative.”

The gubernatorial primary offers yet another example. GOP hopeful Mike Minogue, who is vying for the state’s top office, has repeatedly refused to sit down with his primary opponent, a stance echoed by several congressional incumbents, including Representatives Jake Auchincloss (MA‑4) and Stephen Lynch (MA‑8). The July 8 editorial criticized these refusals as “an abdication of the very public accountability that a democratic election demands.”

What’s driving this silence? Some argue it’s a strategic calculation—debates are risky, especially for incumbents with a comfortable lead. Others suggest a broader media shift: televised town halls have given way to tightly controlled soundbites on social platforms, where the “no‑mistake” rule feels safer. Yet, as the letters collectively note, the cost is a less informed electorate.

For the everyday voter, the result is frustration. “We deserve to see how candidates handle pressure, how they respond when the script falls away,” Hagerty concluded. “If they can’t stand in a room with a microphone and an opponent, how can they stand up for us in the legislature?”

Until more candidates agree to step onto a shared stage, the public conversation will remain a series of rehearsed press releases, leaving many to wonder: are we voting for ideas, or simply for the most polished presentation?