Campaign strategists often coach their candidates by using video from past debates. Offer three historical examples that show candidates what they should, or should not, do in a debate. At least one example must be positive (behavior to emulate) and one must be negative (things to be avoided). For readings, refer to Trent Ch. 8 and one of the class readings from earlier this semester.
Wednesday, October 1, 2014
Debates - October 7th
Campaign strategists often coach their candidates by using video from past debates. Offer three historical examples that show candidates what they should, or should not, do in a debate. At least one example must be positive (behavior to emulate) and one must be negative (things to be avoided). For readings, refer to Trent Ch. 8 and one of the class readings from earlier this semester.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
By: Taylor Popielarz
ReplyDeletePolitical debates have become one of the premiere events throughout a campaign. A debate offers voters to see both candidates live, in action. It allows the candidates to humanize themselves as much as possible while still campaigning their policies and viewpoints directly to voters. Debates have become substantially important throughout the past few decades, specifically because of the media’s ever-growing role in covering politics. Since debates are now almost always part of a campaign, strategists have been gradually mastering debate techniques. And like anything that is worthy of techniques being formed to master it, there are now positive components of debate techniques, and negative components.
A historic example of a positive debate technique is when Abraham Lincoln was debating Stephen Douglas for a Senate seat in Illinois in 1858. As Judith Trent describes in her book, “Political Campaign Communication,” the two battled throughout seven debates, and Lincoln came out on top because he was able to show voters that Douglas was not able to powerfully defend his views and principles regarding slavery. “It was because he [Lincoln] illustrated the inadequacies and inconsistencies of Douglas’s position, while justifying and defending his own belief in restricting slavery’s spread into the territories, that Lincoln emerged from the debates a national figure, and Douglas’s national aspirations were shattered” (Trent, 260). To put it simply, Lincoln used the public forum of the debates to prove to voters that Douglas was not only insecure in terms of his principles, but that Douglas could not handle being in the spotlight and performing efficiently.
Another great example of a positive debate technique is from the 2008 presidential election between President Barack Obama and Senator John McCain. The two faced each other for multiple debates, including town hall-style debates, and both were able to express their strengths and weaknesses. One of Obama’s strengths, and probably one of his most impactful strengths, was actively explaining the policies he strived to enforce if elected while taking part in a debate. “During the first two answers the men gave in the first debate Obama referenced four specific policies his administration would take, and also observed, ‘I warned,’ ‘I wrote to the secretary of the treasury,’ ‘I think that we have to ask,’ ‘I am optimistic,’ and consistently, throughout all the debates, spoke about the new policies his administration would implement” (Trent, 275). The reason this speaking technique complimented Obama is because McCain suffered by mostly discussing his past achievements and history as a war veteran and senator, rather than showcasing what policies he would implement. Though McCain had a much longer track record in American politics than Obama, McCain’s lack of ability to present his policy hopes helped Obama come out on top.
(Taylor Popielarz, cont'd)
ReplyDeleteLastly, there is a good example of a negative debate technique that occurred throughout the George Bush/Al Gore presidential debates. Leading up to debates the two had scheduled, Bush’s campaign staff did everything they could to talk down Bush’s skills as a debater. On the flip side, Gore’s campaign staff talked up Gore’s abilities to win debates. Both campaign staffs later stated they applied these techniques to help their particular candidate succeed by either ramping up his reputation as a debater, or by ramping down his skill set so voters wouldn’t expect much. Interestingly enough, Gore later revealed to his campaign staff, according to Trent’s book, that he was really not the best debater. Regretfully, it was too late to sway voters’ preconceived notions about the two candidates’ debating skills. So when the debate came, the results varied a bit. “Expectations on him [Gore] were exceedingly high, and though neither he nor Bush made serious errors in the debates, for a variety of reasons, clearly including public expectations created in part by the two campaigns, Bush was perceived to have benefited more from the debates than Gore” (Trent, 268-269). In the end, despite ramping up their candidate to assure that voters knew whom the best debater was, Gore’s campaign staff essentially shot themselves in the foot.
Works Cited
Trent, Judith. Political Campaign Communication. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2011. Print.
Being on a presidential campaign, candidates will surely have the opportunity to face off with their opponent in a debate. Live televised debates have become an important aspect to campaigns as millions of viewers, potential votes, tune in to either watch their candidate of choice or to help them decide who they will vote for. As the reading discussed, there are many pre-debate strategies that candidates must go over to improve their chances of winning the support of the American people. A candidate can never be too prepared for a debate, as often practiced; they have coaches guiding them throughout their pre-debate timetable, helping and giving the candidate direction, hoping to improve the candidate’s chances of election instead of hurting them. Here, I will look at three debates in which the candidates exemplified ‘what you should do’ during a debate and one debate moment the candidate most likely wishes he could take back.
ReplyDeleteOne debate strategy Trent discussed in her readings was developing an image. This is an attempt by the candidates, throughout the debate, to develop an image that their audience, voters, can identify them with through the rest of the debate and campaign. Trent writes, “debaters attempt to identify themselves with what they believe are the principle aspirations of their audience” (Trent, 278). In the first presidential debate in 2008 between Senator Obama and McCain, the first topic of discussion was the financial crisis our country was enduring (and still is) at the moment. Now, being at the University of Mississippi, a public institution, both Obama and McCain identified their target audience, middle class Americans. In his opening remarks on the financial recovery plan, Obama states, “And although we’ve heard a lot about Wall Street, those of you on Main Street I think have been struggling for a while, and you recognize that this could have an impact on all sectors of the economy.” Obama does a nice job of incorporating, “Main Street”, into his answer to help middle class Americans, who work on Main Street, identify with him and believe he would be working for them, if elected President. Similarly, in Senator McCain’s response to the same question, he proclaimed, “And we’re not talking about failure of institutions on Wall Street. We’re talking about failures on Main Street, and people who will lose their jobs, and their credits, and their homes, if we don’t fix the greatest fiscal crisis, probably in—certainly in our time.” McCain, like Obama, clearly identifies himself with middle class America in his response. In fact, each candidate had one more response to the question at hand and both identified with “Main Street” and not “Wall Street” two more times. The fiscal crisis in 2008 was a huge issue for the audience in the presidential election, and both candidates addressed the topic in a way that aspired to their target audience.
Thompson continued...
ReplyDeleteIn the first Bush-Kerry presidential debate in 2004, both candidates used the Trent debate strategy of relating issues at hand to an overall theme. While a candidate is in a debate, during their opening remarks, Trent believes, it is important to develop a thesis or underlying theme that the candidate will reinforce throughout the entirety of the debate at hand. Both Kerry and Bush did just that. In this opening statement, in a debate centered on foreign policy and national security, Kerry said, “I can make America a safer than President Bush has made us...I believe America is safest and strongest when we are leading the world and we are leading strong allies.” Later on, a question or two later, while discussing America engaging in war with Iraq while troops were still in Afghanistan, Kerry stated, “And smart means not diverting your attention from the real war on terror in Afghanistan against Osama bin Laden and taking it off to Iraq…And they believe it because they know I would not take my eye off of the goal: Osama bin Laden.” In this remark, Kerry is criticizing President Bush’s decision to invade Iraq and take down Saddam Hussein while the initial goal of the war was still not accomplished. The Senator is also sticking with his initial theme, claiming, “ I can make American safer than President Bush has made us” by showing the public that Osama bin Laden, America’s greatest threat to national security, was still on the run while Bush decided to invade Iraq. Bush has similar tactics of sticking to an overall theme and like any incumbent, backed up his foreign policy platform, “I believe I’m going to win, because the American people know I know how to lead. I’ve shown the American people I know how to lead...People out here listening know what I believe. And that’s how best it is to keep the peace.” In answering comparisons Kerry drew between the priorities of going after Osama bin Laden and going after Saddam Hussein, the President said, “And when Iraq is free, America will be more secure.” In one sentence, Bush defended his decision to invade Iraq while still occupying Afghanistan by claiming it the best option to “keep the peace” in America. As both candidates have shown here and as Trent described, “most successful political debaters have been able to integrate the specific issues into an overall framework” (Trent, 273). Although both Bush and Kerry displayed their own ideas of how to deal with the ‘war on terror’, they brought the discussion back to support their statements made in their opening remarks.
In the 1976 presidential debate broadcasted live from San Francisco on October 6, Gerald Ford made a costly error that would eventually hurt his campaign against Jimmy Carter. In a debate targeted on foreign policy, Ford stated, “there is no Soviet domination of Eastern Europe, and there never will under a Ford administration.” In 1976, as many know, the Soviet Union and communist theories were all over Eastern Europe. After giving this statement, the moderator, not even Carter, started to even debate the President a little. In chapter four of the Trent book, in a study to measure repercussions of campaign press coverage during a presidential election, the study concluded, “the media were powerful enough to convert attitudes, changing voters from supporting one candidate or party to supporting the opposition” (Trent, 123). I am not claiming that this statement lost Ford his election, but did certainly did not help his cause. The media in the following days of this debate were very unsupportive of Ford, and many citizens, voters, came away from the debate questioning Ford’s understanding of world affairs, and that is a question you should not be asking your President.
Works Cited
Trent, Judith. Political Campaign Communication. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2011. Print.
http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=september-30-2004-debate-transcript
http://elections.nytimes.com/2008/president/debates/transcripts/first-presidential-debate.html
Debates serves a crucial purpose in presidential campaigns. The book, Political Campaign Communication states the vital component to a debate, “…that there are five essential elements of a true debate. A debate is a confrontation, in equal and adequate time, of matched contestants, on a stated proposition, to gain an audience decision” (Trent), which is used correctly can help the candidate in the long run.
ReplyDeleteThe 1960 election between John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon was one of the most memorable debates in the history of presidential campaign because it was the first televised debate in American history. This debate raised the importance of preparedness and image. John f. Kennedy did a lot of preparation before the debate and was well rested; while Richard Nixon on the other hand was just getting over the flu and was in shambles. This reflected when it came time from the debate. Richard Nixon appeared weak to the viewers across the country (Cramer). Now, in this day and age of television physical appearance is important during a debate. You have to look presentable. Presidents use make up, specific attire and specific lighting; so they can diminish the possibility of their appearance coming across bad on television.
A presidential debate between President Gerald Ford and Jimmy Carter single handedly cost President Ford the loss in the election. During the debate President Ford said there is no soviet power in Eastern Europe. He later goes on to say; he visited Poland, Yugoslavia and Romania to make sure there wasn't. This was the biggest down fall in President Ford's campaign because it was hard to bounce back from such a comment. He was saying things that were not true at all because they did not align with the reality of the Cold War during the time, which lead to Jimmy Carter winning the election the following year (Cramer). This shows that one should only speak upon issues that they are fully briefed on. This made him look unintelligent which led to his downfall.
In 1980, in the president race between President Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan; Ronald Reagan used a tactics during a debate that lead to his victory. He utilized the audience and the viewers to his advantage. He asked them, "Are you better off then you were four years ago,” he asked his audience — a total of 80.6 million television viewers. If the answer is ‘yes,’ said Reagan, then “your choice is very obvious as to who you’ll vote for. If you don’t agree…then I could suggest another choice that you have” (Cramer). This was important because he addressed the audience and seems personable. He was speaking to the audience not to his opponent. This was important because he gave Americans an ultimatum. He gave them the decision clearly that he was their only opportunity and he was their only true option, if they wanted a better America.
The purpose of debates was to improve the image of candidates. “Image is essential to organizations (corporations, government bodies, nonprofit groups) as well as individuals. Even if we are moving away from a notion of image as a single impression shared by an audience, image is a still a central concept to the field of public relations” (Benoit). The impression an candidate leaves during a debate to the audience, and to the American public, is important to their success as seen in the previous examples.
Benoit, William L. "Image Repair Discourse and Crisis Communication." Public Relations Review 23.2 (1997): 177-186.
Cramer, Rudy. "7 Defining Moments From Presidential Debate History." BuzzFeed. Buzzfeed, 3 Oct. 2012. Web. 06 Oct. 2014.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 7th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.
Anne Noordsy
ReplyDeletePolitical debates are an important part of the election process, whether on the local, state or national level. Presidential debates in particular are an essential for television. Since 1976, debates have played an important role in presidential campaigns. While debates can seldom change the force of a campaign, they can help candidates bring to light their opponent’s weakness, rebound from attacks, and provide information and insight to a national audience.
A debate has to serve its’ purpose. There are five essential elements for a true debate, according to J. Jeffery Auer. “A debate is (1) a confrontation, (2) in equal and adequate time, (3) of matched contestants, (4) on a stated proposition, (5) to gain an audience decision” (Trent et. Al 257-258). An example is the Lincoln-Douglas debates in 1858. Lincoln demonstrated what a candidate should do in a debate. “It was because he (Lincoln) illustrated the inadequacies and inconsistencies of Douglas’s position, while justifying and defending his own belief in restricting slavery’s spread into the territories, that Lincoln emerged from the debates a national figure” (Trent et. Al 260) In this case, it is demonstrated that candidates should display the negative aspects of their opponent but ensure focusing on their own positive qualities at the same time to be successful in debates.
On the contrary, a debate that exhibited what candidates should not do is the presidential debate in 2000 between Al Gore and George W. Bush. Al Gore exemplified what a candidate should avoid doing during a debate. Gore had a “arrogant and bullying attitude” and “viewers found him condescending toward Bush. His facial expressions as Bush spoke also suggested to many viewers that he had little respect for his foe” (Trent et Al 281). Gore also had a tendency of interrupting Bush and the moderator, Jim Lehrer. Gore also had a habit of exceeding his time limits and trying to have the last word on topics, which violated debate rules. In general, Gore came across as a mean, condescending person. This attitude and behavior should be avoided in debates because it turns off audiences. It is most likely that people will not vote for a candidate if they are rude and have a negative air. It is also unacceptable to go against the general rules of the debate.
Another example of a political debate is the presidential debate between John McCain and Barack Obama in 2008. “McCain’s altogether head-scratching use of the term ‘that one’ when discussing an energy bill Obama supported was not the kind of debate attention the Republican needed to generate as he sought to make up ground in the polls. It set off a round of post-debate debating in the media, which was not the kind of news the underdog McCain was hoping to generate” (Sullivan 1). This demonstrates that candidates need to be careful with word choice because people such as voters or media representatives have different interpretations and candidates must consider this when speaking in debates.
Another piece of advice candidates should be informed of is reviewing speeches and tapes of their opponent’s past performances. This has proven beneficial. “Preparing for a debate may well mean curtailing other campaign activity for several days, but given the attention normally focused on debates, this sacrifice would seem worthwhile” (Trent et. Al 272).
In general, debates are a significant aspect for political campaigns. The way in which candidates present themselves, their ideas, beliefs, etc. plays an important role in the success or failure of a debate as well as the success or failure of landing a role in political office.
Works Cited:
1. Sullivan, Sean. "The 10 Most Memorable Moments in Presidential Debates." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 2 Oct. 2012. Web. 04 Oct. 2014.
2. Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 7th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011
Lindsay Goldstein
ReplyDeleteDebates have become an integral part of political campaigns. Trent explains that, “Political debating is widespread in this country. It is almost a ritualistic aspect of campaigns for one candidate to challenge the other to a debate” (260). As debates have risen in importance and popularity, a series of strategies have been discovered to help candidates beat their competitors. As Trent explains in his text, these include pre-debate strategies, like lowering public expectations, determining the target audience, and devising and rehearsing possible answers, the latter of which has become extremely important in debates, as using former debates as a reference for what to do and what not to do is an easy way to learn how to properly debate.
Why are debates so important? Trent explains that, “at this time there appear to be some striking findings about the effects of political debates,” (283) which can significantly influence a candidate’s success during their campaign. For example, debates, especially when they are live and televised for the public to see, can affect what the audience thinks about you and your image as a political figure.
“Debates apparently affect the images of candidates,” (290), Trent writes, about the influence of debates. A positive image is extremely important for politicians, as they represent their public. As Trent previously explained, “elections provide us with the opportunity to determine how our own interests can best be served,” (3), so it is essential for candidates, especially during debates, to exude a positive image. Televised debates and political events are especially crucial when it comes to image. As Joseph Graf and Jeremy D. Mayer explain in the text, “Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, “Television has forced politicians at all levels of American campaigns to pay more attention to their looks than ever before,” (qtd. in Semiatin, 141).
While sometimes not really considered, physical image is just as important as a politicians actions or beliefs. The 1960 debates “between Senator John F. Kennedy and Vice President Richard M. Nixon gave rise to political debating as we now know it in the media age,” (Trent 258). It also demonstrated the importance of physical appearance and image when participating in debates. While it was the first televised debate, it exhibited to the public and future politicians what not to do. Though it appeared in black and white, the results of the 1960 election showed just how important image was to the public. During the debate, Nixon spoke to the camera, sweat pouring down his face. His appearance seemed off, as he looked sick and tired. Time reports that the Republican candidate was “pale and underweight from a recent hospitalization” and “sickly and sweaty” (Webley 1). Kennedy, on the other hand, appeared “calm and confident,” (Webley 1), wearing a traditional dark suit and addressing the public in what seemed like a well-rehearsed speech. It became obvious that image mattered, as the results of the election were very different, depending upon the way in which you watched or listened to the debate. “As the story goes, those who listened to the debate on the radio thought Nixon had won,” Webley explains. “Those that watched the debate on TV thought Kennedy was the clear winner” (Webley 1). This holds true today, that appearance and image can make or break a candidate, especially during a debate. This is why campaign teams and candidates make a big deal about the candidate’s clothing and appearance, because they know it can greatly affect the public’s opinon.
Lindsay Goldstein, continued
ReplyDeleteOne example of a politician who famously used the live debates in a positive way and to his advantage is President Ronald Regan. During the 1984 debates, PBS explains how the candidate used the forum to comment on his age and once and for all put the discussions of him being too old to rest. Reagan “brought down the house by saying, ‘I will not make age an issue in this campaign. I am not going to exploit, for political purposes, my opponent’s youth and inexperience.’ From that moment on, his age was never an issue in the campaign,” (“The History of Presidential Debates: The Televised Years” 1). His statement resulted in a roar of applause from the crowd, as seen in a video of the debate in The New York Times article, “Unforgettable Moments in Political Debates.” This tactic could be extremely useful for other candidates who are older than their opponents. Hillary Clinton, for example, is a politician who often has to deal with her age in political settings. Especially now that she is a grandmother, many fear that she, at the age of 66, is too old to run for President. If she does decide to announce her candidacy for the 2016 election, she could use a similar tactic to President Regan to successfully address her age and end the conversation about her being too old.
Another example of something that all politicians should try to do during debates is to make themselves seem relatable. Vice President Joe Biden, for example, did this in 2008, when he “choked up when he talked about his ability to relate to Americans’ struggles, as he mentioned the tragic death of his wife and daughter in a car accident and discussed what it’s like to be a single parent,” (Sullivan 1), Sean Sullivan, of The Washington Post, writes. While Biden has a reputation for sticking his foot in his mouth at times, this specific tactic during the debate made him more likeable. “I understand what it’s like to be a single parent,” he said, recalling stories of his family and the struggles they faced during the October 2, 2008 debate. This obviously appealed to other single parents, while his emotions made the rest of the public feel connected to him.
Works Cited:
Graf, Joseph and Jeremy D. Mayer. “Campaign Press Coverage – Instantaneous.”
Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Ed. Richard J. Semiatin. Washington, D.C.: CQ,
2008. Print.
"The History of Presidential Debates: The Televised Years." PBS. PBS, 24 Sept. 2004.
Web. 06 Oct. 2014.
Sullivan, Sean. “Joe Biden’s Greatest (and Not-So-Greatest) Debate Hits.” The
Washington Post. 10 Oct. 2010. Web. 06 Oct. 2014.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton. Political Campaign
Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011.
Print.
Webley, Kayla. “How the Nixon-Kennedy Debate Changed the World.” Time. Time Inc.,
23 Sept. 2010. Web. 06 Oct. 2014.
Sarah Faidell
ReplyDeleteAs I began reading Chapter 8 in Trent, I started to think that the type of debates that were being described do not really exist today. I thought back to presidential debates that I have watched, and did not think that Auer’s 5 elements were really addressed. It was on the next page that I got my answer: “most contemporary debates can be characterized as ‘counterfeit debates’” (Trent 258). I find this to be true, and I also find that it is partly to blame for the dissatisfaction of voters in regards to debates and candidates as a whole. I found the role of journalists in debates, particularly the Nixon-Kennedy debate very interesting and was surprised that many times it is journalists that spark questions.
First order of business in my coaching would be to make sure my candidate had the right image and public speaking skills. I would suggest she look at the Nixon-Kennedy debates, but ONLY to emulate Kennedy’s presence and not the substance of the debate. Although I do not agree with it, the image of the candidate during the debate is crucial. I would advise the candidate to keep up a youthful appearance and be charistmatic. I would follow the intense practicing methods discussed in Trent.
After reading the chapter, a debate that I thought most closely resembled Auer’s 5 elements was the Romney-Obama debate in 2012. Although most of it was the “counterfeit debate”, I thought that both candidates were aggressive and interactive and this is something I would urge my candidate to do. Romney can be seen pointing a finger at Obama and with the two freely walking around the stage there are a lot of opportunities to be confrontational and direct, but not too aggressive. However, I would avoid the attitude of Biden in the vice presidential debate. I thought elements of that were positive, and in some instances Biden’s energy and quasi-sarcastic attidue was good, but I think he crossed the line. I would have my candidate watch the vice presidential debate and the presidential debate so that I could point out the moments were Biden’s biting attidue was good, but stress the importance of having intelligent rebuttles to back up all that sass.
And although I had a hard time finidng a good video or proof of this in modern times, I would advise that a candidate actually address issues. In Trent, it mentions that Lincoln and Douglas had entire debates based on topics, which gave adequate time for each candidate’s position to be addressed and the complex issue to be fully discussed. Therefore, my best advice would be to emulate the Douglas-Lincoln debate as much as possible given current debate standards. This may be near impossible to do with modern political debates, but I believe it is a factor in the general publics’ dislike or distrust of government. I would urge my candidate that if it is not possible to hold more debates, then to answer the questions as fully as possible and to actually address the issues. Chapter 8 of Trent states, “In 1960, the Kennedy and Nixon debates did not facilitate the audience’s making a decision about the issues, (Trent 260)” and that most modern political debates do the same. With that in mind, the sum of my coaching would be to make sure my candidate is not like a modern-day debater and is only like Kennedy in respects to his composure. It might be too idealistic, but I would remind my candidate that the point of a debate should be to help voters understand and decide.
The political debate has captivated audiences since its conception. With the continued rise of technology furthering engagement and interaction with candidates, the strategies necessary for candidates’ success are more crucial than ever before. There are examples throughout history of how such strategies have failed, as well as have had great success. From the legendary debate between Reagan and Carter to Bush and Kerry in 2004, candidates have demonstrated how the improvements in media have had a drastic impact on public opinion and the election as a whole.
ReplyDeleteRonald Reagan was facing Carter in a 1980 debate, when he simply asked the American viewers directly into the camera, “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” Reagan was able to grab the average American in this moment, and create an intense realization. Especially as Carter struggled to attack Reagan on issues of Medicare and nuclear weapons, Reagan gained momentum in his simple remarks (CNN). Carter was insinuating that Reagan was unpredictable and against Medicare. In response, Reagan said candidly, “There you go again” (CNN). Usually such an attitude would not be beneficial to a candidate in a debate, but Reagan was able to highlight that Carter was continually attacking him on the same issue. His famous line in conclusion of the debate, was able to centralize all of his arguments, and create a theme and even an image for himself. For Reagan, it was the pinnacle of the entire debate. As Trent concludes, “Reagan offered voters...a picture of a future that did not include hard choices or sacrifices.” (Trent 113). Candidates have utilized such methods since to allow powerful yet simple lines dictate the opinion of the American people, including the Obama campaign. Reagan ended up winning the election by a landslide.
Moving ahead to the 2000 election with Bush and Gore, the actions of the Gore campaign leading up to the debate had a harsh impact while attempting to lower public expectations of Bush. Gore utilized his website and television appearances to force the fact that Bush was opposed to a debate, and would not make a decision. This was a drastic attempt to make it look as though Bush was a weak debater. The campaign made every effort to force this idea onto the American voter, yet when the debate occurred, Bush performed well beyond the expectations they had. As underscored in Trent, ““By the time of the first debate Bush had effectively minimized expectations on himself, with inadvertent help from the Gore staff, and raised expectations on Gore” (Trent 268). The Gore campaign had lowered expectations so much for Bush that his performance impressed the American people, while Gore’s was seen as simply average. On the part of their campaign, this was a very poor move, proving that too much of any effort can be negative. Bush’s campaign on the other hand, used this strategically in their favor. They truly revealed the ability to capitalize on another campaign’s oversaturation of negativity.
Four years after winning the 2000 election, Bush faced Kerry in the 2004 debates. A unique aspect of this debate was that candidates were not allowed to make opening statements. Therefore, candidates had to strategically craft the theme that they wanted to convey. Kerry’s response to the first question was a basic attack on the incumbent saying, “I can make America safer than President Bush has made us.” (Trent 273) He goes on to say that Bush had destroyed alliances across the globe in the past years following September 11th. Bush takes a different, arguably more effective approach, saying, “I know how to lead. I’ve shown the American people...I made some tough decisions. People out there know what I believe. And that’s how best it is to keep the peace” (Trent 273). Given that they were not able to make open remarks, it was challenging to create an effective theme. However, Bush was much more successful in his approach. He was candid in his response, admitting that many may not agree with the decisions he made. Yet he was able to play on the power of patriotism, especially after 9/11, and argue that he was best fit to continue to keep peace in the country. It is also important that he did not take the defensive. Both candidates carried their themes clearly throughout the debate, but the initial approach was unique for each. In the end, Bush had a stronger theme to resonate with the American people, something that contributed largely to his re-election.
ReplyDeleteIt is paramount that candidates utilize debates and the time surrounding them to come out strong. Strategy is key, and there is not room for error. Reagan demonstrated how important it is to be simple and impactful through unique remarks. Gore illustrated the way in which an effort against another candidate can backfire, when attempting to lower expectations. Lastly, Bush showed how a powerful carefully crafted theme can resonate far beyond a debate. Each of these candidates and their campaigns worked diligently to perform around a strategy in their debates, based largely on those of candidates before them. Although Trent synthesized the basic strategies utilized, history has proven that some may not always be successful. Furthermore, as media advances and campaigns become more and more complex, these strategies will have to change and evolve as well.
Works Cited
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print.
"1980 Presidential Debates." CNN. 1996. Web. 5 Oct. 2014.
Jack Holiver
ReplyDeleteBlog 5
From sophomore to senior year of high school, I was a member of the school’s speech and debate team. To be honest, I wasn’t very good. But it was hard for people to criticize me when I was giving up a full Saturday once a month to talk politics. Despite my lack of success, I learned a great deal of skills that have helped the way I present myself. From public speaking skills to formulating an articulate argument, the tactics I learned on those long Saturdays have shaped my character and confidence. One of the many lessons I learned can be applied to everyday life: People have their own hidden agenda. Their agenda may involve arguing their beliefs despite not having enough evidence to back it up, attacking someone specifically because of unknown reasons, or to simply win at all costs regardless of their personal opinions. This is a mirror image of how politicians currently conduct their debates.
During the presidential debates of 1858, Stephen Douglas was at a consistent war with Abraham Lincoln. Douglas established his terms for the debate and Lincoln agreed to it without compromise. On multiple occasions, Lincoln would confront his opponent and push for him to choose between the Dred Scott decision and popular sovereignty (Trent et el 257). If Douglas were to choose a side, he would back himself into a corner. In hindsight, many argue that these debates paved the way for the future of political campaign. Two examples of what a candidate should do in a debate is to both establish an image they want to be represented by as well as making their intentions and plans clear and precise. On the contrary, a party should never set high expectations for their candidate.
First, an image must be established. Debates are the perfect platforms for such a vital factor. More specifically, closing statements offer the candidate to speak freely without rebuttal about what they intend to do and/or condemn the opponent’s actions. The closing statements can also be used to address an incident, or in some cases, blow the incident up to be a scandal. In the final presidential debate of 2012, President Obama remained silent on the leaked video that showed Mitt Romney calling out 47% of the country. It wouldn’t fall into any of the three types of scandals mentioned in Political Scandal, Power and Visability in the Media Age: Power scandals, financial scandals, and sex scandals. Even though Romney’s mere statement would not classify as a scandal under these three types, Obama still made it out to be, leaving a sour taste of Romney with the voters.
Next, the intentions of a candidate must be clear and precise. It was mentioned in Political Campaign Communication that McCain faced this problem during the 2008 presidential election. There were clear examples through the debate that showed McCain copying the debating style of Obama. “McCain attempted to present himself as an activist…he did not, like Obama, reference specific changes he would implement” (Trent, et el 275). The key word in this quote obviously being “specific.”
Finally, a candidate, under no circumstances, shall increase public expectation on their self. McCain boasted at being a master in town hall debates. These were especially helpful to a candidate reaching out to the blue-collared workers. At town hall debates, “ordinary people” ask the questions, not the press. This format brings the debate on a personal level that is more relatable to the average voter.
Works Cited:
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 7th ed. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print.
Thompson, John B. Political Scandal, Power and Visibility in the Media Age. Malden, MA: Polity, 2000. Print.
Political debates have become a huge part of presidential elections. Although the Constitution or any other election law does not mandate them, they have become an unwritten requirement in elections. Joseph Graf and Jeremy D. Mayer say in Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, “[Television] focused attention on image and sound, and less on logic and thought. Television contributed directly to the decline of issues and the rise of personality and individual character as a divisive factor in American elections.” (Graf & Meyer 141) These are great opportunities for candidates to help their poll numbers. However, with the importance of image, even the slightest misstep can turn ruin any campaign. But, on the other hand, some candidates have given great performances that contributed to their victory.
ReplyDeleteA good example of how to use a debate to help you is Bill Clinton’s 1992 town hall debate with President George H.W. Bush and Ross Perot. Clinton is known as a very charismatic speaker, but it was this performance that really exemplified his ability to connect with the voters. The question was about how the national debt crisis had affected the candidates personally and, if it had not, how could they fix the problems. Bush and Perot each gave canned answers, but Clinton went right up to the woman and had a conversation with her. In a Huffington Post article, David Mercer, former deputy finance chair of the Democratic National Committee, was quoted saying of Clinton “In many gatherings and events with President Clinton back in the '90s, there was hardly a person that was not touched in being near or around his presence. He would run out the clock and beyond in making sure that not only was he touched by every American that was around him, but that he sought out every voter and supporter that was in eyesight or in reach to touch.” (Siddiqui) Clinton’s strength was his ability to connect with voters. Mercer went on to say that Clinton had his “finger on the pulse of the American mood.” (Siddiqui) In comparison to Clinton’s performance, President Bush made a major gaff during that debate that came to define the matchup. During the same question that Clinton had masterfully answered, Bush was seen on camera looking down at his watch, suggesting that he was bored. The small gesture showed Clinton to be out of touch with the American voter. (Markels)
(Continued)
ReplyDeleteAnother good example is the third debate between Barack Obama and John McCain in 2008. A major factor in that election was the image of the candidates, specifically their ages. At the end of the third debate, each candidate gave a closing statement. Obama’s talked about his message of change and looking to the future, reinforcing the image of him as a fresh voice in Washington. McCain’s also reinforced his image. Unfortunately for McCain, that image was of the old, Washington bureaucrat. He referenced his past record and did not do much looking to the future. These are both good examples of do’s and don’t’s of debates. Obama’s strategy was smart because it was reinforcing a positive image, while McCain used his time to reinforce a negative image. According to Trent, “[Obama’s] appearance suggested the likelihood that he would be a more active and vigorous candidate…McCain tended to talk more about the past than did Obama…Though McCain’s reminding viewers of his past accomplishments contributed to the perception of experience and competence, doing so took time, and hence diminished his opportunity to portray himself as a future-oriented activist president who would implement change.” (Trent 277)
Works Cited:
Markels, Alex. "George H.W. Bush Checks His Watch During Debate With Bill Clinton and Ross Perot." US News. U.S.News & World Report, 17 Jan. 2008. Web. 07 Oct. 2014. .
Semiatin, Richard J. "Political Parties -- Beyond Revitalization." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2008. Print.
Siddiqui, Sabrina. "Bill Clinton Won 1992 Town Hall Debate By Engaging With One Voter." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 16 Oct. 2012. Web. 07 Oct. 2014. .
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. New York: Praeger, 1991. Print.
Thomas Chamoun
ReplyDeleteThe political debate is a major event in presidential campaigns. Trent makes the case that it is not a real debate, but more of a forum for candidates to answer questions, and offer their solution on the same stage. Being a very popular media event there are a few things that candidates must do to ensure the debate helps them, not hurts them.
The first thing that a candidate must do is developing his image. There is a short amount of time that candidates have to speak for. In this time it is important that the candidate ties answers back to an overall theme, and appear more presidential. Through personification, as Trent calls it, the candidate can create an image of himself by the way he appears on camera and phrases his words. Obama did an excellent job of this. The first important thing in the debate was that Obama looked young, hopeful, and promising on TV, whereas John McCain looked old and unappealing. According to the Trent book, Obama did a good job of tying these themes together, where McCain sounded repetitive. Obama’s themes revolved around “A Change You Can Believe In”, and made him look more like an activist president,(Trent et al, 275). Obama also did a good job of undermining his opponents field of expertise, delivering a blow to his image. “Obama had clearly undermined the most important foreign policy decision that McCain had made. He weakened McCain’s persona as a foreign and military policy expert by undermining his judgment,”(Trent et al, 290).
The second piece of advise that I would give to my candidate is to make sure you get as much speaking time as possible. If you do this you will have more time to get your points across and mold your image. Someone who did this well was Obama, according to a Newsbusters.org Obama out spoke McCain at every debate in the 2008 election.
Something I would tell my candidate not to do, is come off in a negative fashion. Someone who acted plain weird on stage was Al Gore in the signing incident. “while George W. Bush was responding to questions, because of a split screen, Gore could be seen and heard, sighing heavily and repeatedly,”(John Waller). Another example is John McCain’s finger waving, this came off poorly as we discussed in class. The classic example of this is Nixon not looking into the camera during the first debate. A key lesson from this is that even if you practice good public speaking techniques like looking at the audience, it might not come off good on television.
In conclusion I would tell my candidate to link all answers back to an overarching positive/hopeful theme, make sure that he gets the most time on camera and speaking, and to make sure he is aware of the difference between TV and real audiences.
Hall, Randy. “Noted: Obama Got More Speaking Time at Every Presidential Debate”. Newsbusters.org. web. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/randy-hall/2012/10/23/obama-got-more-speaking-time-every-presidential-debate .
Trent, Judith. Political Campaign Communication. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2011. Print.
Waller, John. “Top 10 Worst Presidential Debate Gaffes”. Listverse.com. Web. http://listverse.com/2012/10/09/top-10-worst-presidential-debate-gaffes/
How a politician performs in a debate can have a major effect on the outcome of his or her campaign. There are also plenty of examples of what not to do in a debate.
ReplyDeleteOne of the most important lessons for politicians is not to lose their cool in a debate. This a lesson that could have emphasized to Rep. Keith Ellison of Minnesota. During their 2012 debate Ellison’s opponent, Republican Chris Fields, brought up some of the terms of Ellison’s 2010 divorce, while also accusing Ellison of “reverse racism” and funding research into Fields’ own divorce. Ellison lost it, calling Fields a “lowlife scumbag,” twice, and a “real gutter-dweller.” (Kasperowicz) In the end the voters forgave Ellison’s outburst and he was reelected to congress he is currently running against Doug Daggett for Minnesota’s 5th district. (Karner)
Another example of politician’s losing their cool came from a local race in Connecticut. Connecticut democrats might recognize the name Lee Whitnum she is essentially a fixture in every Democratic primary for any national office and is currently running for governor. (Democrat Lee Whitnum Announces Run for Connecticut Governor)
Whitnum is an outspoken critic of Israel and during a 2012 senate primary debate she got so worked up about the topic she called Rep. Chris Murphy a whore. “I’m dealing with a whore here who sells his soul to AIPAC, who will say anything for the job,” Whitnum said, referring to the American Israel Public Affairs Committee. Whitnum’s language and more radical views on foreign policy quickly eliminated her from the Senate race. (O'Leary)
Another tip for politicians to have prepared answers to likely questions.
During a 2012 GOP primary Debate Romney was asked about his tax returns and when he was going to release them. Romney responded with a long rambling answer basically coming to the conclusion that he might release his tax returns eventually. (Curry) Romney should have expected that his tax returns would be a topic of concern if you are a rich man running for president how you spend your money is one of the best indications of who you are.
One of the best debaters in office today is Ted Cruz, a Republican junior senator from Texas. Cruz is a hardline stubborn politician. Last fall, Cruz’s strident opposition to Obamacare led in a significant way to the shutdown of the federal government. At a time when many republicans are trying to become more moderate Cruz has hardened his positions, delighting the base of his party but moving farther from the positions of most Americans on most issues. As Trent explains “debaters attempt to identify themselves with what they believe are the principle aspirations of their audience” (Trent, 278). Cruz is a senators form Texas a state that is far more right-wing than the rest of the country.
ReplyDeleteCruz is conservative in appearance as well as ideology. He dresses like an old salesman in boxy blue suits, white shirts, and red ties. His black hair is just long enough to be slicked back. When he speaks to an audience, he usually offers a half smile that suggests an unspoken bond with his listeners. He paces the stage, like a motivational speaker, and he extemporizes but doesn’t ramble. It’s easy to follow his speeches, because he sticks to an outline, in keeping with his training as a college debater. (Roller)
During the 2012 race for Senate Cruz was running against Lieutenant Governor David Dewhurst who was by far the best-known and best-financed candidate for the Senate seat. But Cruz, calling himself a “constitutional conservative,” rallied the Tea Party movement to his side and battered Dewhurst as a defender of the status quo. (Bureau) Tea Party favorites like Sarah Palin, Rick Santorum, Rand Paul, and Jim DeMint swarmed the state for Cruz, and conservative political-action committees like the Club for Growth bought millions of dollars’ worth of advertisements on his behalf. (Stangler) (Stahl)
During their debates Cruz was as slick and confident as the voice over for a political ad. He rarely got cut off by the 90-second time limit. He hit his talking points and got in his digs at Dewhurst like he was checking off a list. This sort of methodology is what Trent describes as a successful debater “most successful political debaters have been able to integrate the specific issues into an overall framework” (Trent, 273).Cruz managed to attack Dewhurst fiercely and directly for negative campaigning—at one point pivoting toward him at their awkwardly close side-by-side podiums and asking if he stands by his assaults on Cruz’s patriotism—while making the case that he, Cruz, had stayed issues-based. When Dewhurst spoke, Cruz looked at him with sympathetic eyes and a little smirk as if he was looking at a naive child. (Ted Cruz and David Dewhurst Debate Highlights)
On the other hand Dewhurst wavered. He paused every time he said “Medi…caid” or “Medi….care” as if trying to remember which was which, and got a little lost in the middle of sentences, and often didn’t answer the actual question. (Ted Cruz and David Dewhurst Debate Highlights)
It has become clear that Crus has not come to Washington to make a deal but to make a point. Cruz has not formally entered the 2016 Presidential race, but he is taking all the customary steps for a prospective candidacy. He has set up political-action committees to raise money, travelled to early primary states, like Iowa and New Hampshire, and campaigned for Republican candidates all over the country. (Alberta) A bid for the presidency in 2016 will be a hard obstacle for democrats to overcome.
Works Cited
ReplyDeleteAlberta, Tim. "Ted Cruz Is Prepping a Foreign Policy-Focused Presidential Campaign." Www.nationaljournal.com. N.p., 28 Sept. 2014. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.
Bureau, Austin. "Long, Nasty Ted Cruz-David Dewhurst Senate Showdown to Be Settled Today." The Dallas Morning News. N.p., 30 July 2012. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.
Curry, Tom. "Romney Takes Fire on Bain, Tax Returns in Latest GOP Debate." NBC News. N.p., 15 Jan. 2012. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.
"Democrat Lee Whitnum Announces Run for Connecticut Governor." Democrat Lee Whitnum Announces Run for Connecticut Governor. N.p., 17 Mar. 2014. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.
Karner, Kevin. "Campaign Logos, Colors Influence Message." Minnesota Daily. Minnesota Daily, 30 Sept. 2014. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.
Kasperowicz, Pete. "Minn. Democrat Calls GOP Rival 'scumbag Gutter Dweller' on Radio." The Hill. N.p., 18 Oct. 2012. Web. 7 Oct. 2014.
O'Leary, Mary. "Lee Whitnum Calls Chris Murphy a 'whore' over Israel Policy | CT Senate 2012." CT Senate 2012. New Haven Register, 5 Apr. 2012. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.
Roller, Emma. "Ted Couldn't Help Himself From Taking the Shots." Slate Magazine. N.p., 21 Aug. 2013. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.
Stahl, Lori. "Palin, Santorum, DeMint Stump for Ted Cruz in Texas GOP Primary." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 26 July 2012. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.
Stangler, Cole. "Ted Cruz Gets $1.5 Million Club for Growth Donation In Texas Republican Senate Primary." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 12 July 2012. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.
"Ted Cruz & Lt. Governor David Dewhurst Debate on KERA/CSPAN on June 22nd, 2012." YouTube. YouTube, 22 June 2012. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.
"Ted Cruz and David Dewhurst Debate Highlights." YouTube. YouTube, 30 July 2012. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.
"Ted Cruz on the Issues." Ted Cruz on the Issues. On The Issues, n.d. Web. 06 Oct. 2014.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.
Perhaps one of the most important parts of a politicians campaign is a debate. A chance to go head to head against your opponent while informing potential voters how you will handle various policies and issues. As Trent went on to explain, “Political debating is widespread in this country. It is almost a ritualistic aspect of campaigns for one candidate to challenge the other to a debate” (261). Candidates have to prepare very well as a debate can make or break the next potential president. What many people often don’t realize is how much work actually goes into preparing for a debate. It’s not just about working on your answers or how to pull the rug out from under your opponent, but how you present yourself as well. Take for example, the famous Nixon Kennedy debate. This was the first televised debate and proved that being prepared visually is just as important.
ReplyDeleteRichard Nixon went up against a young handsome JFK. He slouched, looked tired and bitter, overall not very welcoming. He hardly smiled, and he never looked at the camera, which to the audience appeared as if he was dodging their gaze. This leads to voters believing he was not trust worthy because he cannot meet their gaze, when in reality he just wasn’t used to the cameras. Meanwhile, JFK, who was actually sick at the time, smiled before every question was answered, he stood up straight and put on his general “swagger” as he looked at the camera to answer his questions. This made him feel more familiar and friendly, which made many people love him. You may think that these small factors do not actually mean or add up to anything, but the truth is when analyst study the debate, they say that in terms of answers, Nixon won, but in terms of the public, more people loved JFK.
A more current example of an excellent debater is our president, Barack Obama. In his first presidential campaign against McCain, his debate skills were there, but not utilized nearly as well as his debates against Romney in the past presidential election. Obama has several strengths in these debates. Obama has presence and serenity. He never gets rattled when he is personally attacked or told his policies will fail, he remained calm and used reasoning to turn the tables. This made him seem much more presidential. His speech ability is also arguably one of his stronger qualities. The way he talks and conveys his points comes forward, but also calming and reassuring, as if he is reinforcing that he knows what he is doing and to trust him. Lastly, Obama knows how to be consistent with an issue. In the McCain debates, he focused on the economy, which at the time he knew was a huge problem. No matter what McCain threw at him, he would always manage to bring it back to the economy and what he was doing to fix it.
Works Cited:
Trent, Judith. Political Campaign Communication. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2011. Print.
Graham, Todd, and The Opinions Expressed in This Commentary Are Solely Those of Todd Graham. "Debate Coach: Obama, Romney Are Top Performers." CNN. Cable News Network, 01 Jan. 1970. Web. 07 Oct. 2014.
Debates have become an influential aspect of the election process especially in the last few decades. Performance during a debate, whether it be for a local school board position or for the President of the United States, can greatly affect how potential voters will end up casting their ballots. One thing that I think all candidates should do leading up to and during a debate is to rehearse what they are going to say. Certainly it is important to not to just devise an answer and spit it out when asked a question, but when a candidate has an idea of what questions may be asked and potential points they want to touch upon if the question is brought about it makes them look much more intelligent and well-versed in the topic. As Trent mentioned in the text, Obama utilized this strategy much to his advantage during the 2008 election cycle. Obama put a lot of thought into the process as the text said, “…would first discuss with his staff what the answer should include… he would listen to his aides critique him and suggest possible improvements” (Trent 272).
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that should be done during debates is to play to the characteristics of the audience, to engage voters and connect on a deeper level. Candidates should be aware of the demographics of the area they are speaking in and what issues of their platform will be most applicable. As such, they should work to make themselves and their campaign relatable to the audience, so that the audience is engaged and connects with them, and sees a justification for voting for them. During the 2004 election, President Bush utilized this tactic regarding the war on terror. A lot of Americans were uneasy with terrorism and he spoke to this issue and his personal successes, and as a result, “Bush’s observations not only suggested that he was an accomplished leader, but also denigrated the leadership qualities of his opponent” (Trent 278). Kerry struggled somewhat more during the campaign and the debates to connect with the audience as he faced numerous accusations of not taking a stance and being indecisive. Connecting with the audience and with voters in general is an extremely beneficial way to persuade voters that you are the right choice and worth the vote.
On the issue of things that should be avoided, it should be noted that where eye contact is directed can create problems. In the 2012 election cycle, I remember a particular example from the first Presidential debate. This is certainly something that can be found online, but I recall watching and having the same thought – during much of the time that Mitt Romney was speaking, Obama had his eyes directed toward his individual podium in a general downward manner, thus appearing to not pay much attention to what Romney had to say. As an article from the Guardian mentioned, “One of the images of the night that will remain will be Romney, eyes alight, gesticulating from the podium while Obama, head down, playing into his image as professorial, wrote notes” (Adams). While Obama is a strong speaker, this in my opinion was one of the worst things he could have done. I understand that it is important to take notes so that you may skillfully address points in rebuttal, but it gave the appearance of disinterest and apathy towards Mitt Romney which is the last thing the Obama campaign needed at the time.
Sources:
Adams, Richard. "First US Presidential Debate: Obama and Romney – as It Happened." The Guardian. TheGuardian.com, 4 Oct. 2012. Web. 7 Oct. 2014.
Trent, Judith. Political Campaign Communication. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2011. Print.
After reading Judith Trent's chapter "Debates in Political Campaigns" in "Political Campaign Communication" I found it interesting that a lot of the debate strategy happens before the Debate even starts! I thought a good example of a debate strategy that should continued to be used is lowering the expectations of the candidate doing in the debate like what George W. Bush did in the election for President against Al Gore in 2000. Although, Gore's campaign sort of kicked themselves in the butt because they were the ones lowering everyones standards of Bush's performance by continuously saying that he was too afraid to debate against Gore, "Again, the implication was clear. The weak debater Bush was afraid of the Strong debater Gore. Once more, the Gore campaign was playing right into the hands of the Bush campaign, by reinforcing the perception that Bush was a weak debater and Gore was a strong one"(Trent, 268). Once the debate actually happened, while neither of the candidates made a bad impression, the public perceived Bush as benefiting more. Another pre-debate strategy that seems to have a positive effect for candidates is the good ol' practice makes perfect strategy. A clear example of this is the 2008 debates with President Obama and John McCain. While McCain believed that he was an expert in the debate format and didnt take a lot of time to practice what he was going to say, President Obama spent three days practicing his responses."Obama, who devoted more time to practice than did McCain, would first discuss with his staff what the answer should include. He would then practice delivering the answer, including in mock debates with Craig. Finally, he would listen to his aides critique him and suggest possible improvements" (Trent, 272). Personally, after watching the debates, Obama exuded confidence the entire debate which I thought was the most detrimental to McCain that was avoiding confrontation with Obama and instead talking to the audience.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Trent, Judith. Political Campaign Communication. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc, 2011. Print.