instigators
argument: upon researching, we are inclined to argue that each of these debates had an effect on voter decisions, although not as significant as many assumed. The impact was mostly related to the demeanor and behavior each candidate portrayed while on stage answering questions. The simplicity and wording of their answers and debate styles had a positive effect on swing voters. (to be refined)
Seeing as each member of our group will be covering their own specific election season, 1960, 1992, 2012, we will undoubtedly find varying degrees of impact on voters throughout the years. The differences between each of our findings will help create a more cohesive argument, which will then show the trajectory of debate impact from 1960 to the present, and then our own projections for what debate impact may look like in the future.
For my analysis of the 1960 election I have examined the video of the first-televised debates between Nixon & Kennedy, various articles from the time found through library databases, and modern analyses through journals and scholarly websites.
Jordan– your first paragraph is a good proposal for what you’re doing, but we should be moving well beyond that at this point.
What did you look at, specifically? What conclusions did they lead you to make about the 1960 election? Can you make an argument about the impact of those debates on the perspectives of the voters in that election?
Upon first viewing the Nixon-Kennedy debates, I put myself in the perspective of a potential voter in 1960 watching the very first televised debate. Up until that point, debates were aired on radio and transcripts were printed within newspapers. Adding the element of the visual, possibly superficial, connection to each candidates viewpoints revolutionized presidential elections in one fell swoop. Kennedy, young, well rested and “prepped-for-tv”, vs. the seemingly “sickly” and “gaunt” Nixon, who not a few days before was hospitalized, created a shocking turn in public opinion in favor of Kennedy.
As Felipe mentioned within his post, the key word here is “momentum.” Although Nixon was thought to have been the victor in the following debates, the first and most striking victory by Kennedy ultimately gave him the positive media spin to supplement his campaigning.
In many ways the 1960 election can be viewed as the first experiment in modern campaigning, which constitutes a vast amount of money being spent by campaign teams on trying to sway the media coverage of their candidate. This is an important sub-theme to be investigated with our research; does popular opinion inform media, or does media inform popular opinion? In either case, the debates since 1960 have served more as a supplement to a successful campaign and detrimental to a failing campaign.
This is good.
This lends itself to a potential visual presentation — with audio and video components, as well as still images — that could be very compelling. Can you pull that off?
This claim:
is intriguing. Do you have data to support it? What does it mean? How did it depart from this style of campaigning?
You’re heading in a good direction… keep pushing.
The historical argument that the outcome of presidential debates determine the outcome of the election is in one sense valid and in another sense, “not so fast”. Generally, debates play an important role in determining the candidate who gets positive (or negative) media coverage that follows. Case in point, during the first presidential debate of the recent 2012 election, Governor Mitt Romney clearly came out the winner. Following the debate, the media highlighted how lackluster President Barack Obama appeared. One article in the Huffington Post said that the president “failed to respond effectively, drifting into his professorial demeanor and barely attempting to veil his annoyance with Romney. It wasn’t pretty, but Romney won, according to the general consensus among reporters and political operatives after the debate at the University of Denver. Romney appeared more relaxed than Obama…[Obama] hardly looked Romney in the eye during the debate”. The article went on to say that while it is hard to know how voters took in the debate, Romney cleared the more critical bar by “appearing presidential”.
It goes without saying that candidates use media coverage after debates to gain momentum in the presidential race. In many cases, one can see an obvious shift in the polls that leans towards or away from the candidate getting the positive or negative attention. For example, we saw the advantage for Obama disappear after the first debate and news coverage shifted in Romney’s direction, mirroring the momentum change reflected in many public opinion polls. One poll from Pew Research Center’s Project for Excellence in Journalism found that “overall from August 27th through October 21st, 19% of stories about Obama studied in a cross section of mainstream media were clearly favorable in tone while 30% were unfavorable and 51% mixed”. These differential percentage points show some correlation with favorable and unfavorable trends between both candidates.
Yet during the course of our research it became overwhelmingly clear that there are many different factors that play a role in determining the outcome of presidential elections, past and present. Trends in the overall cultural thinking of voters factor into this determination in a major way. For example, trends show that America is becoming more liberal. Conservatism is gradually diminishing as voters are becoming more progressive in their thinking. Views and priorities of Americans have shifted over the last couple of decades on issues such as abortion, the legalization of marijuana, and gay marriage, among other things. Such a shift is important for candidates on both the right and left to be aware of and can steer the course of their campaigning. The historical argument that the outcome of presidential debates determines who wins the election is one that, while valid in its reasoning, cannot ignore the various factors that also play a major role in determining the next commander-in-chief.
Felipe: this is outstanding.
This line:
is a prime example of how to precisely and specifically calibrate an argument. I’m going to unpack here what’s so good about it.
“The debates play an important (as in, not the only) role in determining (influencing might be better, since it’s not the “only role”) who gets positive (or negative) media coverage that follows (it’s a limited impact).”
Thoughts on sourcing, not necessarily related to this comment but for you to take into your production. It makes a greater impact on a reader to see a point illuminated by a variety of sources. If you want to show that the first debate was deemed by most folks in the mass media as a win for Romney, you wouldn’t just cite the Huff Post piece, but a whole range of sources.
I also really like your use of the word “momentum.” These debates are not decisive, but rather influence perceptions in a particular moment, within the context of a broader campaign that also has other influential events (47% speech, for instance).
Never start a sentence with “it goes without saying.” If it really does go without saying, then you don’t need to say it!
Great use of Pew to show evolving bent of coverage. Here’s a devil’s advocate question: how do we know those studies are reliable? Do we need to contextualize the presentation of that argument somehow so the authority of Pew is seen and accepted by your audience?
Your last paragraph continues your effort to contextualize and calibrate our assumptions about the debates. Keep on refining that statement. Of course, debates are not divorced from “trends in overall cultural thinking,” but rather engage with them. Candidates use the debates to position themselves within those shifting contexts. There’s the immediate impact of the debates, but then there’s also the longer term impact of how the debates ossify or secure the candidate’s identity in the electorate’s perspective.
These thoughts are all intended to keep pushing you, and to urge your groupmates to learn from the model that you’v produced. Keep going.
@Robert:
Who constitutes “many”?
Good point… flush it out. How do you demonstrate this?
How do you know this? Also, is this a common trend across all elections, and all debates? If you can prove this, what does it tell us about the role of debates in shaping an electorate’s decision-making process?
Upon reading a transcript from an interview questioning a random swing voter.http://www.pbs.org/newshour/debatingourdestiny/newshour/92_1stprez_reax.html (that is a full transcript of an interview following the first debate of 1992). This shows that the cohort was influenced by the simplicity of Perot (as an example). Another aspect i must include is how Perot’s favorable performance in the first debate affected the other two candidates. In this case, Bush lost more voters to Perot than Clinton did, again showing how a successful debate can lead to certain shifts in momentum across the board. It is evident that the debates can be a catalyst in the direction of polls and results without being an all out game changer.
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/main/2012/10/obama-up-4-in-colorado.html#more
This site might help