The Invisible Hands of Political Parties in Presidential Elections

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

“…Furthermore, primary debates are much more raucous affairs than general election debates, with substantially more applause and laughter. Specifically, Stewart (2012) found nearly two and four times more audience laughter, respectively, in preprimary and primary debates when compared with the general election debates during the 2008 presidential election. This might be attributed to not just tighter moderator control of the audience, but also potentially to the mixture of Republican and Democratic partisans, alongside independent audience members, with a resultant inhibition of social contagion with either laughter or applause.…”

“…As a result, self-presentation and connection with the audience, both live at the debate venue and watching via mass media (Peifer and Holbert 2013), is important for conveying personality and character-of which nonverbal behavior plays an important role. Competing candidates walk a fine line between assertiveness and politeness toward their opponents (Bull and Wells 2002;Dailey, Hinck, and Hinck 2005;Pfau and Rang 1991;Seiter and Weger 2005;Seiter et al 2010) in which mastery of their facial displays (Newton et al 1987;Patterson et al 1992;Stewart 2012;Stewart and Ford Dowe 2013;Stewart, Salter, and Mehu 2009;Sullivan and Masters 1988), body language (Dumitrescu, Gidengil, and Stolle 2015;Gentry and Duke 2009;Koppensteiner and Grammer 2010;Koppensteiner, Stephan, and J€ aschke 2015;Kramer, Arend, and Ward 2010), and vocal behavior (Gentry and Duke 2009;Kalkhoff and Gregory 2008) plays a key role in viewer assessment.…”

“…Specifically, the first three primaries of the Republican nomination battle, held in New Hampshire, South Carolina, and Florida during the month of January, were key for defining the major contenders for the presidential candidacy. The front-loaded nature of the current primary system favors those early races almost to the point that the winners of the invisible primary, in which money plays a definitive role (Adkins andDowdle 2002, 2008;Dowdle et al 2013;Tolbert, Keller, and Donovan 2010), can be expected to dominate media attention and voting outcomes in these primaries, as well as the Iowa caucus starting the election season, yet may not necessarily reflect the demographic characteristics and policy preferences of the American populace (Panagopoulos 2010;Tolbert, Keller, and Donovan 2010).…”

“Please Clap”: Applause, Laughter, and Booing during the 2016 GOP Presidential Primary Debates

“…Audience response also condenses the time and eff ort that would normally be required by interpersonal interactions while providing a reliable index of support based upon the type, length, and strength of the "utterance" (Dezecache and Dunbar 2012 ). Due to the contagious nature of audience response and the mutual monitoring amongst group members (Bull 2003 ), applause, laughter, and booing may be influenced by the nature of the audience as well as other factors such as seating arrangements, acoustics, and instructions from debate moderators (Stewart 2012 ;. However, even ideologically diverse audiences may have their applause, laughter, and booing enabled by their being clustered next to each other (Clayman 1992 ).…”

“…Audience laughter is arguably a more reliable indicator than applause of the connection candidates have with audience members because laughter is hard to fake without inducing physiological change (Stewart 2012 ;. However, like applause, laughter is influenced by candidate status and likability as preferred candidates are often seen as funnier; in turn, their humorous comments lead them to being viewed more positively (Fein et al 2007 ;Stewart 2011 ).…”