This study reports the reactions by registered voters to the second presidential debate in 2004. Respondents used a continuous response system that provided feedback in 1-second intervals. These data were compared to a transcript of the debate to identify the strongest and weakest arguments made by candidates both for their own party and for the opposition party. Results suggest that political affiliation strongly influences audience reaction in two ways: (a) Republicans always rated Bush’s comments higher than Democrats, whereas Democrats always rated Kerry’s comments higher than Republicans; and (b) Republicans believed that Bush won the debate, whereas Democrats believed that Kerry won the debate. This research provides new support for the conclusion that debates tend to reinforce the preexisting positions of the audience but offers a warning that the amount of learning that takes place could be limited.
Benoit, W. L., Blaney, J. R., & Pier, P. M. (1998). Campaign’96: A functional analysis of acclaiming, attacking, and defending. Westport, CT: Praeger.
2.
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.
3.
Benoit, W. L., McKinney, M. S., & Holbert, R. L. (2001). Beyond learning and persona: Extending the scope of presidential debate effects. Communication Monographs, 68, 259-273.
4.
Benoit, W. L., Pier, P. M., Brazeal, L.-A. M., McHale, J. P., Klyukovski, A., & Airne, D. (2002). The primary decision: a functional analysis of debates in presidential primaries. Westport, CT: Praeger.
5.
Dalrymple, M., & Loven, J. (2004, October 9). Bush and Kerry resume their battleground bickering on war and the economy [Electronic version]. Associated Press. Available from Lexis-Nexis Academic Universe Web site.
6.
Kaid, L. L., & Tedesco, J. C. (1999). Tracking voter reactions to the television advertising. In L. L. Kaid & D. G. Bystrom (Eds.), The electronic election: Perspectives on the 1996 campaign communication (pp. 233-245). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
7.
McKinney, M. S., & Carlin, D. (2004). Political campaign debates. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 203-234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
McKinney, M. S., Kaid, L. L., & Robertson, T. A. (2001). The front-runner, contenders, and also-rans: Effects of watching a 2000Republicanprimarydebate. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 2232-2251.
9.
McKinnon, L. M., & Tedesco, J. C. (1999). The influence of medium and media commentary on presidential debate effects. In L. L. Kaid & D. G. Bystrom (Eds.), The electronic election: Perspectives on the 1996 campaign communication (pp. 191-206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
10.
McKinnon, L. M., Tedesco, J. C., & Kaid, L. L. (1993). The third 1992 presidential debate: Channel and commentary effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30, 106-118.
11.
Moore, D. W. (2004a, September 17). Bush bounce keeps on going [Electronic version]. Gallup Poll News Service. Available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/print.aspx?ci=13066
12.
Moore, D. W. (2004b, October 9). Standoff in second debate [Electronic version]. Gallup Poll News Service. Available at http://www.gallup.com/poll/content/print.aspx?ci=13549
13.
Morello, J. T. (1988a). Argument and visual structuring in the 1984 Mondale-Reagan debates: The medium’s influence on the perception of clash. Western Journal of Speech Communication, 52, 277-290.
14.
Morello, J. T. (1988b, Fall/Winter). Visual structuring of the 1976 and 1984 nationally televised presidential debates: Implications. Central States Speech Journal, 39, 233-243.
15.
Morello, J. T. (1992). The “look” and language of clash: Visual structuring of argument in the 1988 Bush-Dukakis debates. Southern Communication Journal, 57, 205-218.
16.
Orin, D. (2004, September 7). Prez in 7 heaven—Leads Kerry in 3rd post-convention poll. New York Post, p.6.
17.
Our bitterly divided country. (2004, November 3). Chattanooga Times Free Press, p. B9.
18.
Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40, 825-850.
19.
Pfau, M. (2002, Spring). The subtle nature of presidential debate influence. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 251-262.
20.
Pfau, M., & Kang, J. G. (1991). The impact of relational messages on candidate influence in televised political debates. Communication Studies, 42, 114-128.
21.
Racine Group. (2002). White paper on televised political campaign debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 199-218.
22.
Shepard, S., & Herman, K. (2004, October 9). Free-swinging verbal slugfest. Atlanta Journal-Constitution, p. 1A.
23.
West, P. (2004, October 9). Bush, Kerry turn up the heat. Baltimore Sun, p. 1A.
24.
Whoever wins U.S. vote faces tough road ahead. (2004, November 2). Guardian, p. A8.
