2024 killed the presidential debate. Here’s why it should still matter.

Presidential debates can create moments that make or break candidacies. 

Ronald Reagan’s laugh line about Walter Mondale’s “youth and inexperience” helped breathe new life into his 1984 reelection campaign. 

Gerald Ford’s baffling claim that there was “no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe” sealed the ignominious fate of his 1976 presidential bid. 

Richard Nixon’s sweating, Al Gore’s attempt at physical intimidation and George H.W. Bush’s watch-checking all wordlessly damaged their presidential hopes.

Not so much anymore. 2024 has destroyed the argument that presidential debates matter, and perhaps it’s even the final nail in the coffin for this political custom. If we’re indeed hearing the debate death knell, the ramifications for political discourse could be huge — and very unfortunate.

Former President Trump’s landslide victory in the Iowa caucuses wasn’t unexpected, but it was notable for the fact that Trump never set foot on a debate stage to make his case — and yet he cruised to a 30-point victory. More states appear poised to hand Trump at least a plurality of delegates to seal his nomination. Trump and his team predicted that debating the likes of Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis (R) and Nikki Haley would be unnecessary to become the GOP nominee, and it appears that the strategy will pay off.

While eschewing debates might have seemed like a gamble in past election cycles, it may not be such a gamble this year. Trump’s disdain for debating has been mollified by the Republican National Committee, which announced in December that it would no longer sponsor primary debates. 

Assuming the general election matchup is Trump-vs.-Biden, Trump’s reluctance, coupled with the Biden campaign’s fear that the sitting president will make some gaffe that plays into growing concerns about his advanced age, make it quite possible that neither candidate will agree to square off in even one debate.

But while debates might end up not mattering in 2024, should they matter?

Presidential debates have long served an important role in the political process. They introduce candidates to the public. They allow voters to size up candidates and compare ideas, issue stances, personalities and temperaments with the goal of helping them make informed decisions at the ballot box. 

For instance, before Reagan squared off against Jimmy Carter in their first debate in 1980, many voters were unsure whether he had the right temperament for the presidency. Reagan’s performance reassured them and helped seal his resounding general election victory.

However, these days, there are so many ways in which candidates share themselves with voters that simply didn’t exist even a few years ago. Options include direct outreach via social media, Reddit Ask Me Anything forums and online town hall meetings. Furthermore, as political polarization grows, fewer undecided voters can be swayed by strong debate performances.

But presidential debates serve a function that these newer forms of communication simply don’t: They force candidates to talk to one another. Campaigning is becoming just as atomized as political media — it’s increasingly possible for voters to interact only with the candidates they like and avoid the others. Debates preserve at least a semblance of the notion that conversation among candidates matters, that the warp and weft of any campaign is ultimately about ideas and discourse.

Even if presidential debates survive the current era, it seems likely that we’ll see more candidates choose to opt out. Those who don’t respond well to unchoreographed situations might think that participation will only increase the likelihood of making a mistake that will sink their political prospects. Rather, they might stick to highly choreographed events in which they’re likely to go unchallenged.

The modern tools and techniques that have already emerged to aid campaigning have made it easier to take this path. As new tools continue to emerge — ones that emphasize connection with political supporters and influencers over discourse and debate — it will likely become even easier to do so going forward.

Political debates have changed a lot since the Lincoln-Douglas days, but they’ve always adapted to changing times — from the rise of television to the need for shorter soundbites. However, with Trump’s seemingly unobstructed path to the GOP nomination and the Biden campaign’s fear of unscripted events, the clock may have simply run out.

While Trump and Biden could deal a big blow to debates, they don’t deserve all the blame: Presidential campaigning is evolving into more of an echo chamber than ever before, with candidates talking less to each other and more into the ether. 

It’s up to us voters to hold the political class accountable and demand the chance to see how candidates handle high-pressure situations and engage with one another. We are the ones who lose the most when the state of political discourse deteriorates.

Jennifer Tiedemann is the executive editor of Discourse magazine at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University.