A couple of days ago, I speculated about how all of us determine who wins presidential debates. Amanda wrote some interesting comments in her reply, and I think she has made some solid points. Here's how I have viewed the debates, and the media swirl around "who won?" that always follows.
There has been some research on this topic -- I remember reading some articles back in graduate school that attempted to create a list of criteria for determining a debate winner. Here is what I think about this, and what I recollect from my reading.
First, it is probably safe to say that for many voters, the debate winner is the candidate that a given voter already prefers. After all, we already like that candidate, and it's likely that we already agree with some or much of what they say. Because of that, we tend to overlook any mistakes our favorite candidate might make, and emphasize any mistakes made by the opposing candidate. Since so many voters appear to have already made up their minds, I'm not sure what effect the debates will have on Election Day.
Second, a "winner" might be seen as the candidate who had superior advocacy skills during the debate. This approach would be more consistent with how traditional debates are scored (remember high school or college debates?). It's possible that the handful of undecided voters this year might be moved by one candidate's superior advocacy skills. Amanda mentioned this as a possibility in her earlier comments.
Third, there are harder to measure characteristics of candidates that voters might choose to assess. We speak of "leadership," or "trustworthiness" and "likeability," and sometimes simply if a candidate looks and acts like a President (whatever that might mean). I think this is where Mitt Romney can make up some ground. Even though the Romney campaign has been in full swing for at least 5 months, many voters don't know him very well. Fielding difficult questions and being poised under pressure can earn Mitt Romney lots of points with voters.
Fourth, a candidate might be considered the winner because of a major mistake made by the other candidate. This doesn't happen very often anymore, mostly because the candidates prepare so thoroughly now. They know to stay on message, and to emphasize their own talking points -- even if a question wants to take them in a different direction. Remember Herman Cain's "9-9-9 Plan" debating tactic? It didn't matter what the question was, he responded by talking about 9-9-9.
Finally, sometimes the winner is whomever the media calls the winner. Amanda pointed out in her reply to my first post that the media also can be biased about these matters. What we do know is that the media loves talking about a winner, which is one reason why I've posted my own views about this. While it makes for good entertainment -- and it could even sway some people's minds -- I don't find it entirely useful to talk about debate winners and losers.
Having said that -- enjoy tonight's debate!
John Klemanski
There has been some research on this topic -- I remember reading some articles back in graduate school that attempted to create a list of criteria for determining a debate winner. Here is what I think about this, and what I recollect from my reading.
First, it is probably safe to say that for many voters, the debate winner is the candidate that a given voter already prefers. After all, we already like that candidate, and it's likely that we already agree with some or much of what they say. Because of that, we tend to overlook any mistakes our favorite candidate might make, and emphasize any mistakes made by the opposing candidate. Since so many voters appear to have already made up their minds, I'm not sure what effect the debates will have on Election Day.
Second, a "winner" might be seen as the candidate who had superior advocacy skills during the debate. This approach would be more consistent with how traditional debates are scored (remember high school or college debates?). It's possible that the handful of undecided voters this year might be moved by one candidate's superior advocacy skills. Amanda mentioned this as a possibility in her earlier comments.
Third, there are harder to measure characteristics of candidates that voters might choose to assess. We speak of "leadership," or "trustworthiness" and "likeability," and sometimes simply if a candidate looks and acts like a President (whatever that might mean). I think this is where Mitt Romney can make up some ground. Even though the Romney campaign has been in full swing for at least 5 months, many voters don't know him very well. Fielding difficult questions and being poised under pressure can earn Mitt Romney lots of points with voters.
Fourth, a candidate might be considered the winner because of a major mistake made by the other candidate. This doesn't happen very often anymore, mostly because the candidates prepare so thoroughly now. They know to stay on message, and to emphasize their own talking points -- even if a question wants to take them in a different direction. Remember Herman Cain's "9-9-9 Plan" debating tactic? It didn't matter what the question was, he responded by talking about 9-9-9.
Finally, sometimes the winner is whomever the media calls the winner. Amanda pointed out in her reply to my first post that the media also can be biased about these matters. What we do know is that the media loves talking about a winner, which is one reason why I've posted my own views about this. While it makes for good entertainment -- and it could even sway some people's minds -- I don't find it entirely useful to talk about debate winners and losers.
Having said that -- enjoy tonight's debate!
John Klemanski
RSS Feed