Archive for the ‘Debate Significance’ Category

Debates Allow for Discussion to Enter Campaign

Posted on October 4, 2012 in Debate Significance


I do believe the debates matter for the process and outcome of the presidential election. Some of the post-debate coverage on cable news networks last night polled or interviewed previously undecided voters, and these reports often showed that voters were heavily influenced or had their minds made up by watching the debate. While some of this projection might be due to the media drawing responses out of voters or voters getting caught up in the immediate emotion brought on by the debate, I think the amount of discussion about the various issues and opinions shows that Americans do pay close attention to these debates and that not everyone has their mind unshakably made up going in. I am not sure how much statistical<code></code> voter swing will be linked to the debates, but I do think Americans factor them into their opinions. Much of the discussion from last night centered on who won the debate, but I believe there was significant worth in just having the candidates express their opinions and stances in each other’s presence. So much political campaigning is done through emotional statements and criticisms that do not allow the candidates to hear each other’s responses, and the debates allow voters to hear opinions, plans, and ideologies juxtaposed in a manner that provides some context for comparison. The candidates might not always respond directly to issues, and they often politicize statements, but at least there is some form of discourse going on. In this sense, debates can give voters a somewhat deeper understanding of pertinent issues and the differing opinions that surround those issues.

Debate On

Posted on October 4, 2012 in Debate Significance

Many people may think that the debates no longer matter, especially with the proliferation of various other media sources that voters may refer to at any time, rather than tuning into the debates and listening to the, at times, painful discourse. However, I would argue that the debates are now more relevant than ever, as new forms of social media draw attention to them in unique ways. According to Beth Fouhy, a journalist for the Associated Press,last night’s debate drew 11.1 million comments on Twitter, making it the fourth most tweeted telecast of any kind. I do not know if the debates necessarily have huge power in swaying voters, but it is clear that they still have the power to garner the attention of large audiences. If any type of broadcast can incite that much buzz in a day and age when there are arguably more demands on our time and attention than ever before, I think that clearly indicates significance.

There are undeniably going to be voters who will vote along party lines regardless of what either candidate says in the debates or in any other media outlet. However, as more and more Americans are identifying as “independent” or “moderate,” a platform which requires both candidates to meet on an equal level is crucial. While maybe not deciding the votes of these middle-of-the-roaders, the event allows one to tune into issues regarding the election without the yammering of various political pundits – inevitably, that comes afterwards. Although Graber writes about the obvious issues in measuring media influence on viewers and readers,I would love to see even just self-assessments of the impact of the debates in the opinions of the viewers. Regardless, I think that viewers from all party affiliations continue to value this long-established tradition that allows for the presidential candidates to directly address us,the voters.

On-The-Fencers, Tune In

Posted on October 4, 2012 in Debate Significance

Do the debates matter? Why?

Short answer: Abolutely.

The debates offer candidates the space to showcase their ticket, defend their policies, and ultimately make themselves look better than their opponent. While this is broadcast nationwide, from the overwhelmingly red or blue states to the key swing states just the same, the real audience in mind is the voter whose choice has not been made yet. Just a month away from Election Day, time is ticking away for both Romney and Obama in their fight for the hearts of these on-the-fencers. A point that was clumsily made by Romney, but which both candidates are focusing in on, is that almost all of America’s mind seems to be made up about which vote they will cast. It makes sense to put those voters who are not in your favor on the back burner, because no matter how hard you try, they probably won’t vote for you anyway. Those supporting you going into the debates probably won’t sway either. Instead, focus on those voters, those states, who have not decided yet.

This is exactly what the mindset was last night (and still is) for both candidates. However, the two attacked this challenge in very different manners – and if it was not the approach that differed, the execution certainly did. As a first-time voter who is on the fence myself, it is clear to me which candidate came out on top. Hint: he’s got great hair and loves policy. One of the candidates maintained the upper hand, looked his opponent in the eye, and gave specifics. The other shifted when he spoke, searched for his words a bit too much, and gave the same sort of vague (albeit inspiring) ideals we’ve all heard before. Hint: he’s called the White House home for the past four years.

Many tune out the debates because they reinforce what they already knows out the candidates that they have chosen. The ones who benefit from them most (or at least the ones who should) are on-the-fence voters who will ultimately be the group who decides the outcome of this election. I certainly hope they tuned in last night, and will continue to for the upcoming debates.

Bureaucracy at its most public

Posted on October 4, 2012 in Debate Significance

Just yesterday the country witnessed the 13th Presidential debate since the Kennedy-Nixon Debate in 1960. To the undecided voter, this is a chance to view if first hand how the nominees differ in positions. But to the decided voter this is merely a chance to bash on the opposed candidate. Is that really the case?

It seems that when the debates have come around, it is the decided voters who show more enthusiasm for the debates. It is like their “Jerry Springer”. But what about the undecided voters? If the debates are in place to help the undecided voters, why is there much less enthusiasm on their part? Because it is the decided voters that are more likely to actually view the debates, it seems useless to have them if their main purpose is to inform the undecided voter.

But is that really the case? The debates have become so engrained in the bureaucratic system, that their motive – while initially benevolent – has become a mere tool for candidates to show that if you speak with more assertion and poise, you can win the debate. Take yesterday’s debate. While Obama remained more factual, it was Romney’s assertive mannerism that helped him win the debate. Because of this I see no motive for the presidential debates. Not until the undecided voter shows more enthusiasm and actually pays attention to the debates, will the debates be remotely relevant.

But for the inebriation-seeking person, they can wholeheartedly say they watched the tetra-annual event along with the rest of politically-active population….while playing the “Debate Drinking Game.”

(Good-looking) Talking Heads

Posted on October 4, 2012 in Debate Significance

Do the debates matter?
Absolutely they should matter. They’re based upon the idea of the Presidential candidates standing up in front of the American people and talking frankly about their stances in different issues. A way for the American people to connect directly with their potential political leaders, in a sort of proto-social media platform. Now, should they matter as much as they do? Absolutely not. The fact of the matter is that people judge the debaters primarily on looks, not necessarily policy – how they say what they say becomes at least as important. Let’s take a look at an example, published today by the Washington Post: http://wapo.st/T659oC The author, Mr. Nakamura, talks largely about how Obama’s performance today contrasted with the “sluggish” performance from last night. This is also quickly becoming an arguing point for Obama’s campaign, saying that “Romney may have won on style points”, but that his own arguments were more substantial. However, that doesn’t seem to matter, as the consensus is that Romney was the winner (http://lat.ms/WpS0FK). So if we’re primarily judging based on how they look, should these debates hold significant sway over public opinion? I would argue no. Furthermore, they only include the Democratic and Republican candidates. While those two parties certainly dominate the American political scene, they are not the end-all be-all. The Libertarian party, for one, has grown in strength in recent years. While they probably won’t win any time soon, it’s not unrealistic to imagine them splitting the Republican vote in the near future. Given that, it would be nice to see another candidate or two included. Considering these two things, I really don’t think these debates should be as significant to the Presidential race as they are. But, will I tune in next Thursday for Round 2? Probably.

Personality & Looks Is All We Want

Posted on October 4, 2012 in Debate Significance

A strong showing in a debate can change the course of a presidential election.

But so can a poor one.

The oft-told story of how John F. Kennedy charmed the American public with his good looks and suave style does not go unaccompanied with recollections of Richard Nixon’s sweaty appearance. And after last night’s performance, Barack Obama will have to figure out how to escape his nickname “College Professor” and the adjectives describing his demeanor as “arrogant” and “distant.”

Some pundits are already dimissing the debate, arguing that Obama’s speaking style will hit home at the town hall debate in Kentucky next Thursday (Oct. 11). Others speculate that he can find success on his foreign policy record with a public that is not so receptive to upping military affairs as Mitt Romney’s rhetoric would suggest he’d do.

But for one whole week, negative coverage from what has been a largely sympathetic media will plague the Obama campaign. And this comes after weeks of battles on the mishandling of the Benghazi consulate attack.

Are the sweeping poll numbers in swing states enough to keep the Obama campaign afloat? Or will Romney close the gap over the next week, with the potential to see an upswing after the Vice Presidential debate? We all know what to expect from the unpredictable Joe Biden. But the eloquent, charming, home boy with a fake Ryan Gosling Twitter could put this election neck-in-neck with little time left before election day.

Looks and charm aren’t below us. We like a presidential team we can be proud of. Debate moments matter. And this one might just be the start of an entirely new race.

…Not In The Least

Posted on October 4, 2012 in Debate Significance

The debates do not matter. They are, to use Daniel Boorstein’s term, a “pseudo event.” There is no new information presented during the debates. Rather, viewers simply watch a real-time drama of how well, or poorly, the two candidates are able to frame, shape, and highlight the plans they have for America, which they have been delivering speech after speech after speech about for the past six months.

Further rendering the debates both unnecessary, and unnecessarily dramatic, is social media and all of the various mobile devices that we used to stay connected. Worried about truth in advertising? Go to PolitiFact. Or Ad Hawk. Or SuperPacApp. All of the information and fact-checking is right there. And it can all be accessed via Twitter. But so of course, Twitter also offers us instantaneous reviews of the performance as well. Obama was stiff. Romney has a sense of humor. Bird Big just got fired. How does that help me become better informed about their political positions? Am I really to believe that after four years Obama does not have a plan? Should I be shocked that Romney operated with boardroom efficiency?

Beyond performance and personality, what do we really glean from the debates?
Go to their websites. Read their platforms. Cross-check their claims with the facts. Figure out what issues are most important to you and see where the candidates stand on the matter. Find a journalist you trust, and read her watchdog reports.

But, whatever you do, don’t go by what the candidates say in the debate…

The Need for Debate

Posted on October 4, 2012 in Debate Significance

While the debates may not have a huge impact on the overall outcome of the presidential election, I believe that they matter very much. The debates are the one event where the American public gets the watch their leader, and potential new leader, be challenged on their policies and beliefs and provide support for their political point of view. In very few contexts is it appropriate to challenge the President about his particular stance on an issue or his progress as our leader. I found it fascinating to watch the two candidates finally address their policies and ideas straight to the American public.
The other reason I believe the debates are important is that they force the candidates to solidly explain the reasoning behind their political positions, and more importantly, their plans for change. While we can read about these things online and brush up on the facts, there is a certain effect if “hearing it from the horses mouth” that resinates strongly with me. The debates allow people to judge the demeanor, attitude, viewpoint and ideology of each candidate. This is especially important for undecided voters. Even for me, a decided voter, I found it extremely valuable to have the facts surrounding the most pertinent issues surrounding the debate (namely: the economy, health care, education) laid out by the men who will be in charge.
Overall, the debates require the candidates to stand up and account for their decisions. I believe it is a very valuable part of the election process. There is more the the race than deciding on a winner– it is a learning process that offers Americans a great opportunity to get involved in politics and their government, get educated on the issues, get motivated to vote and fight for the changes that they want to see in their country. The debate is a fantastic outlet for people to utilize when it comes to accomplishing these goals.

Why Debates Matter and Why They Don’t

Posted on October 4, 2012 in Debate Significance

Depending on the measurement, debates don’t matter all that much. In a strict policy sense, debates don’t have a significant impact. Both candidates stand up to defend their own party platforms and stressing differences between the two choices. The debates are more of a venue to argue why the platform should appeal to a very broad public than one to shape policy or discuss the nuances of policies. This is evidenced by last night’s debate and its lack of attention to policy detail. Yes, candidates made claims as to what their policies can achieve but never seemed to emphasize how these results would be reached. In this sense, the candidates fail to explain their policies and open them up for public and expert criticism. Along the same lines, the debates don’t matter much because there is not much direct clash. Candidates criticize the other’s record or disagree about the results of actions the other might take but do not typically argue about ways to achieve results nor discuss alternative possibilities. Because of this, the debates fail to inform the public on issues that they need to know about, which are the policies behind the issues that they discuss.

That being said, debates and coverage of them do affect public opinion. Debates matter for shaping public opinion on issues that should not matter in an election. For example, the typical discussion about candidates after debates relates less to actual politics and more to personal characteristics of the candidates. Debate analysis revolves around a specific candidates overall charisma, likability, and even appearance. Coverage of the debate determines who “won” or “lost” a debate based on the candidates ability to convey his message and not based on the message itself. As Schudson noted, political coverage in the media tends to be more “game-focused” than policy- focused. The focus on personal characteristics and the game of politics is what drives political opinion in major elections. And this is why debates matter. The debates offer candidates an opportunity to show off their most charming and likable characteristics which will later be emphasized in the popular press.

It would be difficult to argue that an event with such a wide viewership is not significant since it serves a crucial role in shaping public opinion. But in a strict policy sense, the debates seem relatively insignificant in shaping the course of the country.

Obama vs. Romney

Posted on October 4, 2012 in Debate Significance

Do the debates matter? And why or why not?

As I gathered some of the news stories circulating the Internet and newspapers this morning, as well as hearing what other friends and classmates had to say about the debate, an overwhelming amount believed it was Romney who won the debate hands down. “Romney was aggressive, while Obama looked down at his paper and smirked a lot” seemed to be a common theme of the debate news cycle this morning. However, was this just based off of looks, charm and personality? Or did people check facts and decide on a winner from the substance and their talking points?

At least for myself, I had to check myself from doing that last night. “Obama made sure to wear blue and Romney red” I thought! “Romney is really looking at Obama with care”, I would think. “Why is everyone on twitter being so mean about the moderator?” I asked some friends close by. With a debate such as this, with such large matters at to debate, it is easy to think of things such as the appearance of the debaters or the lighting on the stage. However one (definitely including myself) must remember to listen to the words of the two men one stage, and not only that, but also interpret these ideas and actions of the men onstage and think of the debate in terms of the larger picture.

Last night, Romney received a large (and much needed) boost from the debate which left many people wondering if Romney was the one. Who knows, if he can keep up this string of aggressive nature in the upcoming debates, this election may be on close terms in November. However, the general public should remember their voice in the election. While appearance may come as an important aspect of an American president, it does not stand alone as we vote for the hope of a better future for not only ourselves but for the American public as well.

Of Emperors and Clothes

Posted on October 4, 2012 in Debate Significance

Done in a twenty minute timed session for class, on an iPad.

Question: Do the debates matter?

The debates matter, though perhaps not to the degree that we have been led to believe. If nothing else, minimally, they have affected the ways parties perceive their potential candidates. The question of how well they’d do in a debate is one they hold important, and where there is such a belief the ponderous weight of factors follow. And when it comes down to it these factors, even minor ones, can have great effects. Not to mention that, as a spectacle, it too can draw crowds. And wayward American Studies students.

As to whether it sways people, gives them an eye into the candidate, it does to some degree. Public speaking can be taught but cannot really be faked. Debate skills again can be taught, but not necessarily faked. And while I might otherwise add discipline, such as that needed to stay within a time limit, is likewise, at last night’s debate we seemed to have none of that. The truth is that while most Americans get a good deal of their news by hearsay (“Obama Says Romney…”) via the news, or clips chosen by the same news, the debates are at least less filtered. While preparation is possible, I expect nothing said last night was ‘off the cuff’, it is still an indication of a personal skill. Not the most relevant one, perhaps, but a skill nonetheless.

But I cannot say that people take such debates seriously. Pollsters and politicos seem to think otherwise, and I can only muster a rational argument against them. Yet when the rational and empirical clash, the empirical usually wins. Still, one imagines it has at least had an effect on the candidates and how their parties choose them. No one wants to be Nixon, and if nothing else, our candidates seem to be getting handsomer, more photogenic. And if in no other way, that means they’re here to say, and be felt, in American elections.

The Importance of Image in Debates

Posted on October 4, 2012 in Debate Significance

Debates matter. I would argue that it is not the material debated so much as how the candidates appear while debating. Since the advent of television and debates during Kennedy/Nixon, these events have become moments of likeability and image. Those who watch the debates are focused on how comfortable or how commanding each candidate looks up on stage. What they are saying is important but it is the same talking points and facts that the public hears during the entire campaign. This is a moment of live national exposure for each candidate. Reactions on twitter for last night’s debate were overwhelmingly aimed towards how Romney or Obama were being perceived. I believe that the debates are essentially a performance, acing your lines and handling yourself in a way that can benefit your image as a knowledgable, confident leader. This is something the public reacts strongly to. The debates may not reveal anything important or novel within each candidate’s policy, ideology, or plans but it still remains an important force on the road to the White House. Candidates can really define themselves during these moments and at other times, they can see their unraveling. Should these debates matter for more intellectual reasons? Probably but in this visual media that focuses on the horse race and campaign strategy, image reigns. And the debates set a perfect stage for the public to see how each candidate conducts himself in a national event. It is not about what they are saying. It’s about how they are saying it.

Debates Matter for the Undecided

Posted on October 4, 2012 in Debate Significance

I was really frustrated last night while watching the debates.

I was doing layout in the Observer office while it was on, so while I saw the whole thing, it was more background noise than my primary focus. However, I did try to pay attention as much as possible, and the pieces that I picked up were kind of frustrating. I’m not going to pretend to have an in-depth understanding of all that was debated last night, but what stood out to me the most was that the candidates were often indirect and extremely vague in their responses. Rather than giving any concrete information about what their own plans were, they sought every opportunity to knock their opponent’s plans.

Debates matter only to the extent that the audience (in this case, the whole country) has not yet decided their stance. I doubt that many people who had already had preconceived notions about who they were voting for changed their minds last night. The purpose of the debates are to persuade those who are undecided. So long as there are undecided voters who actually care about voting, debates matter. They might not provide the most information at the end of the night, but they certainly have an impact on those who have not yet made up their minds.

Debates also create watchdog journalism, and journalism in general. It was incredible how many stories were breaking AS the debate was going on. Twitter exploded with politics. The commentary surrounding the debates are equally as important because this commentary will also serve to persuade undecided voters. This raises the question of how biased the commentary can and should be. It goes back to wondering what kind of journalism the public needs. It is clear that the public needs journalism in order to digest the debates, but it is important for those reporting to separate fact from skewing the reporting to be in the best interest of the reporters.

So, overall, do debates matter? Yes. But not to the extent that they may be made out to matter.