The Influence of Format and Questions on Candidates' Strategic Argument Choices in the 2000 Presidential Debates

Abstract

Building on past content analyses of presidential debates to determine how format affects the levels of clash and candidates' strategies, this study answers three questions about the 2000 presidential debates: (a) Do candidates differ in their use of clash and nonclash argument strategies? (b) Does format affect candidates' strategic choices? and (c) Does the structure of questions explain strategic choices? Results of the content analysis suggest that format and question content affect candidates' strategic choices; however, other factors including the larger campaign strategy, polling data, and performance in previous debates also influence strategies.

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

“…In comparative analyses of presidential debate content , Carlin, Howard, Stanfield, and Reynolds (1991) revealed considerable clash between presidential candidates. In later analyses, Carlin, Morris, and Smith (2001) found that the extent of clash is related to the debate format (e.g., town hall vs. mediator facilitator formats). In addition, Benoit and Harthcock (1999) and Benoit, Pier, Brazeal, McHale, Klyukovski, and Airne (2002) noted three functions of candidate verbal utterances in both primary and general-election presidential debates: Candidates acclaim themselves, attack their opponent(s), and defend themselves.…”

“…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.…”

“…This study shows that semantic networks, both as a theoretical and a methodological approach, are particularly useful in examining how language use and the enactment of symbols differentiate candidates, in this case, during debates. Whereas previous research on debate content has enhanced understandings of (a) the nature and degree of candidate argument and clash (Carlin et al, 1991;Carlin et al, 2001), (b) the extent to which candidates acclaim, attack, or defend during debates Benoit et al, 2002), and (c) the linguistic dimensions/properties of language candidates use during debates (Hart & Jarvis, 1997), semantic networks enable scholars to explore another aspect of debate content: the underlying patterns or invisible structures (Lievrouw et al, 1987) of meaning in debate discourse. Indeed, semantic networks' focus on the structure of language use provides one way in which scholars may explore (in)consistency across messages.…”

The News Norms and Values of Presidential Debate Agendas: An Analysis of Format and Moderator Influence on Question Content

“…The press serves as the primary facilitator of the debate agenda. Scholars (Ben-Porath, 2007;Carlin, Morris, & Smith, 2001;Morello, 2005) have observed that moderators sometimes favor agendas that satisfy infotainmentdriven news values (e.g., soft news, campaign strategy, and character traits) over policy issues. An analysis of early presidential debates found that issues moderators asked about were unreflective of the issues salient to the public (Jackson-Beeck & Meadow, 1979).…”

“…Scholars have found that the public debate agenda is less focused on conflict than the media's (Carlin et al, 2001;Kaid et al, 2000;Morello, 2005;Schroeder, 2008). Morello (2005) observed that public questions focus on plans and proposals, whereas press questions concern conflict and contradictions of the past.…”