I’ve sat through more debates than I care to admit — late nights on the newsroom floor, livestream tabs open, notes piling up. Over time I learned to stop treating these exchanges as pure sport and start reading them like a diagnostic: what a candidate says, how they say it, and importantly, what they leave out. If you want to move beyond soundbites and social-media clips, here are five signs a candidate is avoiding policy specifics — and what I do (and recommend you do) when you spot them.
They pivot to broad, feel-good themes
One of the first giveaways is the pivot from a direct question to sweeping themes: unity, freedom, jobs, or “getting things done.” These are powerful political narratives — and intentionally so. When a candidate responds to a detailed question about health-care funding, for example, and answers with a speech about “putting families first,” they’re often steering attention away from numbers and trade-offs.
I don’t dismiss those themes; they matter. But they’re not substitutes for specifics. In a debate I covered last year, a candidate used the word “opportunity” seven times in five minutes — it sounded inspiring, but it dodged concrete proposals like tax changes or program budgets. If you hear this pivot, press for the how: “What specific programs would you expand or cut? How would you pay for it?”
They lean heavily on anecdotes and individual stories
Anecdotes humanize policy. I use them in stories all the time. But when every answer begins with “a woman I met” or “a small business owner told me,” it can be a rhetorical dodge. Anecdotes substitute for data: one touching story doesn’t answer questions about scale, fiscal impact, or whether a policy actually solves systemic problems.
When a candidate offers an anecdote in place of policy, I ask them — and you should ask them — for the larger evidence: “Is that typical? What would the statewide or national impact look like? Have you consulted subject-matter experts?” If the candidate can’t move from the story to the statistics or the plan, that’s a red flag.
They attack opponents instead of laying out alternatives
Negative campaigning is as old as politics. But a debate that reads like a roast when policy is the topic signals avoidance. Smears and character attacks can distract the audience; they don’t illuminate what the candidate would actually do. I remember a debate segment where half the time was spent fact-checking a candidate’s jabs about their rival’s past comments — leaving only seconds to discuss climate policy.
If a candidate consistently responds with counterattacks rather than policy specifics, request the alternative: “You criticize the current approach — what exactly would you implement instead?” That forces them to move from critique to prescription.
They offer vague timelines and promises without metrics
Promises without timelines or metrics are easy to make and hard to test. “We will create jobs” is very different from “We will create 300,000 jobs in renewable energy and measure progress quarterly.” Debates are full of aspirational goals, but the concrete ones include deadlines, budgets, agencies responsible, and measurable benchmarks.
I pay attention to specificity here. If a candidate gives an initiative a timeline, note the granularity. “Within my first 100 days” or “by the end of the first term” are better than “soon.” If they refuse to assign numbers or timelines, ask follow-ups like: “Who will be accountable? What’s the budget line? How will success be measured?” That’s where campaigns either shine or unravel.
They rely on vague or shifting language about costs and trade-offs
Policy always involves trade-offs. Saying “we’ll expand services” without explaining funding sources or trade-offs is another avoidance tactic. Candidates often use open-ended phrases like “we’ll find the money” or “we’ll reform the system,” which sound reassuring but dodge fiscal reality.
When I hear this, I press for specifics about financing: tax increases, reallocated spending, cuts elsewhere, or borrowing. If a candidate refuses to name revenue sources or insists the plan will be deficit-neutral without evidence, treat that as a signal they are avoiding the hard numbers.
Practical ways to read — and fact-check — a debate in real time
- Listen for transitions: Note whether an answer moves from the question to a theme, anecdote, or attack. Track how often that happens.
- Ask for the numbers: When possible, make the candidate specify timelines, costs, and outcome metrics. If moderators don’t follow up, do it yourself on social platforms or in post-debate Q&As.
- Cross-check quickly: Use trusted fact-checkers (PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, BBC Reality Check) and reputable think tanks (Brookings, Cato, Institute for Fiscal Studies) after the debate. I keep tabs on them during live coverage — they flag evasive claims fast.
- Note what’s new: If a candidate’s “new” proposal sounds like warmed-over policy, check the legislative or budgetary history. Often, vagueness masks an unwillingness to take responsibility for past failures.
- Follow the money: Look for concrete funding mechanisms. Campaign platforms or policy briefs are usually posted on campaign websites — read the fine print for feasibility.
How to hold candidates accountable after the debate
Debates aren’t the end of the conversation. I follow up with targeted reporting and invite experts to weigh in. You can do the same in your corner of the internet: share a clip with a focused question, tag journalists or fact-checkers, or ask the campaign to clarify on social channels.
If a candidate dodges specifics consistently, call for a written policy brief. Campaigns frequently release detailed plans after public pressure. Media outlets (and well-sourced local newsletters) will often demand those documents — and when they appear, that’s when you can assess the plan on substance, not rhetoric.
| Sign | What to ask |
|---|---|
| Pivots to broad themes | “How will you implement this? Which programs or laws?” |
| Relies on anecdotes | “Is that typical? What do the data say?” |
| Attacks opponents | “What’s your concrete alternative?” |
| Vague timelines | “When exactly? What are the milestones?” |
| Shifts on costs | “How will you pay for it? What are the trade-offs?” |
I don’t expect every candidate to have a fully fleshed-out legislative blueprint during a 90-second answer. But debates should help voters distinguish between polished messaging and policy commitments. When you watch, be skeptical of style that substitutes for substance. Push for numbers, timelines, and accountability — and demand the documents or experts that make a proposal testable. That’s how you turn a performance into usable information for real-world choices.
