​5 ways to dodge a question if you're running for president

Running for president is, perhaps more than anything else, an exercise in answering questions: Who are you? What do you believe? How will you govern?

Sometimes, though, a presidential candidate (or potential candidate) decides that providing an answer could be more trouble than it's worth, and executes that most time-tested of political maneuvers: the dodge.

It's not always easy, particularly when these would-be presidents are under the klieg lights of a national campaign. They'll absorb some blows from competitors who are eager to criticize their lack of candor. And they'll only stoke the hunger of the news media, which have discovered their discomfort with the subject and will surely return to it as soon as possible.

But given those drawbacks, sometimes politicians still calculate that the dodge is worth it: that an answer would be more damaging than a refusal to provide one. This is doubly true when the question probes a politically radioactive issue that would damage the candidate no matter what the answer is.

As the 2016 presidential field takes shape and the potential candidates find their sea legs, a number of questions have already been directed their way. And while most of those questions have received answers, a few have not. Here are several recent tactics employed by potential candidates dodging questions:

Punt, pure and simple

Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker was in London this week as part of a trade mission to promote business ties between his state and the United Kingdom, but he stepped on his message during a question-and-answer session on Wednesday after a speech, when he was asked whether he believes in evolution.

"I'm going to punt on that one as well," Walker, a Republican, replied. "That's a question a politician shouldn't be involved in one way or the other."

It's not simply a matter of intellectual curiosity, though: Many Christian conservatives object to the teaching of Darwinian evolution in public schools, and they've made some progress in recent years in pushing a curriculum that frames evolution as just one of many theories about the origin and progression of life. Because states hold primary responsibility over education policymaking, a governor is precisely the kind of public figure who would be expected to weigh in on the issue.

Had Walker endorsed evolution, he would have risked the ire of the religious voters he'll need to win the GOP primary. If he suggested he didn't believe in evolution, though, he might have turned off swing voters whose support he'd need in the general election.

He'd be damned by either a "yes" or a "no." So instead, he said nothing.

He later added on Twitter, "Both science & my faith dictate my belief that we are created by God. I believe faith & science are compatible, & go hand in hand."

During the appearance, Walker also dodged questions on the U.K.'s place in the European Union and the fight against extremists with the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria.

Split the difference

Walker wasn't the only potential presidential candidate to trip up during a recent visit to London. In the U.K. earlier this month, Gov. Chris Christie, R-New Jersey, was asked about whether parents should be forced to vaccinate their kids in light of a recent measles epidemic that public health officials have blamed on a lack of universal immunization.

The issue has pitted health experts, who have insisted vaccines are both safe and prudent, against vaccine skeptics who worry that the shots could have unintended consequences.

Christie paid lip service to both sides of the debate in his answer. " All I can say is that we vaccinated ours. That's the best expression I can give you of my opinion," he said. "I also understand that parents need to have some measure of choice in things as well."

The comments stirred Christie's political opponents, who accused the governor of sacrificing good sense and endangering public health to earn chits with right wing elements that prioritize liberty and parental choice above all else. It was a damaging charge, particularly for Christie, who's styled himself as a blunt, occasionally brash truth-teller.

His office attempted to soft-pedal his comments after the fact, saying there's "no question kids should be vaccinated."

Own up to your dodge

Ever since former President Bill Clinton acknowledged he'd smoked pot but "didn't inhale," politicians have been casting about for an artful response to questions about youthful marijuana use. Last year, Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Florida, stumbled on a new tactic when he was asked during an education forum whether he's ever smoked marijuana.

"If I tell you that I haven't, you won't believe me," Rubio said, according to the Associated Press. "And if I tell you that I did, then kids will look up to me and say, 'Well, I can smoke marijuana because look how he made it.'"

It was a tricky balancing act on Rubio's part: An attempt to be candid about the fact that he didn't intend to be candid.

Some of Rubio's potential competitors haven't been as cagey, though: Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, recently owned up to his own marijuana use as a teenager, which his office labeled a foolish "mistake." Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush has admitted he smoked marijuana with some frequency during high school. And when Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, was asked during an interview last year on WHAS whether he's ever tried the drug, he winked at the question, admitting he "wasn't a choir boy" when he was in college.

Hide behind the process

Hillary Clinton declined to render a verdict on the construction of the Keystone XL oil pipeline during her time atop the State Department, which holds primary authority over the project because it crosses an international boundary between the U.S. and Canada.

During a speech in January in Canada, Clinton made clear that her refusal to comment on the project has not softened since she stepped down from the administration.

"You won't get me to talk about Keystone because I have steadily made clear that I'm not going to express an opinion," said Clinton, who's considered an early (if undeclared) frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in 2016. "It is in our process and that's where it belongs."

Clinton seemed to suggest that it would be inappropriate for her to comment on the project, particularly with an executive review of the pipeline ongoing and her own record helming the agency that is centrally involved in that review.

But her dodge was also a mark of how divisive the issue remains more than six years after the pipeline was first proposed. Environmentalists (a sizable contingent of the Democratic base) have said the pipeline would exacerbate climate change by encouraging the development of an exceptionally dirty variant of carbon-based fuels. But proponents of the pipeline have framed it as a job creator and a boon for U.S. energy independence, and those arguments have resonated with the middle of the electorate: In a CBS News poll last month, 60 percent of Americans said they'd support the pipeline's construction.

Republicans, for what it's worth, have their own issues with candor when it comes to climate change and energy policy. Several potential candidates, including Bush, Rubio, and others, have fallen back on the disclaimer "I'm not a scientist" in explaining their refusal to say whether human activity is contributing to climate change, as the vast majority of scientists believe.

Play nice

As Hillary Clinton continues to dominate early Democratic primary polls, her potential primary challengers have been slow in emerging. Those few Democrats who have publicly flirted with a bid have done so softly, steadfastly refusing to criticize the woman many in the party expect to eventually nominate.

"I really don't have an answer for you on that," said former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb during an interview with NPR last month, when he was asked what would make him a better candidate than Clinton.

"My mind is not even in the compare-contrast mode," former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley told the New York Times when asked a similar question.

"All I know is, if I run, I'm not running against Hillary Clinton," Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders told Politico in January. "It is not my style to trash people," he added during an event this week at the Brookings Institution, according to Politico.

The intent behind the questions is clear: everybody loves a fight, and if a reporter can goad one of Clinton's potential challengers into criticizing her, then maybe the Democratic primary can begin.

In the end, the efficacy of the dodge has little to do with any of these tactics and more to do with how much voters care about the answer to the question. So at this point, nearly a year out from the first early voting contest, is anyone going to penalize Webb, Biden or O'Malley for declining to jab at Hillary Clinton? Probably not. Does anyone care whether Scott Walker opts to "punt" on evolution -- and whether his answer has any bearing on what he believes should be taught in our nation's schools? We'll see.