NO CHASER

Jump to Comments

What might we learn from the repeated calls for a debate from Pat Marsh, the “Republican” candidate in the special election for Tennessee House District 62?

1. Marsh is losing the race.
2. Right wingers don’t like Marsh.

At this point, Marsh’s campaign has boiled down to nothing more than emails and press releases calling for a debate between all three candidates — and only all three candidates. Initially, Marsh neglected to invite Constitution Party candidate Chris Brown. Brown responded with this spicey email:

As for the repeated calls for a debate, only candidates trailing in the polls demand debates. They want the opportunity to stand on the stage with the candidate ahead of them, thereby appearing to be that candidate’s equal in the eyes of the voters. They also want the opportunity to trip up the leader, maybe get him to say something damaging. Conversely, a candidate in the lead has very little to gain from doing debates.

Marsh’s actions tell us his campaign has internal polling that shows him losing the election. That polling also shows he has a weak spot on his right, which is why he didn’t want Brown participating in a debate. He wanted to be the only “right-wing” candidate on the stage. Debating Brown one-on-one would be a total loss for Marsh because taking part in a one-on-one debate with him would be an admission of the severity of Marsh’s weakness on the right.

So now you know why Marsh is so desperately calling for Cobb to agree to a debate, and why Cobb, as the race’s leader should, is waiting on everyone to agree to the terms.

By the way, you’ll know Marsh’s campaign is fatally wounded when he sends the guy in the chicken suit out to stalk Cobb.

Update: House Democratic Caucus Chair Mike Turner questions whether or not Marsh really wants to debate.

Update II: Joe Lance calls for candidates to “present qualifications and issue positions directly to the voters.” No Chaser agrees and asserts that Cobb is doing exactly that by talking to voters on their doorsteps, which is a much more direct form of voter communication than a debate. Also, the above post is not an argument against communicating with voters. Only a campaign that wants to lose would avoid such communication. The above post deals with how campaigns determine the most-effective means of communication. Regardless of the field we’re discussing, it’s wise to operate from the position most advantageous to you.