The Decembrist speculates on whether they will actually happen:

So how does [Bush] get out [of debating]? There hasn't been a presidential election without debates since Nixon in 1972. (Hmm, what does that tell you?) It's now totally institutionalized. David Broder in yesterday's Post suggested that Bush might use Nader, and the demands of the Citizens Debate Commission that candidates with 5% support in polls be permitted into the debates as a negotiating tool to minimize the number of debates with Kerry (or Edwards). But Broder doesn't seem to think that Bush can avoid debating altogether, and I doubt that Nader will be enough of a factor to theoretically qualify for debates even under the looser Citizens Debate Commission rules. Still, this is Bush, and if Rove decides he shouldn't debate, he's not going to debate. How he will pull it off, I don't know, but no one should be surprised if he does.

It's hard for me to imagine that the American people would allow this to happen. There would be a blistering response from the Kerry campaign, and the media would (justifiably) go nuts. Rove will minimize the number of debates, but I can't imagine less than three.

I'll totally enjoy Edwards vs. Cheney, by the way.

Decembrist is unquestionably right about one thing:

But watching the debate tonight, I was struck by how helpful it has been to Kerry and Edwards both to go through this ritual so many times. Despite the worst moderating and questioning imaginable -- Larry King is too dim and Ron Brownstein way too smart to be good debate questioners -- both of them were completely assured and comfortable.

If Bush doesn't improve his speaking/debating style dramatically from what was displayed on Meet the Press, he's in deep, deep trouble. The Dems have benefitted from all of these debates -- and no one will remember them in September and October.