This study content analyzed the 2004 Illinois U.S. Senate debates between Alan Keyes and Barak Obama. As is the case in presidential debates, acclaims (positive statements) were more common than attacks, which in turn were employed more frequently than defenses. Also consistent with presidential debates, these candidates discussed policy more than character. Both general goals and ideals were employed more often to acclaim than to attack. When they discussed policy, the candidates discussed past deeds and general goals more frequently than future plans. Keyes’s and Obama’s character comments discussed personal qualities more than leadership ability or ideals.
Benoit, W. L. (1999). Seeing spots: A functional analysis of presidential television advertisements from 1952-1996. New York: Praeger.
2.
Benoit, W. L. (2003). Presidential campaign discourse as a causal factor in election outcome. Western Journal of Communication, 67, 97-112.
3.
Benoit, W. L. (2005). Political campaign communication: A functional analysis. Manuscript under review.
4.
Benoit, W. L., Blaney, J. R., & Pier, P. M. (1998). Campaign’96: A functional analysis of acclaiming, attacking, and defending. New York: Praeger.
5.
Benoit, W. L., & Brazeal, L. M. (2002). A functional analysis of the 1988 Bush-Dukakis presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 219-233.
6.
Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2004). Presidential debate watching, issue knowledge, character evaluation, and vote choice. Human Communication Research, 30, 121-140.
7.
Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G. J., & Verser, R. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70, 335-350.
8.
Benoit, W. L., & Harthcock, A. (1999). Functions of the Great Debates: Acclaims, attacks, and defense in the 1960 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 66, 341-357.
9.
Benoit, W. L., McHale, J. P., Hansen, G. J., Pier, P. M., & McGuire, J. P. (2003). Campaign 2000: A functional analysis of presidential campaign discourse. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
10.
Benoit, W. L., McKinney, M. S., & Stephenson, M. T. (2002). Effects of watching campaign 2000 presidential primary debates. Journal of Communication, 52, 316-331.
11.
Benoit, W. L., Pier, P. M., Brazeal, L. M., McHale, J. P., Klyukovksi, A., & Airne, D. (2002). The primary decision: A functional analysis of debates in presidential primaries. Westport, CT: Praeger.
12.
Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W. T. (1996). Candidates in conflict: Persuasive attack and defense in the 1992 presidential debates. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
13.
Berelson, B. (1952). Content analysis for the social sciences and humanities. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
14.
Best, S. J., & Hubbard, C. (1999). Maximizing “minimal effects”: The impact of early primary season debates on voter preferences. American Politics Quarterly, 27, 450-487.
15.
Bishop, G. F., Meadow, R. G., & Jackson-Beeck, M. (Eds.). (1978). The presidential debates: Media, electoral, and policy perspective. New York: Praeger.
16.
Bitzer, L., & Rueter, T. (1980). Carter vs Ford: The counterfeit debates of 1976. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
17.
Brazeal, L. M., & Benoit, W. L. (2001). A functional analysis of congressional television spots, 1986-2000. Communication Quarterly, 49, 436-454.
18.
Bystrom, D. G., Roper, C., Gobetz, R., Massey, T., & Beall, C. (1991). The effects of a televised gubernatorial debate. Political Communication Review, 16, 57-80.
19.
Carlin, D. B., & McKinney, M. S. (Eds.). (1994). The 1992 presidential debates in focus. Westport, CT: Praeger.
20.
Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20, 37-46.
21.
Coleman, S. (Ed.).(2000). Televised election debates: International perspectives. New York: St. Martin’s.
22.
Friedenberg, R. F. (Ed.). (1994). Rhetorical studies of national political debates, 1960-1992 (2nd ed.). Westport, CT: Praeger.
23.
Friedenberg, R. F. (Ed.). (1997). Rhetorical studies of national political debates—1996. Westport, CT: Praeger.
24.
Hellweg, S. A., Pfau, M., & Brydon, S. R. (1992). Televised presidential debates: Advocacy in contemporary America. New York: Praeger.
25.
Hinck, E. A. (1993). Enacting the presidency: Political argument, presidential debates, and presidential character. Westport, CT: Praeger.
26.
Holsti, O. (1969). Content analysis in communication research. New York: Free Press.
27.
Hullett, C. R., & Louden, A. D. (1998). Audience recall of issues and image in congressional debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 34, 189-202.
28.
Jaffa, H. V. (1999). Crisis of the House divided: An interpretation of the issues in the Lincoln-Douglas debates (Rev. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
29.
Jamieson, K. H., & Birdsell, D. S. (1988). Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. New York: Oxford University Press.
30.
Kraus, S. (Ed.). (1962). The great debates: Background, perspective, effects. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
31.
Kraus, S. (Ed.).(1979). The great debates: Carter vs. Ford, 1976. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
32.
Kraus, S. (Ed.). (2000). Televised presidential debates and public policy (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrica, 33, 159-174.
34.
Lanoue, D. J., & Schrott, P. R. (1991). The joint press conference: The history, impact, and prospects of American presidential debates. New York: Greenwood.
35.
Lichtenstein, A. (1982). Differences in impact between local and national televised political candidates’ debates. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 46, 291-298.
36.
McKinney, M. S., & Carlin, D. B. (2004). Political campaign debates. In L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 203-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37.
Merritt, S. (1984). Negative political advertising: Some empirical findings. Journal of Advertising, 13, 27-38.
38.
Ornstein, N. (1987). Nonpresidential debates in America. In J. L. Swerdlow (Ed.), Presidential debates 1988 and beyond (pp. 52-61). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
39.
Pfau, M. (1983). Criteria and format to optimize political debates: An analysis of South Dakota’s election ’80 series. Journal of the American Forensic Association, 19, 205-214.
40.
Pfau, M. (1988). Intra-party political debates and issue learning. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 16, 99-112.
41.
Philport, J. C., & Balon, R. E. (1975). Candidate image in a broadcast debate. Journal of Broadcasting, 19, 181-193.
42.
Racine Group. (2002). White paper on televised political campaign debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 199-218.
43.
Schroeder, A. (2000). Presidential debates: Forty years of high-risk TV. New York: Columbia University Press.
44.
Stempel, G. H. (1994). Print media campaign coverage. In G. H. Stempel (Ed.), The practice of political communication (pp. 40-49). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
45.
Stewart, C. J. (1975). Voter perception of mud-slinging in political communication. Central States Speech Journal, 26, 279-286.
46.
Wells, W. T. (1999). An analysis of attacking, acclaiming, and defending strategies in the 1976-1984 presidential debates. Doctoral dissertation University of Missouri, Columbia.
47.
Zarefsky, D. (1993). Lincoln, Douglas, and slavery: In the crucible of public debate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
