Polls and Elections: Do the Presidential Primary Debates Matter? Measuring Candidate Speaking Time and Audience Response during the 2012 Primaries

Abstract

Televised presidential primary debates are highly important for partisans by providing unmediated information concerning candidate viability. Here the presumptive winner of a given primary may be indicated during debates through both the speaking time they are given and the audience response they elicit. Here I explore both candidate speaking time and audience laughter and applause by content, analyzing six 2012 Republican Party primary debates. Debate venue plays a significant role in determining applause and, to a lesser extent, laughter. There is also a negative relationship between candidate speaking time and audience laughter, suggesting an insurgent strategy for second‐tier candidates. © 2014 Center for the Study of the Presidency and Congress

Laughter and effective presidential leadership: A case study of Ronald Reagan as the ‘great communicator'

“…The vocalic utterances that constitute laughter are much shorter in duration than applause-cheering, for instance. Analysis shows that group laughter in political contexts lasts on average 1-3 seconds in comparison with 2-8 seconds for applause-cheering Stewart, 2015;Stewart, Eubanks, & Miller, 2016) . Booing, another form of observable audience response, is surprisingly rare in political contexts.…”

“…It was expected that the applause-cheering would be most likely observed in media coverage of group settings such as political speeches (Dye, 2018) and intra-party debates (Stewart, 2015;Stewart et al, 2016) . This is due to such observable audience responses predominating in political discourse because of the ease with which candidates are able to evoke it among supporters in partisan settings.…”

“…individual appeal during speeches (Atkinson, 1984;Bull, 2003;Bull, 2016;Heritage & Greatbatch, 1986;West, 1984) or when in direct competition with other candidates during debates (Stewart, 2015;Stewart et al, 2016) . However, the production decision to incorporate applause-cheering as a major part of a critical news story may be seen as at odds with the perceived intent.…”

Candidate Performance and Observable Audience Response: Laughter and Applause–Cheering During the First 2016 Clinton–Trump Presidential Debate

“…Despite dispensing with traditional expectations and violating presidential debate norms, Trump’s performance and the associated audience response of raucous applause–cheering, laughter, and even booing during the initial 2016 primary debates ( Stewart et al, 2016 ) and the general election debates can be seen as providing insights concerning his populist appeal. Beyond their populist overtones, these observable audience responses (OARs) can thus be seen as valid and reliable audible indicators of the intensity of shared individual and emergent group attitudes toward political candidates more generally ( Stewart, 2012 , 2015 ; Stewart et al, 2016 ).…”

“…Thus, research concerning group laughter tends to reflect findings regarding response to individual speakers. The group vocalic utterances of laughter is limited in length of time to a much greater extent than those created through rhythmic mechanical noisemaking such as applause tending to last from 1 to 3 s in comparison with 2 to 8 s for applause–cheering ( Stewart, 2015 ), as well as likely booing (although these types of rare OAR makes strong assertions untenable). Furthermore, when an audience shows their appreciation for a humorous comment, applause–cheering prolongs the laughing utterance ( Stewart, 2012 ; Stewart et al, 2016 ).…”