Presidential debates as focal points for campaign arguments

Semantic networks and competition: Election year winners and losers in U.S. televised presidential debates, 1960–2004

“…Indeed, research has demonstrated that voters themselves consider debates as a source for learning about candidates (Drew & Weaver, 1991;Lemert et al, 1991). For voters, debates provide opportunities to assess and form opinions about the candidates (Carlin, 1992;Chaffee, 1978;Jamieson & Birdsell, 1988;Leon, 1993) and to observe the candidates "play President" (Leon, 1993). These public forums have been found to influence voters in various ways.…”

“…These public forums have been found to influence voters in various ways. Carlin (1992), for instance, found voters' perceptions about candidates can be shaped by their impression of who won, both in terms of voters' perceptions immediately following debates as well as their perceptions fostered by media analyses. Additionally, research on the 1992 debates showed that voters did indeed learn from these forums (Lemert, Bernstein, Elliott & Rosenberg, 1993;Zhu, Milavsky, & Biswas, 1994).…”

“…This study builds on that body of literature, and examines verbal content in ways previously unexplored in this body of research. Whereas scholars have enhanced understandings of the nature of discourse during debates, in terms of arguments and clash (Carlin, 1992;Carlin et al, 1991;Carlin et al, 2001) and have unearthed rhetorical moves debaters make (e.g., acclaims, attacks, and defenses; see Benoit & Harthcock, 1999;Benoit, McHale, Hansen, Pier, & McGuire, 2003;Benoit et al, 2002), this study examines the structure of language in debates and how debaters' language use positions them within a context of issues created by their participation. Like Benoit (2003Benoit ( , 2004, this study's interest is in how campaign messages may differentiate candidates and how that might be related to who wins and loses elections, albeit not the determining factor of electoral outcomes.…”

“…While other theoretical approaches to debate content, such as functional theory and argumentation theory, encourage scholars to examine the intricacies of and rhetorical moves in debate messages, semantic network theory encourages scholars to determine if there are structural patterns in discourse. Indeed, Carlin (1992) argued that a candidate's debate dialogue is reflective of his larger campaign message. If that is the case, and if the current study's findings are considered within the broader campaign context, then one implication of these findings is that the candidate who has developed a coherent, centrally structured campaign message, an appeal that is reiterated and reflected in their debate dialogue, seems to be victorious come presidential election day.…”

“…By examining the text-based content of televised U.S. presidential debates, this article asks: How does language differentiate presidential candidates during televised debates? This is an important question because previous research has found that debates influence voters' perceptions of candidates (Carlin, 1992;Chaffee, 1978). Thus, examining the language that candidates use lends insight into some factors that may influence those perceptions.…”