Do debates really matter... In most instances, I am going to argue no. 1) People who identify themselves with a political party will not swap allegiances over an hour or 2 of television. It is too difficult to sway people who are rooted in one political ideology or the other. 2) Independent voters: Polls show there has relatively been no shift in polls after debates. When this did seem to happen, like in 2004 with presidential candidate Kerry, there were other outside factors playing in. For example, at the same time Iraq war casualties increased exponentially. 3) If anything matters, it's the media. Polls have also shown that a candidate's performance rarely makes a difference. Rather, the media spin or commentary that follows will often shape a voters opinion of who "won." For example, if a voter watched a commentary by Fox News after the debate, highlighting all of Romney's high points and effective statements, then it is likely they will base their conclusion on such.
While I have had the benefit of responding to this question after I actually saw the debate, I still disagree with Katie.
It is true that a liberal is unlikely to swap parties after hearing Romney's performance last night (or vice versa). According to the polls, about 5% of people are still "truly undecided" (they don't know who they are going to vote for and are planning to vote). Even more are considered "soft republicans" or "soft democrats" (people that tentatively know who they are voting for but remain unconvinced that they have chosen correctly). A particularity remarkable debate would likely make some impression on those voters. I have talked to many who have altered their view on Romney after the debate last night, most of them saying how he didn't come off like he is portrayed: cold, rich, and out of touch. Obviously there is no reliable polling data as of yet that shows what impact the debate had on public opinion. We do know that people were watching, however. Twitter reported the debate as being the most tweeted about political event in twitter history, and while twitter history is pretty short history, it is significant because it showed that more people were watching the debate, especially towards the middle-end (when the tweets peaked), than did watch the conventions. The conventions reported low ratings, and led pundits to reason that it was because most people had already decided who they were voting for. Today, the same pundits have been signing a different tune.
A few reasons why this debate was particularly interesting: -This has been a notably nasty campaign on both sides. This was the first time that Romney and Obama had to look each other in the eye as they slandered each other -It was located in Denver, the site of 2004's monumental democratic national convention. Republicans were concerned over inherent potential biases of this location and Democrats were interested to see if the debate could produce a comparable amount of energy -Both candidates spent a relatively large block of time holed away preparing for the debate: Obama in a posh Nevada resort and Romney in Denver -Both candidates have said that this election gives voters a choice for the direction of this country... the debate became highly philosophical at times
So did any of these factors make an impact on the American public? It's too early to tell. Personally I thought the debate last night was excellent (As Andrew Petroff so kindly pointed out on Facebook last night, this is like the Superbowl to me)... Obviously I have a bias towards political debates that the rest of the country probably doesn't share. And I mean, as Kristin pointed out, there was a new Criminal Minds that night. Decisions, decisions.
I believe that these debates are mainly to let the voters know who each candidate is and what their platform is on important issues. I do not believe that by watching the debate people from political parties will change their stance on who they will vote for. After watching the debate I was shocked at how disinterested and non- aggressive President Obama seemed. I think that these debates are crucial to the candidates because how they act and how they represent themselves has a major impact on who will vote for them. I agree that media has an extreme impact on the way people vote and especially how they view the candidate. I was very surprised that after the debate both Republicans and Democrats found the debate to be a win for Romney and his party. I feel that these debates are crucial to the campaign especially to the voters who are still undecided. I think that after Wednesday night's debate many people may switch their vote for now.
In most cases, I do not believe that presidential debates change who candidates will vote for. As Kirsten pointed out, there are a few notable exceptions. But I would like to emphasize that they are exceptions. I definitely believe that neither staunch Republicans or Democrats will change their vote simply because of the debates. And the same can even be said for those who identify with a party but aren't die-hards. The only noteworthy group that could be swayed by a debate are the undecided voters. But undecided voters are only a small percentage of the people actually voting.
The recent Romney-Obama debate was a definite victory for Romney. Obama gave a lackluster performance, while Romney came out extremely confident. However, polls have shown that Romney has not gained a significant number of new followers after his blowout in the debate, which is hard to believe.
I agree that usually presidential debates do not drastically change the outcome of elections. However, the most effect is undoubtedly on the undecided and uninformed voter. I agree with Katie that depending on the source of media, a debate can be analyzed in a completely different way. A bias, filtered review of the debate can influence an independent voter, but it may not reflect the voter’s individual opinion, rather a crafted opinion of the newspaper or TV show that they are watching. In my opinion, most of voters have already made up their minds about the election before the debates. Staunch party supporters have already invested time, effort, and money into a candidate and even some independents have heard enough about politics from constant media sources to already have formed opinions. In this specific election, the debates could have a bigger effect than in the past because it is so close, in contrast to Obama’s first presidential election. Truthfully, debates do not really tell anything to the voter. Each candidate uses a myriad of generalizations, in order to avoid the threat of misspeaking and maintain political “correctness.” The candidates do not have a sufficient amount of time to explain their policies because they are too complex. As a result, the debates truly give one insight on the personality of each candidate. The performance and personality of the candidates resonate with voters, as shown by the Kennedy v. Nixon debates. The debates usually lack much substance, due to the fact that the candidates are too busy making sure they look personable on TV, stay calm and collected under pressure, and maintain their “approachable” smile. Thus, if the debates do impact a voter’s opinion, it should be noted that it may not be the most reliable factor, depending on the context that one views the contents of the debate.
I think that the debates are more for entertainment purposes at this point in our country than for their real purpose of informing voters on the policies of each candidate and helping them make a decision on who to vote for. It seems to me that most people who bother to watch the debates are those who already support one party or the other and already plan to vote for either Romney or Obama. These people are very unlikely to change their minds because of an hour and a half debate. Anyone who actually is unbiased and would probably benefit from learning more about the candidates and what they think is far more unlikely to even watch the debate in the first place. A lot of people just don't care and those who do probably already have their opinions formed when it comes to politics. Nonetheless, watching the debate probably does help some undecided voters to come to a decision before it's time to vote. More Americans seem get their information about the debate from the media after the fact. However, it seems to me that the media becomes fixated on one aspect of the debate so it doesn't really give one an adequate synopsis. For example, after Wednesday's debate, practically all I've heard about it is how great Romney did and how Obama seemed tired or bored and was a complete disappointment. I watched the debate and I agree that Romney was more energized and performed better this time, but a lot of different things happened during the debate and, at least in my experience, you would never know that from just paying attention to the media. So in my opinion, the debates are not nearly as important as they could be.
Presidential debates are, in my opinion, a way underutilized tool. As of now the debates really are more for entertainments sake. I highly doubt anyone who is strongly democratic or republican would be swayed to a different party by a hour and a half long debate. Those most likely to be watching the debates are people most interested in politics, and those people probably already know who they are going to vote for. People also tend to think that their candidate is the one who did better in the debate and the other candidate is wrong. Those who are undecided voters may not even be watching the debates, and if they try and look for summaries they will most likely be very biased. If they did watch the debates, it may not even be helpful to them if they don't already have political knowledge about the candidates and policies. For example in the most recent debate Obama said something about Romney's policies but Romney countered saying that what Obama said wasn't true. If an independent voter did not previously know what the policy was they may be confused as to who was right. Overall I do not think the debates are really that helpful.
I really don't think that the debates matter very much, especially in the times we live in now, where people tend to have very short attention spans. Like Kirsten said, there are other things that people would rather watch. I personally don't think that anybody who is interested enough to watch the debates is truly undecided. Even watching the media coverage afterwards is not going to really change anybody's mind, because people will choose to watch the news outlet that they find they agree with the most often. The media is notoriously biased, so watching the media to find out what happened is still not going to change their mind. I'm sure that if a truly undecided voter is actually going to watch the debates, they will also take the time to actually research their policies, which are easier to find than ever because of the internet, so the candidate's policies will still be the thing that decides this election.
I think that debates do matter, however, most people already know which party they are voting for. A debate won't sway a die-hard republican to vote democratic and a die-hard democrat isn't going to vote for the republican candidate. I think that the only demographic that the debate has an effect on is the undecided, but not enough to sway the votes. I'd like to point out something Mr. Baker mentioned in class. He said that most people watching the entire debates are decided voters, who won't change their minds, and are watching to cheer on their party. I thought that was interesting. Some little slip up or something offensive in anyway won't have much effect on die-hard party supporters, whereas it may very likely change the votes of the undecided and people who tend to identify with a particular party, but aren't a "die-hard" supporter. Over all i don't think that debates have much effect, definitely not enough to change the outcome, unless something really big happened and lots of people were offended, or some dark secret was revealed in the debate. I think the debates are mainly to allow the voters to find out more about where the candidate stands on important issues.
Personally, I believe that presidential debates are very important. I believe they help voters get an insight on the candidate and see what he is like and what his specific goals are for the country. Presidential debates inform people about the candidate’s specific policies also. The candidates express their opinions to the people and according to that, people can decide if those opinions will match their specific opinions in choosing who to vote for. Receiving an insight on the candidate’s personality and specific characteristics also helps voters. Though, a person usually always sticks with one political party, I believe a presidential debate really makes people think twice over their decision of who to choose for, for presidency. Like Catherine said, I believe these debates are crucial to the specific campaigns of the Democrats and Republicans. Though not every person is inclined to watch the presidential debate fully or none at all, many people will talk about it for a few days after the debate and hearing views about it, people may watch the debate later and more in depth. After watching the presidential debate of Romney and Obama, I personally, understood what each president wanted to do if they were elected as president. This debate was a win for Romney and I understood more of what he wanted for the country through the presidential debate. Also, those who are undecided voters may also look at the presidential debate as a tool or guide to help them vote for a president that matches their attitudes and views. I believe that presidential debates are extremely important because not only do they help voters choose who to pick, but they give an insight on the candidate himself.
I would certainly agree with the majority of the sentiments expressed on this blog with regard to presidential debates: nowadays, they don't hold very much weight. Yes, we must recognize that historically speaking, presidential debates have arguably lost the election for certain candidates because they utilized rhetoric that was deemed utterly unsatisfactory. However, nowadays, because political science is such a prominent force and study, sociologists and speech writers are able to carefully construct talking points for the candidates, so that if they do not know everything about a particular topic, they can go about addressing it in a very round about way. I know this myself because I participate in Extemporaneous speaking which requires speaking for 5-8 minutes on an impromptu topic, and there certainly have been cases where I didn't have a specific opinion on a topic (ex. do you believe the Burmese government is addressing the collapse of the Burmese education system adequateness?)
This is only important, of course, for those who intently watch the debates and dissect the debates. As identified by many, there are very few undecided voters who watch the debates exclusively with the intent on determining which candidate to vote for. I would also venture to say that many Americans only the results of the election through satirical representations (such as SNL skits), because they are arguably more interesting/appealing.
In my opinion, I do not believe that debates change a lot of peoples opinions when it comes to picking the candidate that they want to vote for. This close to the election, and even early on in the election, MOST people already have formed a lasting opinions and have made a final decision upon who they want to win. However, when it comes to the uninformed voters - the kind that make their decision last minute and based upon things such as colors - it would not surprise me if they simply voted for the candidate that "won" the debate. "Won" meaning who looked better, had quicker responses, answers, comebacks, arguments, etc. Meaning who talk show hosts, news stations, and political leaders believed had won. Although some may think debates are informative, I don’t think they do much at all. First off, nobody can really "win" a political debate because in politics there simply is no right and wrong - everything's a matter of opinion, based off of experiences and economic situations. Secondly, they don't do a good job of depicting who would be a better president whatsoever - the "better" candidate (according to a majority)for example, may have recently been sick, become exceedingly nervous under the pressure of millions of people, or straight up just isn't that good at debating. That my no means is reason for them not to be elected - if they truly would be better for running our country. Honestly, it seems to me that debates are more for an excuse to tear the opposing candidate apart and for those uneducated about politics to make pathetic tweets about.
I do not think that the debates truly matter that much. A very liberal Democrat, who very much believes in the policies of the Democratic party, would not change their mind to voting for Romney because he performed better in the debate. Simply put, debates are performances by the candidates. Independent voters who watch the debates will be easily swayed by whoever is commanding the debate, in the recent debate's case, Mitt Romney. The candidates participating in the debate are performing for the majority of the people watching the debate: the candidate's true supporters. Although we would all like to think that uninformed voters would watch the debates in the hopes of picking a candidate solely based on their policies and not a party affiliation, I do not believe that is the case. The majority of viewers are the supporters who watch the debates who want to see how their candidate performs. As previously stated, there are other things on television that people would rather watch, and undecided voters need to take the step to educate themselves on the issues and the candidates' platforms.
After watching the debate, I do consent to a couple of Tori's points:
The social-media sphere appeared to dominate the public's reaction to this last debate. This was never as strong of a factor in previous years. If uninformed, undecided voters missed the actual debate, they would have at least caught wind of the social media spin that followed. There is a large number of young and relatively ignorant new voters who have waited to this point in hopes of being spoonfed what to believe and who to vote for. If their feed is clogged with tweets mostly pointing to a specific candidates debate domination, they may jump on the bandwagon as well.
However, in at least 7 cases since the 1960's, the candidate leading on the eve of the first debate ended up winning the popular vote come the actual election. Although their opponent saw a brief surge in polls, overall the debates seemed to have little effect on the election outcome.
Perhaps 2012 will be an exception due to some new elements that were nonexistent in past elections and the unusually high number of still undecided voters. Perhaps debates will take on a new significance. One thing seems evident--we'll know a month from now.
I still believe that the debates do have an important affect on the way that people think of each candidate. However, I think that because there is such a loyalty that most people have to a specific party that even if they agree with some of the beliefs of the opposing party they will still remain with their party's candidate. I agree that social media will play an important role in this campaign as well as the media coverage such as these debates because most people won't go on the candidates websites and research what each candidate stands for and what their views are on certain subject. It is a great way for people to see the candidates and to distinguish the differences between them.
After reading all the comments I would have to agree with many of the points made. I do think the presidential debate is important but I also believe that the majority of people watching already know which candidate they are going to vote for and are only interested in watching to see how their candidate performs against the other. I agree that most people who are strongly associated to a political party won't change their opinion based on who 'won' the debate. However, it must make a difference more with the independent voter based on Romney's new recent bump in the polls after he was declared the 'winner' of the debate. I do agree with a lot of Gretchen's points. I don't think people should base their opinion on one debate but instead for the overall platform of a candidate. We don't know whether or not a candidate is under weather, nervous, or any other factors that can contribute to their debate performance. I agree with Cam's point that there is a lot of information that should be considered when deciding which candidate is going to best help the American people and voters should do their own homework in researching each candidate and what they stand for on different topics. Just because a candidate might have had one good or poor debate, that should never be the sole deciding factor.
To contradict what I posted earlier, I believe that the debates in this election may be more significant than in the past due to the fact that the unaffiliated and undecided voters may, in fact, decide the election because those loyal to Obama and Romney will cancel each other out. These debates could be more critical to Romney ecause he is more unknown than Obama. The more people get to know about Romney, the better they will be able to decide if they want to support him or not. Notably, Romney saw a surge in fundraising after his impressive performance in the first debate. This will allow his campaign to spend dollar for dollar with Obama as the campaign enters its final thirty days. Polls show that Romney has closed the gap with Obama in Michigan and his numbers increased dramatically among independent and undecided voters. Thus, I believe that in this particular election, the debates could prove to be a vital key for Romney to get in the White House or for Obama to stay there.
After reading all the previous comments made my everyone, I have to still stick to my position that the presidential debates are still very important, especially for voters, who want a better view of the candidate. I do not agree with Isabelle and Logan, with their points that debates are not important. Presidential debates are especially important because people can realize what kind of president may enter into the presidency. I believe that Katie's points, that a person will not immediately change their opinion about a candidate after watching a presidential debate would occur rarely, but I believe presidential debates are significant enough to help people further agree with their preference of a candidate. I also agree that the social media will also influence debates and advertise.
To contradict your point made I never stated debates weren't important in fact in the very first sentence of my original argument I stated that debates ARE important. I am going to stick to what I have said earlier though that debates are important they just shouldn't be the sole deciding factor when coming to the the conclusion on who would best be fit for president in their minds.
After reading everyone else's comments, I withhold my original opinion that the debates are not very important. I just don't think anyone who's opinion is easily swayed would even watch the debates. In this specific debate, I think it's possible that support for Romney could have increased due to his good performance right after the debate, but it seems like just as quickly something else happens and the polls are changing again.
I don’t completely agree with Payas on her points that debates give insight into what president may enter the presidency. Debates really don’t reveal much policy, but instead showcase the approachability and personality of the candidate. They may appeal to some people, but not a vast amount of those that dislike the fakeness and performance side of politics. Although the purpose of debates is much more wholesome, and debates are intended to be informative, they can be the epitome of phony politics. Many presidents, after winning the election, do the antithesis of what they claimed they would do in their debates, and it may come back to haunt them. The general, vague statements made by presidential candidates sound good in theory, but after they are put into action can sometimes be twisted into a different outcome, upsetting many supporters that agreed with those statements. In addition, I agree with Margaret that the debates may have a more substantial effect on the election this year, due to the fact that it will be so close. Analysts are scrambling to anticipate the outcome of the election, citing different heuristics that may influence voters. The debates can undoubtedly be a basis for a citizen’s vote, and it should be taken into account in this specific election. Due to the closeness of the election, every argument, debate, and statement counts.
I would also like to provide an point that arguably contradicts my previous statement. Although the debates may not specifically have a large impact on the apathetic citizens of the US (the issue of apathy seems to be an almost omnipresent aspect of modern society... but this is a completely different issue altogether) for us "political junkies" however, it is the only time we can see the politicians really go at it against each other. Throughout the campaign, each candidate makes lofty statements and addresses major issues in a roundabout way without directly hearing the responses from the other candidate. The debates offer designated time where the two candidates MUST share a stage. They do not have prewritten speeches. Sure, they may have talking points, but they obviously must be able specifically address pointed questions etc. (Kind of like a college interview… but again, that’s an aside)
One may also make the argument that exclusively extremely partisan people are political junkies. Therefore the debates only provide enjoyment for nerds analogous to the way jocks watching football games become excited watching the Packers take on the Steelers. I would say that although this argument is valid to an extent, electing public officials actually has long term ramifications. Politics and policy making controls all major aspects of society (without being overbearing, of course). Politicians have direct control of things from taxing, to law making, to privacy, to wages. Athletics (although entertaining) only proves that over sized men can carry a ball from one edge of a grass covered field to the other.
I have been rather cynical about debates. Therefore, I am rather stunned by the impact of the first presidential debate on the polls. I think it had a sort of double-whammy. Perhaps some "likely voters" bought into the narrative spun by the Democrats (skillfully) and amplified in the media that Romney was a gaffe-prone campaigner who could not manage his own campaign, let alone the presidency. It also may have reinforced the image of Obama as distant,passive,etc. The media narrative has certainly shifted and so have the polls. I think the impact the debate's impact on the opinion makers may have been more profound than the voters.
I still believe that the debates are not really that important in the election process. Although it appears that the most recent debate has had some effect on the polls, it seems that almost everything the candidates do will have some effect on the polls. And I do not believe those polls are really that reliable. The only reliable poll is the election and we will just have to wait to see the results of that. I believe that the debates aren't that important because the people who are most likely to watch are those who already have strong opinions. And many potential voters will have not watched the debate.
I agree with my original statement, however I think that this election might be an exception. The blow-back from this most recent Presidential debate seems to have tipped the scales in Romney's favor. Although polling itself is very inconclusive, maybe we all underestimated people's interest in this election. It seems, more so than the 2008 election, that people are passionate about issues such as the economy, so the debate focusing on the economy really ruffled some people's feathers and caused them to voice their opinions about this upcoming election.
After skimming through everyone's comments, I’d have to say that my same opinion still stands. However I would like to expand a little bit. Although I made it pretty clear that I do not think debates do much to swing peoples votes, that's not to say that they don't matter at all. Of course people who are into politics hate to see "their" candidate "lose". Those educated in and those who closely follow politics watch debates closely, whether it be to attack the opposing candidate after, or to simply be in the know, the debate still serves a purpose - it's still being watched and analyzed. Also, although many people who aren't "into" politics, are confused by politics, don't care about politics, to young to understand politics, etc. may only tune into the debate for a few minutes or when their own TV shows go to commercial, they do still tune in - clearly showing that, generally, people care! However, I'd say the debate does more to entertain people, in a way, than to educate or persuade people.
Do debates really matter...
ReplyDeleteIn most instances, I am going to argue no.
1) People who identify themselves with a political party will not swap allegiances over an hour or 2 of television. It is too difficult to sway people who are rooted in one political ideology or the other.
2) Independent voters: Polls show there has relatively been no shift in polls after debates. When this did seem to happen, like in 2004 with presidential candidate Kerry, there were other outside factors playing in. For example, at the same time Iraq war casualties increased exponentially.
3) If anything matters, it's the media. Polls have also shown that a candidate's performance rarely makes a difference. Rather, the media spin or commentary that follows will often shape a voters opinion of who "won." For example, if a voter watched a commentary by Fox News after the debate, highlighting all of Romney's high points and effective statements, then it is likely they will base their conclusion on such.
While I have had the benefit of responding to this question after I actually saw the debate, I still disagree with Katie.
ReplyDeleteIt is true that a liberal is unlikely to swap parties after hearing Romney's performance last night (or vice versa). According to the polls, about 5% of people are still "truly undecided" (they don't know who they are going to vote for and are planning to vote). Even more are considered "soft republicans" or "soft democrats" (people that tentatively know who they are voting for but remain unconvinced that they have chosen correctly). A particularity remarkable debate would likely make some impression on those voters. I have talked to many who have altered their view on Romney after the debate last night, most of them saying how he didn't come off like he is portrayed: cold, rich, and out of touch. Obviously there is no reliable polling data as of yet that shows what impact the debate had on public opinion. We do know that people were watching, however. Twitter reported the debate as being the most tweeted about political event in twitter history, and while twitter history is pretty short history, it is significant because it showed that more people were watching the debate, especially towards the middle-end (when the tweets peaked), than did watch the conventions. The conventions reported low ratings, and led pundits to reason that it was because most people had already decided who they were voting for. Today, the same pundits have been signing a different tune.
A few reasons why this debate was particularly interesting:
-This has been a notably nasty campaign on both sides. This was the first time that Romney and Obama had to look each other in the eye as they slandered each other
-It was located in Denver, the site of 2004's monumental democratic national convention. Republicans were concerned over inherent potential biases of this location and Democrats were interested to see if the debate could produce a comparable amount of energy
-Both candidates spent a relatively large block of time holed away preparing for the debate: Obama in a posh Nevada resort and Romney in Denver
-Both candidates have said that this election gives voters a choice for the direction of this country... the debate became highly philosophical at times
So did any of these factors make an impact on the American public? It's too early to tell. Personally I thought the debate last night was excellent (As Andrew Petroff so kindly pointed out on Facebook last night, this is like the Superbowl to me)... Obviously I have a bias towards political debates that the rest of the country probably doesn't share. And I mean, as Kristin pointed out, there was a new Criminal Minds that night. Decisions, decisions.
I believe that these debates are mainly to let the voters know who each candidate is and what their platform is on important issues. I do not believe that by watching the debate people from political parties will change their stance on who they will vote for. After watching the debate I was shocked at how disinterested and non- aggressive President Obama seemed. I think that these debates are crucial to the candidates because how they act and how they represent themselves has a major impact on who will vote for them. I agree that media has an extreme impact on the way people vote and especially how they view the candidate. I was very surprised that after the debate both Republicans and Democrats found the debate to be a win for Romney and his party. I feel that these debates are crucial to the campaign especially to the voters who are still undecided. I think that after Wednesday night's debate many people may switch their vote for now.
ReplyDeleteIn most cases, I do not believe that presidential debates change who candidates will vote for. As Kirsten pointed out, there are a few notable exceptions. But I would like to emphasize that they are exceptions. I definitely believe that neither staunch Republicans or Democrats will change their vote simply because of the debates. And the same can even be said for those who identify with a party but aren't die-hards. The only noteworthy group that could be swayed by a debate are the undecided voters. But undecided voters are only a small percentage of the people actually voting.
ReplyDeleteThe recent Romney-Obama debate was a definite victory for Romney. Obama gave a lackluster performance, while Romney came out extremely confident. However, polls have shown that Romney has not gained a significant number of new followers after his blowout in the debate, which is hard to believe.
I agree that usually presidential debates do not drastically change the outcome of elections. However, the most effect is undoubtedly on the undecided and uninformed voter. I agree with Katie that depending on the source of media, a debate can be analyzed in a completely different way. A bias, filtered review of the debate can influence an independent voter, but it may not reflect the voter’s individual opinion, rather a crafted opinion of the newspaper or TV show that they are watching.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, most of voters have already made up their minds about the election before the debates. Staunch party supporters have already invested time, effort, and money into a candidate and even some independents have heard enough about politics from constant media sources to already have formed opinions. In this specific election, the debates could have a bigger effect than in the past because it is so close, in contrast to Obama’s first presidential election.
Truthfully, debates do not really tell anything to the voter. Each candidate uses a myriad of generalizations, in order to avoid the threat of misspeaking and maintain political “correctness.” The candidates do not have a sufficient amount of time to explain their policies because they are too complex. As a result, the debates truly give one insight on the personality of each candidate. The performance and personality of the candidates resonate with voters, as shown by the Kennedy v. Nixon debates. The debates usually lack much substance, due to the fact that the candidates are too busy making sure they look personable on TV, stay calm and collected under pressure, and maintain their “approachable” smile. Thus, if the debates do impact a voter’s opinion, it should be noted that it may not be the most reliable factor, depending on the context that one views the contents of the debate.
I think that the debates are more for entertainment purposes at this point in our country than for their real purpose of informing voters on the policies of each candidate and helping them make a decision on who to vote for. It seems to me that most people who bother to watch the debates are those who already support one party or the other and already plan to vote for either Romney or Obama. These people are very unlikely to change their minds because of an hour and a half debate. Anyone who actually is unbiased and would probably benefit from learning more about the candidates and what they think is far more unlikely to even watch the debate in the first place. A lot of people just don't care and those who do probably already have their opinions formed when it comes to politics. Nonetheless, watching the debate probably does help some undecided voters to come to a decision before it's time to vote. More Americans seem get their information about the debate from the media after the fact. However, it seems to me that the media becomes fixated on one aspect of the debate so it doesn't really give one an adequate synopsis. For example, after Wednesday's debate, practically all I've heard about it is how great Romney did and how Obama seemed tired or bored and was a complete disappointment. I watched the debate and I agree that Romney was more energized and performed better this time, but a lot of different things happened during the debate and, at least in my experience, you would never know that from just paying attention to the media. So in my opinion, the debates are not nearly as important as they could be.
ReplyDeletePresidential debates are, in my opinion, a way underutilized tool. As of now the debates really are more for entertainments sake. I highly doubt anyone who is strongly democratic or republican would be swayed to a different party by a hour and a half long debate. Those most likely to be watching the debates are people most interested in politics, and those people probably already know who they are going to vote for. People also tend to think that their candidate is the one who did better in the debate and the other candidate is wrong. Those who are undecided voters may not even be watching the debates, and if they try and look for summaries they will most likely be very biased. If they did watch the debates, it may not even be helpful to them if they don't already have political knowledge about the candidates and policies. For example in the most recent debate Obama said something about Romney's policies but Romney countered saying that what Obama said wasn't true. If an independent voter did not previously know what the policy was they may be confused as to who was right. Overall I do not think the debates are really that helpful.
ReplyDeleteI really don't think that the debates matter very much, especially in the times we live in now, where people tend to have very short attention spans. Like Kirsten said, there are other things that people would rather watch. I personally don't think that anybody who is interested enough to watch the debates is truly undecided. Even watching the media coverage afterwards is not going to really change anybody's mind, because people will choose to watch the news outlet that they find they agree with the most often. The media is notoriously biased, so watching the media to find out what happened is still not going to change their mind. I'm sure that if a truly undecided voter is actually going to watch the debates, they will also take the time to actually research their policies, which are easier to find than ever because of the internet, so the candidate's policies will still be the thing that decides this election.
ReplyDeleteI think that debates do matter, however, most people already know which party they are voting for. A debate won't sway a die-hard republican to vote democratic and a die-hard democrat isn't going to vote for the republican candidate. I think that the only demographic that the debate has an effect on is the undecided, but not enough to sway the votes. I'd like to point out something Mr. Baker mentioned in class. He said that most people watching the entire debates are decided voters, who won't change their minds, and are watching to cheer on their party. I thought that was interesting. Some little slip up or something offensive in anyway won't have much effect on die-hard party supporters, whereas it may very likely change the votes of the undecided and people who tend to identify with a particular party, but aren't a "die-hard" supporter. Over all i don't think that debates have much effect, definitely not enough to change the outcome, unless something really big happened and lots of people were offended, or some dark secret was revealed in the debate. I think the debates are mainly to allow the voters to find out more about where the candidate stands on important issues.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I believe that presidential debates are very important. I believe they help voters get an insight on the candidate and see what he is like and what his specific goals are for the country. Presidential debates inform people about the candidate’s specific policies also. The candidates express their opinions to the people and according to that, people can decide if those opinions will match their specific opinions in choosing who to vote for. Receiving an insight on the candidate’s personality and specific characteristics also helps voters. Though, a person usually always sticks with one political party, I believe a presidential debate really makes people think twice over their decision of who to choose for, for presidency. Like Catherine said, I believe these debates are crucial to the specific campaigns of the Democrats and Republicans. Though not every person is inclined to watch the presidential debate fully or none at all, many people will talk about it for a few days after the debate and hearing views about it, people may watch the debate later and more in depth. After watching the presidential debate of Romney and Obama, I personally, understood what each president wanted to do if they were elected as president. This debate was a win for Romney and I understood more of what he wanted for the country through the presidential debate. Also, those who are undecided voters may also look at the presidential debate as a tool or guide to help them vote for a president that matches their attitudes and views. I believe that presidential debates are extremely important because not only do they help voters choose who to pick, but they give an insight on the candidate himself.
ReplyDeleteI would certainly agree with the majority of the sentiments expressed on this blog with regard to presidential debates: nowadays, they don't hold very much weight. Yes, we must recognize that historically speaking, presidential debates have arguably lost the election for certain candidates because they utilized rhetoric that was deemed utterly unsatisfactory. However, nowadays, because political science is such a prominent force and study, sociologists and speech writers are able to carefully construct talking points for the candidates, so that if they do not know everything about a particular topic, they can go about addressing it in a very round about way. I know this myself because I participate in Extemporaneous speaking which requires speaking for 5-8 minutes on an impromptu topic, and there certainly have been cases where I didn't have a specific opinion on a topic (ex. do you believe the Burmese government is addressing the collapse of the Burmese education system adequateness?)
ReplyDeleteThis is only important, of course, for those who intently watch the debates and dissect the debates. As identified by many, there are very few undecided voters who watch the debates exclusively with the intent on determining which candidate to vote for. I would also venture to say that many Americans only the results of the election through satirical representations (such as SNL skits), because they are arguably more interesting/appealing.
In my opinion, I do not believe that debates change a lot of peoples opinions when it comes to picking the candidate that they want to vote for. This close to the election, and even early on in the election, MOST people already have formed a lasting opinions and have made a final decision upon who they want to win. However, when it comes to the uninformed voters - the kind that make their decision last minute and based upon things such as colors - it would not surprise me if they simply voted for the candidate that "won" the debate. "Won" meaning who looked better, had quicker responses, answers, comebacks, arguments, etc. Meaning who talk show hosts, news stations, and political leaders believed had won. Although some may think debates are informative, I don’t think they do much at all. First off, nobody can really "win" a political debate because in politics there simply is no right and wrong - everything's a matter of opinion, based off of experiences and economic situations. Secondly, they don't do a good job of depicting who would be a better president whatsoever - the "better" candidate (according to a majority)for example, may have recently been sick, become exceedingly nervous under the pressure of millions of people, or straight up just isn't that good at debating. That my no means is reason for them not to be elected - if they truly would be better for running our country. Honestly, it seems to me that debates are more for an excuse to tear the opposing candidate apart and for those uneducated about politics to make pathetic tweets about.
ReplyDeleteI do not think that the debates truly matter that much. A very liberal Democrat, who very much believes in the policies of the Democratic party, would not change their mind to voting for Romney because he performed better in the debate. Simply put, debates are performances by the candidates. Independent voters who watch the debates will be easily swayed by whoever is commanding the debate, in the recent debate's case, Mitt Romney. The candidates participating in the debate are performing for the majority of the people watching the debate: the candidate's true supporters. Although we would all like to think that uninformed voters would watch the debates in the hopes of picking a candidate solely based on their policies and not a party affiliation, I do not believe that is the case. The majority of viewers are the supporters who watch the debates who want to see how their candidate performs. As previously stated, there are other things on television that people would rather watch, and undecided voters need to take the step to educate themselves on the issues and the candidates' platforms.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the debate, I do consent to a couple of Tori's points:
ReplyDeleteThe social-media sphere appeared to dominate the public's reaction to this last debate. This was never as strong of a factor in previous years. If uninformed, undecided voters missed the actual debate, they would have at least caught wind of the social media spin that followed. There is a large number of young and relatively ignorant new voters who have waited to this point in hopes of being spoonfed what to believe and who to vote for. If their feed is clogged with tweets mostly pointing to a specific candidates debate domination, they may jump on the bandwagon as well.
However, in at least 7 cases since the 1960's, the candidate leading on the eve of the first debate ended up winning the popular vote come the actual election. Although their opponent saw a brief surge in polls, overall the debates seemed to have little effect on the election outcome.
Perhaps 2012 will be an exception due to some new elements that were nonexistent in past elections and the unusually high number of still undecided voters. Perhaps debates will take on a new significance. One thing seems evident--we'll know a month from now.
I still believe that the debates do have an important affect on the way that people think of each candidate. However, I think that because there is such a loyalty that most people have to a specific party that even if they agree with some of the beliefs of the opposing party they will still remain with their party's candidate. I agree that social media will play an important role in this campaign as well as the media coverage such as these debates because most people won't go on the candidates websites and research what each candidate stands for and what their views are on certain subject. It is a great way for people to see the candidates and to distinguish the differences between them.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading all the comments I would have to agree with many of the points made. I do think the presidential debate is important but I also believe that the majority of people watching already know which candidate they are going to vote for and are only interested in watching to see how their candidate performs against the other. I agree that most people who are strongly associated to a political party won't change their opinion based on who 'won' the debate. However, it must make a difference more with the independent voter based on Romney's new recent bump in the polls after he was declared the 'winner' of the debate. I do agree with a lot of Gretchen's points. I don't think people should base their opinion on one debate but instead for the overall platform of a candidate. We don't know whether or not a candidate is under weather, nervous, or any other factors that can contribute to their debate performance. I agree with Cam's point that there is a lot of information that should be considered when deciding which candidate is going to best help the American people and voters should do their own homework in researching each candidate and what they stand for on different topics. Just because a candidate might have had one good or poor debate, that should never be the sole deciding factor.
ReplyDeleteTo contradict what I posted earlier, I believe that the debates in this election may be more significant than in the past due to the fact that the unaffiliated and undecided voters may, in fact, decide the election because those loyal to Obama and Romney will cancel each other out. These debates could be more critical to Romney ecause he is more unknown than Obama. The more people get to know about Romney, the better they will be able to decide if they want to support him or not. Notably, Romney saw a surge in fundraising after his impressive performance in the first debate. This will allow his campaign to spend dollar for dollar with Obama as the campaign enters its final thirty days. Polls show that Romney has closed the gap with Obama in Michigan and his numbers increased dramatically among independent and undecided voters. Thus, I believe that in this particular election, the debates could prove to be a vital key for Romney to get in the White House or for Obama to stay there.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading all the previous comments made my everyone, I have to still stick to my position that the presidential debates are still very important, especially for voters, who want a better view of the candidate. I do not agree with Isabelle and Logan, with their points that debates are not important. Presidential debates are especially important because people can realize what kind of president may enter into the presidency. I believe that Katie's points, that a person will not immediately change their opinion about a candidate after watching a presidential debate would occur rarely, but I believe presidential debates are significant enough to help people further agree with their preference of a candidate. I also agree that the social media will also influence debates and advertise.
ReplyDeleteTo contradict your point made I never stated debates weren't important in fact in the very first sentence of my original argument I stated that debates ARE important. I am going to stick to what I have said earlier though that debates are important they just shouldn't be the sole deciding factor when coming to the the conclusion on who would best be fit for president in their minds.
DeleteAfter reading everyone else's comments, I withhold my original opinion that the debates are not very important. I just don't think anyone who's opinion is easily swayed would even watch the debates. In this specific debate, I think it's possible that support for Romney could have increased due to his good performance right after the debate, but it seems like just as quickly something else happens and the polls are changing again.
ReplyDeleteI don’t completely agree with Payas on her points that debates give insight into what president may enter the presidency. Debates really don’t reveal much policy, but instead showcase the approachability and personality of the candidate. They may appeal to some people, but not a vast amount of those that dislike the fakeness and performance side of politics. Although the purpose of debates is much more wholesome, and debates are intended to be informative, they can be the epitome of phony politics. Many presidents, after winning the election, do the antithesis of what they claimed they would do in their debates, and it may come back to haunt them. The general, vague statements made by presidential candidates sound good in theory, but after they are put into action can sometimes be twisted into a different outcome, upsetting many supporters that agreed with those statements. In addition, I agree with Margaret that the debates may have a more substantial effect on the election this year, due to the fact that it will be so close. Analysts are scrambling to anticipate the outcome of the election, citing different heuristics that may influence voters. The debates can undoubtedly be a basis for a citizen’s vote, and it should be taken into account in this specific election. Due to the closeness of the election, every argument, debate, and statement counts.
ReplyDeleteI would also like to provide an point that arguably contradicts my previous statement. Although the debates may not specifically have a large impact on the apathetic citizens of the US (the issue of apathy seems to be an almost omnipresent aspect of modern society... but this is a completely different issue altogether) for us "political junkies" however, it is the only time we can see the politicians really go at it against each other. Throughout the campaign, each candidate makes lofty statements and addresses major issues in a roundabout way without directly hearing the responses from the other candidate. The debates offer designated time where the two candidates MUST share a stage. They do not have prewritten speeches. Sure, they may have talking points, but they obviously must be able specifically address pointed questions etc. (Kind of like a college interview… but again, that’s an aside)
ReplyDeleteOne may also make the argument that exclusively extremely partisan people are political junkies. Therefore the debates only provide enjoyment for nerds analogous to the way jocks watching football games become excited watching the Packers take on the Steelers. I would say that although this argument is valid to an extent, electing public officials actually has long term ramifications. Politics and policy making controls all major aspects of society (without being overbearing, of course). Politicians have direct control of things from taxing, to law making, to privacy, to wages. Athletics (although entertaining) only proves that over sized men can carry a ball from one edge of a grass covered field to the other.
I have been rather cynical about debates. Therefore, I am rather stunned by the impact of the first presidential debate on the polls. I think it had a sort of double-whammy. Perhaps some "likely voters" bought into the narrative spun by the Democrats (skillfully) and amplified in the media that Romney was a gaffe-prone campaigner who could not manage his own campaign, let alone the presidency. It also may have reinforced the image of Obama as distant,passive,etc. The media narrative has certainly shifted and so have the polls. I think the impact the debate's impact on the opinion makers may have been more profound than the voters.
ReplyDeleteI still believe that the debates are not really that important in the election process. Although it appears that the most recent debate has had some effect on the polls, it seems that almost everything the candidates do will have some effect on the polls. And I do not believe those polls are really that reliable. The only reliable poll is the election and we will just have to wait to see the results of that. I believe that the debates aren't that important because the people who are most likely to watch are those who already have strong opinions. And many potential voters will have not watched the debate.
ReplyDeleteI agree with my original statement, however I think that this election might be an exception. The blow-back from this most recent Presidential debate seems to have tipped the scales in Romney's favor. Although polling itself is very inconclusive, maybe we all underestimated people's interest in this election. It seems, more so than the 2008 election, that people are passionate about issues such as the economy, so the debate focusing on the economy really ruffled some people's feathers and caused them to voice their opinions about this upcoming election.
ReplyDeleteAfter skimming through everyone's comments, I’d have to say that my same opinion still stands. However I would like to expand a little bit. Although I made it pretty clear that I do not think debates do much to swing peoples votes, that's not to say that they don't matter at all. Of course people who are into politics hate to see "their" candidate "lose". Those educated in and those who closely follow politics watch debates closely, whether it be to attack the opposing candidate after, or to simply be in the know, the debate still serves a purpose - it's still being watched and analyzed. Also, although many people who aren't "into" politics, are confused by politics, don't care about politics, to young to understand politics, etc. may only tune into the debate for a few minutes or when their own TV shows go to commercial, they do still tune in - clearly showing that, generally, people care! However, I'd say the debate does more to entertain people, in a way, than to educate or persuade people.
ReplyDelete