As the upcoming election grows near, it is impossible to avoid the updates, news, and media coverage of our Presidential candidates and their campaign trail. Which is a good thing, I believe, as I think more people need to concern themselves with the state of our country and both candidates plan for the next four years. Which is why I am a big fan of watching the Presidential debates. I always get so frustrated with them, though. I get frustrated with the entire proceeding, but more-so with the interpretation and naming of a winner. Not because my party never gets chosen as the winner, but because of how the winner seems to be chosen in America's eyes. This past debate seemed to highlight my frustration more than most, actually.
Before I continue I want to say that I do not want to allow my own personal partisan values to influence this post. I am going to try to stay completely unbiased and non-partsan throughout, because it is not the political ideals of either party that I want to attack or praise, but the way things are processed and handled in this part of the political process. I do not intend for the this to be an argument concerning whose policies are better, or who would make the better president. That is something I want to avoid altogether.
Anyway, for those of you who didn't get to see the Presidential debates, you should definitely invest your time now and watch.
I felt it was important to watch, though. I still do feel that same way, as I think it is very important to be educated on the plan each candidate has for our future. Which is exactly what upsets me about the so called results of this first debate. Thursday morning, the news was filled with an overwhelming amount of articles and newscasts claiming Romney the winner of the night. And why is this the mass conclusion? Because Romney put on an enthused, passionate performance while Obama seemed much more disinterested in the entire thing. At least that was everyone's immediate reaction on Thursday morning. I myself watched two different news stations and read three different articles from three different papers Thursday that all came to the same conclusion.
So what exactly is my complaint? That these so called "style points" that Romney apparently won on Wednesday night are enough to warrant a winner of the debate. I have not yet seen or heard one person claim Romney the winner based on anything he said Wednesday night. It all just seems so arbitrary and irrelevant to me. Who cares how he said what he said, if the content of his arguments were false or pointless. (I'm not personally saying anything he said was false or pointless, I'm just simply pointing to the fact that no one took that into account when declaring him the winner).
I believe that there really can't be a winner to a debate if that is how it is chosen. I think that one can practice debating and gain an immense amount of experience putting on a professional, enthused front, but if the content of their arguments is not relevant or factual, shouldn't you lose? If the point of a debate is to present your side of an argument based on facts/statistics while trying to persuade others that your claim is the right one, isn't the content of what you say more important than how you say it? It might just be me, but I would say the answer is yes. Which is why I think the only way a winner can be decided is to analyze the truth and effectiveness of their statements, and then factor in style as a last, minor detail. I think it is important that everyone check out all the Fact Checks that circulate after debates like this, or this, or even this. It is very good that articles like this are posted and circulate immediately, it is just frustrating that these articles aren't what the news has scrutinized or focused on.
Immediately after the debates the news was filled with people covering why Obama acted the way he did and praise of Romney for doing such a super job. Like that means anything. It could go both ways. Either candidate could be the worst speaker on this planet, but he could have the greatest ideas ever. It isn't until days later that the content of what they said is actually given any focus in the public eye. And at this point, everyone already has a clear image of who they were told the winner was.
I guess in short, I just don't think arbitrary factors like this should have any relevance in such important matters. In the past few decades, the number of American citizens who take time to read newspapers, watch the news, vote, and keep themselves informed in politics have fallen. Which is why I don't believe that when people actually do take an interest in these issues, that this is the kind of news they should be subjected to. I think we need to push for people to be informed on what really matters, because that affects all our futures.
The reason Mitt Romney won the debate was because he was able to effectively convey his message in a way that resonated with the American people. Not only did he need strong arguments, but he also, like you said, needed to convey his message using so-called "style points" - by being engaged, energetic, and passionate, unlike President Obama. One of the main purposes of presidential debates is to convince undecided voters, so whichever candidate can most effectively do this is going to be proclaimed winner of the debate. That being said, given Romney's great performance, it should be no surprise that he is considered the winner. The nature of a debate has a lot to do with how the candidates come off to the people. A candidate cannot effectively convey their message if they do not seem engaged and passionate about it. "Style points" are therefore extremely important factors in a debate.
ReplyDeleteElizabeth,
ReplyDeleteI understand that being engaged with an audience is important in a debate. And I'm not saying that Romney didn't make good valid arguments, I'm just saying that the initial reaction of the news and media didn't focus on his arguments at all and did nothing to convey to the American people what his policies and ideas truly meant for this country. But I guess I'm not saying that style points aren't necessarily important. To state in a better way what I meant, I guess I should have said that relative to the other aspect of a debate (the content and validity of their arguments), style points are trivial. Especially in a debate as important as a presidential debate. It would be completely asinine to argue that they are more important. So many articles and political polls have come out in the last few years and even decades saying that Americans have become less and less politically active and unaware of what is going on in politics. So with that trend on the continued decline I will fully back the argument that the day after a Presidential debate airs, that, yeah, it does seem rather insignificant to argue about which candidate carried themselves better when what the American people really need to be exposed to are arguments about the implications of each candidates policies and ideas for our country.
So to be clear, relativity is key. And as I said in my post, style points should be factored in. But as I said before, they should be factored into the outcome of a debate last, not first. Because (as I might not have very clearly stated before in my frustration directly following the airing of the debates), doing things like being engaged with an audience is always good. But when we're trying to decide something as important as who is going to be president of the United States for the next four years, I think it is more important to focus on content first. And it should always be given the most importance as well. That's what should have been the topic of discussion on the news right after the debate. That's what newspapers should have headlined their Thursday morning papers with. That is, at least, my opinion.
Heather,
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statements that debates shouldn't come down to a matter of "style points" they should be rooted in cold hard facts. Partisan values aside, I felt that Romney didn't necessarily beat Obama in his logical argument.
From my perspective, it seemed that Romney just strong armed the president by constantly interrupting him (given Obama had his fair share of interruptions as well). As you said, the winner of a debate should be the person that can convince the most people to listen to them as well as have the best logical arguments. In my opinion,the debate last week was more of a talking match where the candidate that talked the most was declared the winner. It was less about facts.
I acknowledge the fact that debates are supposed to be about refuting others positions, but this does not mean that opponents can rudely interrupt others argument whenever they feel like it. I mean, look at the lack of respect for Jim Lehrer during the debate. It was apparent the two candidates were trying to overpower each other by trying to have the last word.
Hopefully, voters won't take these style point victories to heart and will honestly consider each candidates position regardless of their partisan values.
Kevin,
ReplyDeleteI personally agree with everything you said. I actually found myself in complete disagreement with what seemed to be a very overwhelming public opinion that Romney put on such a great performance throughout the debate. I actually took a complete opposite take on both of their demeanors throughout the night. I felt that Romney seemed rather hot-headed and hasty in his arguments, while it seems that most everyone else interpreted his behavior as being very enthused and attentive. But I was honestly appalled by some of his actions. Towards the end of the first segment, as Jim Lehrer tried to change topics after allowing Obama to give the first and last statement of a segment, Romney actually cut him off and said, "Jim, the president began this segment, so I think I get the last word, so I'm going to take it." I know some people might disagree, but I was filled with incredulity. I couldn't think of a more childish response to make on national TV. And this wasn't the only response of the sort. As you said before the whole debate was filled with instances like this. Both candidates, as you pointed out, showed a total lack of respect for Jim Lehrer. But at least president Obama quickly apologized for his behavior after almost every instance of breaking the time constraints or cutting him off. I actually felt that, with a few exceptions of speaking over Jim Lehrer, Obama carried himself with poise and remained very calm throughout the heated debate. I actually think he presented himself as one should. But, most would disagree and say he lacked a passion and interest in the entire event.
So I guess if people are going to resort to using these sorts of things as determinants of the winner, it is always going to be a matter of opinion anyway. But after reading through numerous fact checks and looking more in depth at the validity of each candidates claims, people become exposed to the falsities presented and hopefully will see the clear winner of the night. We just have to hope people will actually look at that.
I was throughly interested during this first debate to see the manner in which the candidates would portray their principles, promises, and steps. However, different from the public opinion, I have always regarded the debates solely as an informational process rather than a full-out contest. The debates are a way for the candidates to explain how, in the position of president, they would better the United States.
ReplyDeleteTo declare a winner solely relies on the manner in which the information is presented. This includes tone, eye contact, and flow of words. There's no way to completely judge the candidates' promises until the candidate has actually taken office. Therefore, I feel to declare a winner, one is uniformed on the candidates positions and completely judges on the so called "style points". One could say Romney won the debate because of his well-worded arguments, his emphasis on his promises, and his unbreakable eye contact throughout the debate. However, would you rather have a president that can talk and display himself well, or a president who knows his economy, government, and citizens (not saying I'm anti-Romney or pro-Obama or anything). Your conclusion is completely correct in the sense that we need to better educate American citizens on governmental issues. All these uneducated citizens pick a winner based on "style points" and that is why presidential debates have become so important and popular.
To effectively measure the importance of the debates, one should analyze the positions and promises of the candidates and discover which method they like the best and which method is best for the United States. Heather makes a great point. Declaring a winner will always be based on personal opinion. That is why I feel that declaring a winner in these presidential debates is pointless. What truly is important is the candidates' promises for the future and their stances of government.
As someone who has been following the presidential race very closely, I have been bothered by many of the same things that you have. First off, the debate should not be the only source of information people have on a candidate. Way too many people tune in to watch one debate, and then go to the polls and vote. As important as this debate has proven to be for the Romney campaign, it should not be that way. The majority of what the debate consists of is oversimplifying plans and arguing over useless points. People should be reading about the candidates and their policies, and even more importantly about their records. The debate creates headlines, but a presidents true policies cannot be found unless people actually read up on what the politicians have done in the past. Governor Romney won only because President Obama seemed so unenthused, which is not a good sign for an incumbent who is no longer definitely going to be reelected. What bothered me more than anything was that in the next two debates, President Obama simply attacked Governor Romney, coming across, at least to me, as childish and trying to overcompensate for such a poor first performance. More importantly, people are picking President Obama as the winner because of these tactics. The debates have become increasingly less informative, and that is a bad sign in a society where people base their votes on 3 one and a half hour debates.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I do not consider myself an avid follower of politics, but I watched one of the debates. Although I did not notice the issue at first, I agree with your concern regarding style points. Governor Romney said a bunch of things that weren't true and as a result, President Obama seemed unentertained with Romney's points. Sure, Romney appeared to perform better than Obama, but only aesthetically. In fact, both Romney and Obama are guilty of breaking time limits and even interrupting the the moderator on some occasions. These instances detract from what the politicians are actually trying to say. While it can be debated that these infractions are necessary to demonstrate a candidate's power, characteristics, etc., it appears that present day presidential debates have become nothing more than BS contests. The candidates make false statements among other things in an attempt to sway voters in their favor. I agree with your complaint that style points should not determine the winner of a debate. Hopefully the nation will be more alert to this after the 2012 BS contests and be able to see past style points in order to understand what exactly each future candidate's platform consists of.
ReplyDelete