Presidential Debates 1996 vs 2004

[ChrisNYC]

So my co-worker / wingnut is claiming that Bush's refusal to have a 3rd debate is standard for the incumbent, and Clinton did the same thing in 1996. (Of course, Bush 1 didn't do this in 1992, but that's another issue.) Does anyone know the reason there were only two debates in 1996? I'm certain it has nothing to do with Bill being scared about the oratorical skills of Viagra Dole.

Thanks,
Chris

[Vickers]

1. Will these guys ever get over the Clenis?

There *were* two debates, but DAMN these guys are skeered of that thing!

Ask him this: regardless of what happened in 1996, wouldn't he WELCOME the opportunity for Georgie to pound some sense in to Kerry? :eyes:

[Frodo]

2. It has nothing to do with being "scared"

though obviously it can be spun that way.

Clinton was way up. There was no need to add the risk of more debates than necessary. He knew that if nothing change, he was going to win - so he left as few opportunities for things to change as he could.

On balance, the "hit" you take for not wanting the third debate is less than the potential hit from losing that third debate.