This essay reports the results of an analysis of undecided swing state voters during the six presidential debates of the 2008 and 2012 elections. Combining Real Time Response with a pretest-posttest design, the researchers identify the overall impact of the debates on undecided voters, both successful and unsuccessful message strategies, and changes in the overall perception of the candidates.
BartelsL. M.VavreckL. (2012, July30). Meet the undecided. New York Times. Retrieved from http://nyti.ms/M07yhw
3.
BaumgartnerH.SujanM.PadgettD. (1997). Patterns of affective reactions to advertisements: The integration of moment-to-moment responses into overall judgments. Journal of Marketing Research, 34(2), 219–232.
4.
BenoitW. L.HansenG. J.VerserR. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70, 335–350.
5.
BerelsonD. R.LazarsfeldP. F.McPheeW. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
6.
BlaisA.PerrellaA. M. L. (2008). Systemic effects of televised candidates’ debates. International Journal of Press/Politics, 13, 451–464.
7.
BrodyR. A.PageB. I. (1973). Indifference, alienation and rational decisions: The effects of candidate evaluations on turnout and the vote. Public Choice, 15, 1–17.
8.
CampbellA.ConverseW. E.MillerW. E.StokesD. E. (1960). The American voter. New York: Wiley.
9.
CampbellJ. E. (2008). Do swing voters swing elections? In MayerW. G. (Ed.), The swing voter in American politics (pp. 118–132). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
10.
CerabinoF. (2012, October17). Cerabino: I’ve decided; there are no real undecided voters. The Palm Beach Post. Retrieved from http://shar.es/e8Pz5
11.
ChaffeeS. H. (1978). Presidential debates—are they helpful to voters?Communication Monographs, 45, 330–346.
12.
ClymerA.WinnegK. (2008). Swing voters? The not very “persuadables” and the not really “undecideds” in 2004. In MayerW. G. (Ed.), The swing voter in American politics (pp. 112–117). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
13.
ConoverP. J.FeldmanS. (1981). The origins of meaning of liberal/conservative self-identifications. American Journal of Political Science, 25, 617–645.
FaasT.MaierJ. (2004). Mobilisierung, Verstärkung, Konversion? Ergebnisse eines Experiments zur Wahrnehmung der Fernsehduelle im Vorfeld der Bundestagswahl 2002 [Mobilization, reinforcement, conversion? Results of an experiment on the perception of the televised debates before the federal election in 2002]. Politische Vierteljahresschrift, 45, 55–72.
16.
FredricksonB. L. (2000). Extracting meaning from past affective experiences: The importance of peaks, ends, and specific emotions. Cognition & Emotion, 14(4), 577–606.
17.
FrieseM.SmithC. T.PlischkeT.BluemkeM.NosekB. A. (2012). Do implicit attitudes predict actual voting behavior particularly for undecided voters?PLoS ONE, 7(8). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0044130
GawronskiB.GaldiS. (2011). Using implicit measures to read the minds of undecided voters. In CadinuM.GaldiS.MaassA. (Eds.), Social perception, cognition, and language in honour of Arcuri (pp. 203–216). Padova, Italy: CLEUP.
20.
GeerJ. G. (1988). The effects of presidential debates on the electorate’s preferences for candidates. American Politics Quarterly, 16, 486–501.
21.
GraberD. A. (1997). Mass media and American politics. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
22.
HellwegS. A.PfauM.BrydonS. R. (1992). Televised presidential debates: Advocacy in contemporary America. New York: Praeger.
23.
JamiesonK. H.BirdsellD. S. (1988). Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. New York: Oxford University Press.
24.
JarmanJ. W. (2005). Political affiliation and presidential debates: A real-time analysis of the effect of the arguments used in the presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 49(2), 229–242.
25.
JonesJ. M. (2008). Swing voters in the Gallup poll, 1944 to 2004. In MayerW. G. (Ed.), The swing voter in American politics (pp. 32–57). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
26.
KaidL. L. (1995). Measuring candidate images with semantic differentials. In HackerK. L. (Ed.), Candidate images in presidential elections (pp. 131–134). Westport, CT: Praeger.
27.
KaidL. L.BoydstonJ. (1987). An experimental study of the effectiveness of negative political advertisements. Communication Quarterly, 35, 193–201.
28.
KaidL. L.PostelnicuM.LandrevilleK.YunH. J.LeGrangeA. G. (2007). The effects of political advertising on young voters. American Behavioral Scientist, 50, 1137-1151.
29.
KatzE.FeldmanJ. J. (1962). The debates in light of research: A survey of surveys. In KrausS. (Ed.), The great debates: Kennedy vs. Nixon, 1960 (pp. 173–223). Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
30.
KelleyS. (1983). Interpreting elections. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
31.
KleinE. (2012, September26). Why undecided voters won’t be deciding this election. Bloomberg. Retrieved from http://bloom.bg/UKiaEW
32.
LanoueD. J.SchrottP. R. (1991). The joint press conference: The history, impact, and prospects of American presidential debates. Westport, CT: Greenwood.
33.
MaierJ.FaasT. (2004). Debattenwahrnehmung und Kandidatenorientierung. Eine Analyse von Real-Time-Response und Paneldaten zu den Fernsehduellen im Bundestagswahlkampf 2002 [Perception of the debates and orientation toward the candidates: An analysis of real-time response and panel data about the televised debates in the federal election campaign 2002]. Zeitschrift für Medienpsychologie, 16, 26–35.
34.
MaierJ.MaurerM.ReinemannC.FaasT. (2007). Reliability and validity of real-time response measurement: A comparison of two studies of a televised debate in Germany. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 19, 53–73.
35.
MaierM.StrömbäckJ. (2009). Advantages and limitations of comparing audience responses to televised debates: A comparative study of Germany and Sweden. In MaierJ.MaierM.MaurerM.ReinemannC.MeyerV. (Eds.), Real-time response measurement in the social sciences (pp. 97–116). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
36.
MaurerM.ReinemannC. (2006). Learning versus knowing: Effects of misinformation in televised debates. Communication Research, 33, 489–506.
37.
MayR. B. (1960, September23). Nervous pollsters polish techniques as election nears. Wall Street Journal, p. 11.
38.
MayerW. G. (2008). What exactly is a swing voter? Definition and measurement. In MayerW. G. (Ed.), The swing voter in American politics (pp. 1–31). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
39.
McKinneyM. S.CarlinD. B. (2004). Political campaign debates. In KaidL. L. (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 203–234). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
40.
McKinneyM. S.KaidL. L.RobertsonT. A. (2001). The front-runner, contenders, and also-rans: Effects of watching a 2000 Republican primary debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 44, 2232–2251.
41.
McKinneyM. S.RillL. A.WatsonR. G. (2011). Who framed Sarah Palin? Viewer reactions to the 2008 vice presidential debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 55, 212–231.
42.
McKinnonL. M.TedescoJ. C. (1999). The influence of medium and media commentary on presidential debate effects. In KaidL. L.BystromD. G. (Eds.), The electronic election: Perspectives on the 1996 campaign (pp. 191–206). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
43.
McKinnonL. M.TedescoJ. C.KaidL. L. (1993). The third 1992 presidential debate: Channel and commentary effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30, 106–118.
NPR Staff. (2012, October20). The undecided voter: Just like the unicorn?NPR. Retrieved from http://n.pr/PhNKsT
50.
PfauM. (2002, Spring). The subtle nature of presidential debate influence. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 251–262.
51.
PfauM.ChoJ.ChongK. (2001). Impact of communication forms in presidential campaigns: Influences on candidate perceptions and democratic process. Press/Politics, 6, 88–105.
52.
Racine Group. (2002). White paper on televised political campaign debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 199–218.
53.
SandersK. R.PaceT. J. (1977). The influence of speech communication on the image of a political candidate: “Limited effects” revisited. In RubenB. D. (Ed.), Communication yearbook 1 (pp. 465–474). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
54.
SchillD.KirkR. (2009). Applied dial testing: Using real-time response to improve media coverage of debates. In MaierJ.MaierM.MaurerM.ReinemannC.MeyerV. (Eds.), Real-time response measurement in the social sciences (pp. 155–173). Frankfurt am Main, Germany: Peter Lang.
55.
ShawD. (2006). The race to 270: The Electoral College and the campaign strategies of 2000 and 2004. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
56.
ShawD. R. (2008). Swing voting and U.S. presidential elections. In MayerW. G. (Ed.), The swing voter in American politics (pp. 75–101). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
57.
SilverN. (2012a, October4). Polls show a strong debate for Romney. New York Times. Retrieved from http://nyti.ms/Sz5uOZ
58.
SilverN. (2012b, October17). Instant reaction polls show narrow Obama advantage in second debate. New York Times. Retrieved from http://nyti.ms/Wlj5wi
59.
SilverN. (2012c, October23). Obama unlikely to get big debate bounce, but a small one could matter. New York Times. Retrieved from http://nyti.ms/Skkoq2
VavreckL. (2012, October16). How will the undecided make up their minds?New York Times. Retrieved from http://nyti.ms/WkZZqa
62.
VisserP. S.KrosnickJ. A.MarquetteJ. F.CurtinM. F. (2000). Improving election forecasting: Allocation of undecided respondents, identification of likely voters, and response order effects. In LavrakasP. J.TraugottM. W. (Eds.), Election polls, the news media, and democracy (pp. 224–260). New York: Chatham House.
63.
WeisbergH. F.RuskJ. G. (1970). Dimensions of candidate evaluation. American Political Science Review, 64, 1167–1185.
Woltman ElpersJ. L. C. M.MukherjeeA.HoyerW. D. (2004). Humor in television advertising: A moment-to-moment analysis. Journal of Consumer Research, 31, 592–598.
