I just read on Drudge that Senator Diane Feinstein (D-CA) won’t debate her challenger.
Ostensibly, it’s because her opponent has nothing substantive to say; but the truth is that Feinstein is doing it because she can’t possibly lose the election according to the polls. As we learned from Obama v Romney Debate I, these debates that we used to think are meaningless can be huge game-changers for a challenger that the electorate hasn’t gotten the chance to know yet.
I don’t have any admiration for Feinstein and you could blast her for arrogance, not wanting the voters to be informed, and all that. However, I do appreciate her ruthless cynicism.
When you consider that Obama barely holds press conferences, avoids going on hard news shows, and prefers to spend his time at celebrity-worshipping venues like The View; it becomes obvious why. It really does him no harm. If he had done the same thing to Romney that Feinstein is doing to Emken, he might be clearly ahead right now. And there would be nothing anybody to do to make him go.
I have to wonder at what point we’ll see an incumbent president do this too. It wouldn’t be a good thing, but there’s no doubt that incumbents have a lot to lose by having to answer questions.