After watching the first presidential debate on Friday September 24th, 2008 I found I was asking myself more questions than the candidates were asked. One question that stood out the most was, are debates necessary? Since this year’s election process has been so long and what I believe to be drawn out, I find myself wondering if this year’s debates were actually vital to each candidate’s campaign.
The reason for presidential debates is for the candidates to address the public while being face to face with their opponent/s. The candidates are given a certain amount of time to address questions about the issues they stand f. This allows each candidate to let the voters know how they feel. Each candidate is also allowed time for rebuttal against the opposite parties comments. The purpose is to strengthen supporter feelings as well as to gain supporters.
Since the election season has begun each candidate has made it known where they stand on every issue. From interviews, to town speeches to their official websites they have made it very accessible to voters on their feelings and attitudes towards all of the issues involved in this upcoming election. I just don’t understand while all this information has been out there for the past year or so there is still a need for debates?
The only reason I feel debates may be necessary are for the apathetic people in our country, so they can hopefully take something from the debate and make a decisions to vote for a candidate. However I do not know how effective debates would be to sway these people to support a candidate because they probably would not even tune into the debates. The problem I have is the people watching the debates are the ones who have already picked their candidate and are the party faithful. Those are the people who are going to watch the debates just to see how the candidates react to each other and how they answer the questions and to see who will “win”, meanwhile they will just say the candidate they are in favor of won.
Contrary to my opinion presidential debates prove to be effective on the public. In the Handbook of Political Communications Kaid states, “debates contribute to a more enlightened and rational electorate better equipped to make an informed voting decision,” (Kaid, 205). I can argue with this statement, a voter can research a candidate and watch them speak on television and read online articles and still be able to make an informed voting decision.
With issues constantly being brought up in various media sectors the debates just become a show of who is going to get tongue tied or whose attempts to charm America were better, the issues often get lost. So honestly are these media spectacle of fights and contradictions also known as presidential debates really effective? Well, Lanoue and Schrott state “campaign debates are above all, attempts to persuade—with candidates appealing to citizens for that ultimate prize, their vote,” (Kaid, 209). How much more can you persuade the voters who have already picked you as their candidate! This just reassures my beliefs that debate are not necessary.
In an article I found from the Associate Press, concerning McCain’s plea to postpone last Fridays debate to travel to Washington due to the current financial crisis. (http://www.azcentral.com/news/election/election08/articles/2008/09/25/20080925mccain-obama0925.html) Obama states that now more than ever the debates are vital to the campaign, that McCain should not postpone the debate. Obama states, “this is exactly the time when the American people need to hear from the person who, in approximately 40 days will be responsible for dealing with this mess," This boggles my mind because the American people will be hearing the same thing they have been hearing for the past year!
Are the presidential debates effective for convenience reasons, so voters can turn on their televisions and just hear all the issues at once instead of actually caring and researching a little more? Or are these debates actually effective.
Polls show that Obama is now in the lead (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/) due to “winning” the debate. Did the debates actually help put Obama ahead in the polls again? Could he have swung undecided voters through his debating skills? I personally do not think voters could have been swayed that much by this past debate. I do not think this one night completely changed the campaign to reassure Obama that he will be the next president.
With those last remarks I leave you with the questions still in my mind for you to think about, do you think presidential debates are vital to candidate’s success in winning the election? Do you feel Friday night’s debate informed you about anything you didn’t already know or did you find the information you received was just reassurance?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
It is interesting to hear an opposing view on the Presidential debates. I happen to be a proponent of debating, but have tailored my opinion after reading this blog and the assigned chapters. To answer the first question, I believe presidential debates are effective for both convenience and also, for lack of a better term, more serious/respectable reasons. It doesn’t matter why they are effective, what really counts is that they are. I stick with my convictions that presidential debates are influential, but my opinion has changed when considering the magnitude of influence. In the Handbook for Political Communication, Kaid sites a report conducted by Chaffee in 1978. “The top three motivations that viewers’ cite for watching debates include a desire to learn about candidates’ issue positions, to compare candidate personalities, and to gain information that will allow them to make their voting decision” (206). Reading this quotation alone would support my prior views that presidential debates rule!! (…or are influential to a majority of viewers.) However, after considering the bloggers opinion and subsequently, reading deeper into the chapter I have formulated a new opinion. “Debates will have much less influence on those marginally interested voters, or the ‘occasional’ debate watchers, as well as those committed partisans who view debates for reassurance that theirs is indeed the superior candidate. Finally debates have very little to no effect on the uninterested voter…” (210). Well, hmm it looks to me like Kaid outlined a vast majority of the population. However, the group he left out of this list is the most important group to a presidential candidate- the swing voter. They are a minority of people, but are crucial to this election. During the presidential debates Barak Obama and John McCain were addressing the entire population, but were speaking directly to this small group of people. The polling numbers are still close but I believe the debates helped Obama gain an edge because the undecided group of voters are starting to “swing” towards their final position. Friday night’s debate did not change my opinion on either candidate. I guess, in a sense the debate did not “work” on me. But I am not in this potent minority of people that have the power to change the election. PBS’s Judy Woodruff reported on what voters are saying after the debates. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/politics/july-dec08/floridaeconomy_09-29.html (download it and read along!) Her findings are cohesive with my new views on the topic. Most of the people she interviewed are like me. “Committed partisans who view debates for reassurance that theirs is indeed the superior candidate.” But a few people in the report changed their mind. It is important to mention that this report was conducted in Florida- one of the “swingiest” of swing states. In conclusion, my views on debates have changed. I used to feel the politicians were talking to me. But, alas, I’ll just have to move to Florida, Pennsylvania or Ohio for that to be true.
I was a bit confused after watching Friday’s debate. Obama and McCain seemed to dance around the questions they were asked.
Not only this but almost all of the debate was focused around the US financial situation, weren’t we sposta be talking about the war?
While I do think finances are extremely important, especially now, the war itself is soaking up millions and millions a year so it seems to me the guys should have stayed on target.
I believe the presidential debates are the most important part of the election process. The debates are supposed to serve as a way for people to get a clearer picture of the person they will choose to run their country.
Instead this debate just clouded issues in a time when almost everything to do with politics seems confusing.
As cnshimkus noted, Kaid sites a report conducted by Chaffee in 1978. “The top three motivations that viewers’ cite for watching debates include a desire to learn about candidates’ issue positions, to compare candidate personalities, and to gain information that will allow them to make their voting decision” (206)
This is a major problem when, “According to data from across 11 networks, the first presidential debate on September 26 between John McCain and Barack Obama drew 52.4 million viewers.” (Nielsen Wire)
If we consider that many of these millions know very little about the presidential candidates or at least still need to decide who they will vote for we can imagine how many people were disappointed by Fridays debate.
Though not everyone has posted yet it seems clear that even in a class full of relatively informed individuals many agree with me.
There is a need for the debates when pseudo-events like the ongoing economic crisis are taking place. Americans need to heara how the candidates think the problem should be handle. After all, it will be the next president's problem after election day.
Voters may be able to research and find out more about the candidates, but do they? Uh...if it weren't for this class, I probably wouldn't. Debates put it all on the table in an entertaining fashion. There's contest, voice-raising, and a winner to boot.
Presidential debates don't win elections. Candidate blunders lose elections. According to Seducing America, "Candidates now talk about their opponents' talk more than about their nation's destiny" (Hart 86). The presidential debates are just blunder creating and rehashing.
The only thing the debates reassured me of was that the election was still up for grabs.
Although I do not think that presidential campaigns are VITAL to a candidate’s success in winning the election, they definitely do play a huge role to its viewers. Debates give people the opportunity to view the presidential nominees in perhaps a “new” setting. It is not everyday you can see John McCain and Barack Obama go at it- but in a debate they are forced to. Debates are informative in most cases to the public. While I myself did not take much from this debate, my sister and boyfriend definitely did. My sister is a Bio Pre-Pharmacy major at UConn and the only things she has time for are her books. On the night of the debate however she came home to watch it with me. She seemed to be pretty engaged and she told me she gained a lot of perspective of it although it was dull at some points. This made me realize that there are probably a lot of people out there similar to my sister. Not everyone has all the time in the world to watch this campaign as closely as some of us do. People have their own lives to live rather than “stalk” this presidential election. But I can definitely see how the debate was informative to a good chunk of its viewers.
For myself, the debate Friday night was a bit of a let down. I was bored. I felt like I knew everything- well the majority of things- that the candidates touched on. Nothing was really ground shaking news but then again I did not expect there to be any. I actually find myself more excited for the Vice-Presidential debate coming up. I think the debate will definitely play a big role in the voting polls for the vice-presidential nominees. I really think this can make or break Palin. Her supporters still have no idea what she stands for so maybe if they see her get up to the plate against Biden and fall then maybe they will start to think otherwise.
As Kaid mentions in the handbook, “we are convinced that debates do matter- that our democracy has been well served, that our citizenry has benefited from their leaders’ willingness to meet face to face, seeking public support” (203-204). Debates may not matter to everyone but for the majority of people they do matter. Debates are a fairly new element to the presidential campaign and they definitely serve a more positive function opposed to a negative. Above all, debates inform the unaware public viewers about the candidates and enlighten those already faithful campaign viewers with a new perspective.
Lindseys opposing view was really interesting and a different way to think about debates, but I would still have to agree with the majority that debates are definetely necessary. I actually rather watch a debate over a convention any day, Although debates aren't necessary for a candidate to win, or gain more supporters, I think debates really show the public how these candidates stand on certain issues. Yes, it is apparent what their issues and opinions are through their websites, the internet in general, television, interviews, videos, etc. but for some reason, when I watch them in debate, I feel like the debate is as real as it is going to get. They are completely put on the spot, and whether what they say or not is true in that moment, if it doesn't sound consistent with what they have been saying or if what they say just doesn't seem clear, it is evident to the public. Furthermore, I really think when I watch these candidates, on the spot, and getting "called out" by their opponent, it really shows me who can handle pressure, how they react under pressure, how they would respond to a crisis, and their true "colors" and personality- it's more real than a commercial that was taped over and over 1,000 times or a blog someone else wrote for them- and I think those are all vital assets to being the president of the U.S."
According to the handbook in chapter 8, "Viewers are far more likely to use debates to gain insight into each candidate's personality and character..a superior personal presentation appears to be more important to voters than accumulation of issue-oriented debating points" (212).
But because I watch the debates and don't get swayed to another candidate, it's because I am a political science minor and have interest in this. You have to remember, a lot of people in this country are so apathetic about politics, so a debate could alter somones decision, unfortunately....
"Debates may not alter the voting preferences of the vast majority of previously commited viewers,but several studies have found that among the undecided, conflicted, or weakly committed debates do help these viewers for their voting preference or even change candidate selection"(208).
You also have to remember that a big chunk of the voting population may be the elderly and poor people who may not have access to the internet- which as we discovered from last week and the week before-is playing a huge role especially in this 2008 election. So, the old fashion way of watching the debates may be an old way, but perhaps a successful way to get more people to tune in. "..the televised candidate debate may well represent the one true campaign communicaton success story" (213).
I feel debates are effective for candidates to tell their stances on issues to people who may not have the time or the resources to research their stances on the internet or in other ways. I do however feel that debates have become more about candidates trying to set traps for one another, trying to get the other to say something that will hurt him or make him look bad, than it is about trying simply talk about each stance on the issues. Much more time is put into discussing the candidate’s gaffes and slipups then is put into discussing the actual issues on the TV analysis afterwards. At the same time I feel that these debates are necessary and feel that they are effective ways for candidates to draw votes from undecided voters, who in this election are going to be very important as it is so close. In the Handbook for Political Communication Research, Mitchell Mckinney and Diana Carlin state that, “several studies have found that among the undecided, conflicted, or weakly committed, debates do help these viewers form their voting preference or even change candidate selection. (211)” I also feel it is great to see the candidates in a situation where they are together and not reading scripted speeches to an audience full of their supporters. The idea that the debate is made up of questions that the candidates aren’t supposed to know about forces them to look less scripted and makes them look more raw. I think it’s important to see how the candidates talk about their stances without a written speech or teleprompter in front of them. The Handbook states that “debates generate the greatest amount of public interest and more citizen-citizen discussion than any other single campaign event. (204)” Ultimately, that is what the campaigns want to happen, and therefore that is what makes the debates effective.
Post a Comment