Lake wasn't my choice in the primary, and I didn't think she could win. I've had to change my mind on that. Unless things change a lot, I think she will win. She is leading in most polls now, even ones that aren't GOP-oriented. I looked at the polling history, and Hobbs was ahead early on, and Lake overtook her in mid-September.
Three big things happened then. First, inflation and gas prices started going back up. They never really came down, but there was a brief period of numbers that looked less discouraging. Second, the border ****-show reemerged as a major story. Third, people would have started to expect their candidates to debate.
So why not debate? It obviously isn't the principled stance Hobbs claims, and she sounds dishonest saying it is. For all her liabilities, Lake is excellent on TV, and she knows how to kick the living hell out of people who attack her or at least very solidly defend herself. Hobbs isn't terrible, but she's mediocre and would look bad next to Lake. Lake isn't necessarily hot, but she is definitely on the attractive side. Hobbs? Not ugly but an average looking nerdy woman in her early 50s, which means she'd look bad next to Lake. I understand all this, so I can see the case for not debating. Hobbs would almost surely lose any debate.
However, what are the ratings of independent or undecided voters for a gubernatorial debate in a midterm election? I doubt they're very high. If Hobbs lost the debate, it would make little difference. Lake supporters would high-five each other, but the story would die down quickly. (I think Abbott lost the debate with Beta, but who actually thinks it's going to cost him the election or even make a meaningful dent? Nobody.) However, refusing to debate attracts a ton of attention. It becomes the issue and a national story. Furthermore, it festers, because there's no resolution to it. Hobbs will be asked about it nonstop, and people will be talking about it on Election Day. It's a much bigger liability than if she simply lost the debate.
