The Ungreat Debate - 4 views
-
mabel taylor on 12 Oct 12I was most interested by the first and last paragraphs in this New Yorker article about the first Presidential debate. The beginning paragraph talks about how expectations made by the "expectorate" largely came true and how political interpretations and actual situations can be so utterly dominated by the media and other politicians' assumptions. It seems so simple that this sometimes anonymous group of "journalists, columnists, bloggers, television commentators, politicians, and 'strategists'" can have such a great impact on not only the perception of a political event but also the actual happenings because a candidate can just work to fulfill their expectations. People expected Romney to do well and he prepared and he won. (Though this article also makes the interesting distinction that not only did Romney win, Obama lost). The last paragraph frames Romney's flip-flopping tendencies in a different and more positive light. By constantly changing his viewpoints, both in his political career and as of late, Romney cannot be pinned down and sold as a specific type of bad person to the electorate. When Romney alters where he stands on the political spectrum and often successfully pulls himself into the center, the Obama campaign can again and again maintain that "all the evidence indicates that Romney has no 'core beliefs,'" but it makes their negative campaign much more difficult.
- ...3 more comments...
-
John West on 14 Oct 12The first paragraph really caught me too. It kind of gives me hope, though, that even the "expectorate" you mentioned were wrong (although I would much prefer that the debate had turned out differently). With all the talk we've been doing in class about how polls and political ads turn out to be self-fulfilling, influencing opinion instead of documenting it, it's nice to see that parts of the race are entirely unpredictable and totally in the power of the candidates and their stances. The point you brought up about him flip-flopping is fascinating to me, especially because of the research I've been doing about his immigration policy for the Issue's Project. I've found that the sheer number of stances he has on deportation and visa quotas makes it really hard to criticize his view. More than that, it's hard to figure out which one he supports right now. In this way, I see him not having to compromise between two sides of an issue, immigration or other. Instead of going for the center, he seems to be playing both sides, and that seems harder to pin down like you say.
-
cody s on 14 Oct 12This article definitely made me think. I feel like the immediate media dissection of the debates is definitely not a productive thing... it takes away from people actually watching the debate and forming their own opinions, and turns the debates into yet another poll thing, just another W in one candidate or another's column. This is definitely a new thing with the internet and the speed of communication, and it's interesting to see it helping Romney.
-
Anna Schutte on 17 Oct 12I am also intrigued by John's reference to the self fulfilling nature of polls, pundits and political analysis. Would people have thought Romney clearly won if they hadn't been told he would and then told he did? How long are people actually influenced by these kinds of pieces of information? Do they remember what Romney stood for before the debate? If so, how do they feel about him changing his position? Do they simply want him to win and then think that he was smart to modify how he presented his ideas?
-
Eli Melrod on 17 Oct 12I personally find post-debate coverage helpful to determine who "won" the debate. As a decided voter, it's really hard for me to determine who "won" a debate, because I support what Obama/Biden say. That said, I'm not sure if it is helpful to the overall process. Post-debate coverage and polls are here to stay though, so we should get used to them and try to understand them better.
-
Jonah Schacter on 21 Oct 12It is hard to look at who one and who lost a debate because it formed by the media. Yes we can all say that Romney came out harder and ready to play, while Obama was in the back seat watching the show. But no debate is going to change the mind of a decided and educated voter. With three debates prior to the election I think we have to wait until all three are finished to really form an idea of who won or lost the debates because then the majority of topics will be put on the table. Bottom line is you can be a great debater, but a not so great leader.