Debate Fever
Wednesday, October 3rd is the first day of Presidential Debates! President Obama will be debating against Republican candidate Mitt Romney. There has been much anticipation leading up to the big day, with everyone wondering: Who will come up on top?
In an article by the Huffington Post, they describe some of the mannerisms of debate preparation that are quite similar to the articles we read about Romney and Obama's approaches speech writing. Romney's aids describe him as preparing earlier and with more focus than any candidate ever before. Ignoring the obvious bias, it is clear just how involved Romney is in the process of preparing for a debate, just he is described as being when preparing for speeches. When speaking of Obama, his famed speechwriter Jon Favreau is also helping him prepare for the big day. However, Favreau isn't the only adviser preparing the President for the debate -- in fact, President Obama has quite the team. With much discussion on whether a candidate should have a speechwriter, the role of the speechwriter, and their ultimate influence on the candidate, it appears that this discussion can also be applied to debate. In preparing for a debate, advisers and aids do help the candidates.
But is debate better at revealing the true authenticity of a candidate? I mean, it is a debate. It's not just a speech where Obama or Romney are standing solo on a stage having everyone's attention, free to say whatever they (or their speechwriters) prepared without refutation. A debate better exposes a candidate. Although they can make assumptions on how the opponent will approach the debate (the article discusses how they both view the opponents in previous debates to get a clue how they'll come into the ring) there is always the element of surprise and uncertainty, and that is the ultimate test. They actually have to respond to the accusations made by the opponent. It would further demonstrate how a candidate can articulate their views and policies and persuade the audience that they are the best person for the job. It would seem like the debate would be extremely effective.
Or is it?
In this political cartoon by Patrick Chappatte, he appears to exploit the effectiveness of the actual debate. Does it really sway the independents one way or the other? Does it only secure one's win and the other's loss, or does it have more of an impact than this political cartoon seems to express? Perhaps people just want to see a confident Obama or a confident Romney under the lights and pressure. The candidates are just further emphasizing how their policies are better than the others. Maybe the audience just wants to see them stand their ground, but are not expecting any election-altering results. The candidate just can't severely mess up.
Even in a Gallup Poll, they question the effectiveness of debate, arguing that rarely does it alter the results. But for me, I am excited for the debate. Yes, they probably have an idea of what the other is going to say, therefore they can prepare their response. They know the policies the other supports and the opponent's issues with their policies (I mean, they see thousands of advertisements explicitly expressing how and why the other candidate is wrong) but what excites me is the confrontation at the debate. I want to see these two men confront each other on a national stage instead of through the safety of television ads, editorials, speeches on the campaign trail, or in interviews. To me, they are finally being direct with each other.
In an article by the Huffington Post, they describe some of the mannerisms of debate preparation that are quite similar to the articles we read about Romney and Obama's approaches speech writing. Romney's aids describe him as preparing earlier and with more focus than any candidate ever before. Ignoring the obvious bias, it is clear just how involved Romney is in the process of preparing for a debate, just he is described as being when preparing for speeches. When speaking of Obama, his famed speechwriter Jon Favreau is also helping him prepare for the big day. However, Favreau isn't the only adviser preparing the President for the debate -- in fact, President Obama has quite the team. With much discussion on whether a candidate should have a speechwriter, the role of the speechwriter, and their ultimate influence on the candidate, it appears that this discussion can also be applied to debate. In preparing for a debate, advisers and aids do help the candidates.
But is debate better at revealing the true authenticity of a candidate? I mean, it is a debate. It's not just a speech where Obama or Romney are standing solo on a stage having everyone's attention, free to say whatever they (or their speechwriters) prepared without refutation. A debate better exposes a candidate. Although they can make assumptions on how the opponent will approach the debate (the article discusses how they both view the opponents in previous debates to get a clue how they'll come into the ring) there is always the element of surprise and uncertainty, and that is the ultimate test. They actually have to respond to the accusations made by the opponent. It would further demonstrate how a candidate can articulate their views and policies and persuade the audience that they are the best person for the job. It would seem like the debate would be extremely effective.
Or is it?
In this political cartoon by Patrick Chappatte, he appears to exploit the effectiveness of the actual debate. Does it really sway the independents one way or the other? Does it only secure one's win and the other's loss, or does it have more of an impact than this political cartoon seems to express? Perhaps people just want to see a confident Obama or a confident Romney under the lights and pressure. The candidates are just further emphasizing how their policies are better than the others. Maybe the audience just wants to see them stand their ground, but are not expecting any election-altering results. The candidate just can't severely mess up.
Even in a Gallup Poll, they question the effectiveness of debate, arguing that rarely does it alter the results. But for me, I am excited for the debate. Yes, they probably have an idea of what the other is going to say, therefore they can prepare their response. They know the policies the other supports and the opponent's issues with their policies (I mean, they see thousands of advertisements explicitly expressing how and why the other candidate is wrong) but what excites me is the confrontation at the debate. I want to see these two men confront each other on a national stage instead of through the safety of television ads, editorials, speeches on the campaign trail, or in interviews. To me, they are finally being direct with each other.
posted by Ambreen | 11:01 AM
2 Comments:
Great post, Ambreen. I really like how you connect some of the speechwriting issues to debate. Is it legitimate for a politician to use others to help prepare or is it a more accurate test if the candidate works alone? I think many voters agree with your take--the debates matter to them because they want to see the candidates on the same stage so that they can directly compare and contrast their ideas.
I also question how effective debates can be also prior to the ones being held this election season. After the reactions to the first debate I realized that they can be very effective. It's all about performance and Obama's performance affeted the lead he had in the election.
Post a Comment
<< Home