Before the public has a chance to see candidates debate in a major political race, a series of private debates has taken place behind the scenes by the campaigns.
They’ve debated where the debates will take place, who should sponsor them and what the format should be. And all of those debates come after the most important one: Should we debate at all and, if so, how many times?
The answers vary among candidates, campaigns and years. By some estimates, 2022 is a year in which campaigns for some major offices like Congress and governorships are down significantly.
Clayton
Incumbents typically see less advantage in debating and are likely to try to limit their participation, said Cornell Clayton, a Washington State University political science professor and director of the Thomas S. Foley Institute for Public Policy.
“Challengers want as many as they can get,” he added.
In the past, an incumbent who refused to debate would get “beat up” over it in the news media, Clayton said, but not as much any more. “I wonder if there’s a declining sense of obligation on the part of the candidates.”
Experts say conflicting economic indicators allow both Republicans and Democrats to cherry-pick talking points in their efforts to spin federal investments as either runaway spending that has overheated the market or a strategic inoculation against recession. (Many economists agree federal relief played a modest role in driving inflation, alongside global supply chain interruptions and other issues.)
Despite the muddy economic outlook, some Democrats have continued to tout the impact of their historic spending bills. Others, though, have pivoted away from the economy to culture war issues they hope will reliably mobilize voters. Republicans, meanwhile, have often campaigned against federal spending despite voting for COVID-19 aid under former President Donald Trump or benefiting locally from recovery dollars.
Recent polling has shown that economic concerns remain a priority for many voters. How candidates talk about the economy, then, is likely to have real ramifications for the balance of power in Washington, D.C. The results on Nov. 8 may say less about the state of the economy than the stories voters want to believe.
Ridout
Travis Ridout, a political advertising researcher at Washington State University, said the hardline positions being dug out on federal spending – even among representatives who benefit from it – partly reflect broader partisan divides.
Campaigning on local issues and bringing resources back to a district may have worked years ago, but gerrymandering has resulted in fewer truly competitive districts, meaning that boosting turnout among the party’s base often matters more than peeling off theoretical swing voters. And that means playing to hot-button national issues.
“It means talking about abortion or the ‘scourge’ of immigration or whatever it is, as opposed to, I brought price supports for farmers in our district, or I got this road repaved,” Ridout said. “If all I need to do is make sure that my people show up to vote, then maybe it doesn’t make sense to talk about actually passing legislation. Maybe I just need to make people mad.”
Washington State University has its first-ever faculty regent.
McDonald
Judi McDonald, a professor in the Department of Mathematics and Statistics, was chosen by Washington Gov. Jay Inslee as a voting member of the WSU Board of Regents from a pool of candidates submitted by the WSU Faculty Senate.
“I know all of us who were nominated were excited to do the job, and I had confidence that any others chosen would do a phenomenal job,” McDonald said. “We all really value this role as something important for faculty with shared governance experience to do.”
During her time at WSU, McDonald has accumulated more than a decade of university governance experience. She’s previously chaired the Faculty Affairs Committee of the WSU Faculty Senate, a representative body that she has also served as chair-elect, chair and past chair. As chair, McDonald advocated for adding a faculty representative to the Board of Regents, which was done in 2018. She was the first person at WSU to serve in the role.
Earlier this year, the Washington State Legislature’s amended state law to add an empowered faculty regent to the governing boards of WSU as well as the University of Washington.
The Washington State University Faculty Senate approved a new course designation on Oct. 6 called “Inquiry into Equity and Justice (EQJS)” that will expand the University Common Requirements (UCORE) general education curriculum for the first time in a decade.
The new UCORE designation, which will not impact UCORE credits necessary for graduation, goes into effect in fall 2023. Courses in EQJS will equip students with intellectual tools and social contexts necessary to critically examine power dynamics, and to recognize, question, and understand structural inequities and privileges, according to the UCORE website.
A set of EQJS courses will be determined over the coming months and, will also provide students vital intellectual foundations, tools, and literacies to assess and evaluate ideologies and narratives to ethically pursue inclusive and just societies.
Stratton
“This is the first major change to UCORE requirements since they were put in place ten years ago, and the committee feels it represents a much-needed engagement with issues of utmost importance in today’s society,” said Clif Stratton, UCORE director and professor of history.
“It is critical to note that the addition of the EQJS designation to the inquiry set is credit neutral, meaning it adds no additional UCORE credit requirements to graduate,” said Stratton. Some colleges, however, such as the College of Veterinary Medicine and the College of Arts and Sciences, are planning to implement a college-level requirement that students complete courses in all UCORE inquiry designations. UCORE course requirements to graduate, then, could be determined on a college-by-college basis, as necessary.
“The UCORE committee thanks those colleges for their ongoing commitment to a broad educational experience at WSU,” he said.
For years, a congressional seat in a Republican district in southwest Washington has evaded Democrats. Now, with the incumbent congresswoman ousted over her vote to impeach former President Donald Trump, they have a slim chance in a race that has pitted an “America First” Republican against a rural Democrat.
The tough battle in the 3rd Congressional District is a key race for both parties as the House is up for grabs amid an environment of increasing polarization.
Long-time Republican U.S. Rep. Jaime Herrera Beutler was one of 10 House Republicans who voted to impeach Trump following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. She finished third in the August primary, where the top two finishers win a chance to face off in the general election, regardless of party.
Now Democrat Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Trump-endorsed Republican Joe Kent are fighting for the seat.
Stephan
Herrera Buetler took 22% percent of the vote in the primary. Which candidate her supporters opt for next month will be key in determining whether Republicans retain the seat or Democrats score an upset, said Mark Stephan, an associate professor of political science at Washington State University-Vancouver.
“Even though Republicans continue to dominate the 3rd District, they are split in their perspectives,” he said. “This is a Republican district, and it will be for a while. But there’s this small sliver of chance for the Democrats now.”
