Psychology In Presidential Debates

In the United States, television has been influential in presidential elections since the 1960’s. Television has a way of “turning away from policy sphere,” it judges candidates based on their appearances, not their message. Television has shifted the key point of presidential debates: from pursuing issue to pursuing image. Therefore, television is misleading, having a negative impact on presidential elections.

Campaigns in politics are important in determining outcomes and inform the voters who remain undecided. Also, campaigns matter because although the candidates or media officials may know what the outcome will be, the voters themselves do not (107). Aside from campaigns, conventions are also important, if not more important. Party nominating conventions affect the apathetic, uninterested electorates who think conventions are interesting and exciting, often known as the Olympic games of politics (121). This experience for voters can carry influence, and is a time of “intense political learning” (129). Therefore, aggregately, conventions make public opinion meaningful because the citizens who watch make an informed decision about a candidate, and have facts about why they will vote for that candidate. The chief reason why individual public opinion is meaningless during presidential elections is the “nonattitudes.” Nonattitudes are survey responses made up on the spot during an interview by a respondent who has no attitude on politics (113). Therefore, these individuals diminish the value of public opinion because we hate inconsistency and this creates an abundance of views on issues. However, during election night, exit polls support why aggregate opinion is also important. Exit polls are meaningful because one hundred percent of those leaving the polls have voted (102). Therefore, we can get real results from the electorates and this makes collective public opinion

When attempting to present a certain perspective to an audience, the speaker must not merely string a list of monotonous and meaningless words together and call it a speech. Rhetoric, also known as persuasive elocution, has the power to captivate an audience and is essential to any effective oration. In his 2008 Republican Convention speech, actor Fred Thompson lends his support to John McCain’s presidential campaign in order to convince American voters to do the same. Appealing to his audience’s patriotism and sense of responsibility while also discrediting the possibility of a successful Democratic nominee, Thompson delivers a memorable presentation laced with passion, light-hearted humor, and, most especially, hope for a better future lead

Global debates are dominated by controversial political figures that use charged arguments to debate the most controversial issues on the political agenda. The authors argue that success in politics is not about being right or well-reasoned. Instead, it is asserted that success in politics is the ability to imprint positive associations in the long-term memories of voters. More so, success in politics is may be the ability to craft regular, credible, and persuasive arguments that resonate with those of one’s

Jay Van Bavel’s 2016 article addresses an important and relevant issue: voters’ deeply divided perceptions of presidential candidates. According to Bavel, approximately 70 million viewers tuned in to watch the final presidential debate on October 19, 2016. In theory, one would be valid in assuming that while processing such an event, everyone should be experiencing the same reality—all are watching the same debate, hearing the same words said by the same people. Strangely, however, this is not the case: in reality, Republicans and Democrats concluded the debates with drastically separate conclusions on the candidates. According to a CNN poll referenced to within Bavel’s article, Hillary Clinton won the first debate, with 67% compared to Donald Trump’s 27%. However, a further examination of these statistics reveals an obvious divergence between the democratic and republican parties. According to democrats, Clinton won (89% to 5%); according to republicans, Trump won (54% to 28%). Why is there such a great divide when both parties were presented with the exact same information? People do not see the world objectively—without the influence of personal biases. Instead, people reinforce the goals and values of the partisan group they identify with, allowing the party’s views to color their perceptions of identical information (Bavel).

In 2004 the United States of America held a presidential election as it does every four years. Throughout the process, from primary to convention, from the debates to Election Day, both the candidates and the media relied on rhetoric to influence the thoughts of the electorate. Because of the close results of the 2000 election and the bitter court battle that followed, the rhetoric of the campaigns of both major candidates in 2004 was stronger and more focused than before. To show the uses of this rhetoric and its effects on the public through the media, several topics are discussed within. First, the language used by the candidates, followed by a discussion of the political conventions and a look at the

It is easy to glance at the 2016 Presidential Election and paint it as a looney bin with unpredictable results, wacky campaigns, and erratic candidates. However, after studying the election closely, I have discovered quite the contrary. In fact, I would even go as far to suggest that each candidate was a master of their craft—rhetoric. Looking back, it is entertaining to see how each candidate enhances their credibility, evokes a fusillade of emotions, and presents certain calculated policies. If asked several months ago, I would have provided an entirely different answer which would have compared the election and its candidates to a circus and its intricate members. My enlightened grasp on the election was elucidated through various readings, weekly blog posts, and three term projects which allowed me to thoroughly analyze the campaigns. Although learning about the strategic ways to employ presidential rhetoric was the focal point of my class, I finished with new skills and experiences that will benefit my writing abilities. The adversity I faced because of late nights and unsatisfying grades has provided me with a sense of clarity and humility that has made me a more attentive and refined writer.

This is essay will establish the different gender roles between the two candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. This paper will briefly give a short summary during the debates as well as some media content. I will also demonstrate that Donald Trump is misogynistic, racist and sexist by using his statements during this election process. Furthermore, I will analyze the whole presidential campaign and correlate the candidates with class lectures, readings and videos discussed during this semester.

In their National Convention speech, both Michelle Obama and Melania Trump used rhetorical conventions to persuade the audience to elect their husbands as the next President of the United States. To begin with, both women use ethos to show the audience that their husbands are capable of becoming the next president. Both women build credibility on their husbands by voicing admirable qualities each of them have. For example, Michelle Obama states that Barack Obama is a very smart, caring, dignified, and respectful man. On the other hand, Melania Trump proclaimed that Donald Trump has great patriotism, leadership, and loyalty. All these qualities show that both presidential candidates are well suited in becoming the president. Michelle Obama and Melania Trump don’t just state that their husbands possess these qualities; they give evidence of these qualities through the use of ethos.

Television is a form of communication that can be used to transfer information to the general public, and its full value and effects can be seen at all times, especially during election seasons. To some extent, this medium has helped people make informed decisions on which candidate is suitable to be president. However, this positive influence could distract people from focusing on policy and turn the election into a popularity contest.

In her study, she examined whether crying, acting tough, displaying anger, and other gaffes by male and female political candidates are received differently by the public. On the subject of crying, she found that it is unambiguous that candidates should do their best to avoid having an angry outburst while on the campaign trail. This is clear for both males and females, as she also found that it is no worse for a woman candidate to blow her top than a man. Overall,

The president is perhaps the most visible arm of government to the American people. Through the drama of highly televised election campaigns and public speeches, the president is, for most people, the face of government. The president’s communication to the public is spotlighted and given much more attention than other public officials’, such as representatives or senators. Since the president receives more public attention than any other individual in government, it seems natural to analyze presidential rhetoric.

In any presidential election, it is important to take the characteristics of each candidate into consideration in order to determine who is most qualified for the title “president of the United States”. Being a president of a country comes with a great deal of responsibility. A president is required to make appearances, present speeches, be involved in foreign affairs, help make military decisions, and serve as a representative of the nation as a whole. To be a good president, one must be able to present their arguments eloquently with sufficient evidence provided to support their claims. Though the practice of good rhetoric is fundamental in any potential president, it is not the only the only skill necessary to be considered a good president.

In sharp contrast to past elections when candidates campaigned in-person, the 2016 election has been significantly mediated through mass media. With such a large influence on voters, the media not only determines which issues and events are salient in voters’ minds, but also how voters evaluate candidates. Moreover, media coverage, depending on its content, can influence whether voters think about candidates in terms of campaign issues or candidate attributes.

The first form of nonverbal communication that plays a significant role in influencing the voting behavior is the physical appearance of candidates. The analytical study by Olivola and Todorov (2010) states that today’s politics have become so extremely intricate and incomprehensible that it is almost impossible for voters to genuinely agree to every aspect of the candidates’ views. For instance, it is highly conceivable for voters to agree on international and security issues with one candidate and agree on economic issues with the other candidate at the same time. Hence, the number of the voters who are unfamiliar with the intricacies of political issues and unmotivated to study candidates’ policy as a criterion for making their choice has increased (Olivola & Todorov, 2010). In addition, according to Olivola and Todorov (2010), the field of cognitive psychology indicates that people’s minds tend to simplify decision making process by relying on simple rules when they are confronted with too much information. As a result, instead of behaving as rational actors and voting reasonably as they are believed to do so, voters are hugely influenced by and unconsciously opt for irrelevant cues, which in this case, the candidates’ physical appearance.