Political Debates - Revision history

192.17.213.108: sometimes i open a page and expect terrible things but no. ps 240. categorizaton

2024-11-14T03:35:42Z

sometimes i open a page and expect terrible things but no. ps 240. categorizaton

Sjuist at 04:23, 13 October 2008

2008-10-13T04:23:26Z

Sjuist at 03:37, 13 October 2008

2008-10-13T03:37:55Z

Sjuist at 03:30, 13 October 2008

2008-10-13T03:30:49Z

Sjuist at 03:14, 13 October 2008

2008-10-13T03:14:00Z

Sjuist at 03:03, 13 October 2008

2008-10-13T03:03:15Z

Hschnoes at 01:30, 13 October 2008

2008-10-13T01:30:49Z

Elena at 23:09, 12 October 2008

2008-10-12T23:09:16Z

Sjuist at 18:08, 12 October 2008

2008-10-12T18:08:55Z

Rkristof at 02:18, 8 October 2008

2008-10-08T02:18:43Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:35, 14 November 2024
Line 36:		Line 36:

	:''Summary'':This study uses the second presidential debate in 2004—George W. Bush vs. John Kerry. Participants 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.” The results showed that partisan preferences strongly affected the participants’ reactions in that each thought their own party’s candidate did better during the debate and thought that they won afterwards. This raises questions about the amount of learning that takes place in a debate, compared to the extent that a debate would simply reinforce existing partisan ties.		:''Summary'':This study uses the second presidential debate in 2004—George W. Bush vs. John Kerry. Participants 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.” The results showed that partisan preferences strongly affected the participants’ reactions in that each thought their own party’s candidate did better during the debate and thought that they won afterwards. This raises questions about the amount of learning that takes place in a debate, compared to the extent that a debate would simply reinforce existing partisan ties.
		+
		+	[[Category: PS 240]]

@@ Line 31: / Line 31: @@
 T.M. Holbrook (1999). Political Learning from Presidential Debates. Political Behavior, 21, 67-89.
-:''Summary'':
+:''Summary'': This study focuses on the learning that takes place from presidential debates.  The authors found that while people do learn from debates, that learning is affected by the context that the information is encountered in.  People learn more from early debates than the later ones, and the public tends to learn more about lesser-known candidates than the mainstream candidates.
 J.W. Jarman (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, 229-242.
 :''Summary'':This study uses the second presidential debate in 2004—George W. Bush vs. John Kerry.  Participants 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.”  The results showed that partisan preferences strongly affected the participants’ reactions in that each thought their own party’s candidate did better during the debate and thought that they won afterwards.  This raises questions about the amount of learning that takes place in a debate, compared to the extent that a debate would simply reinforce existing partisan ties.

@@ Line 21: / Line 21: @@
 M. Norton and Goethals, G. (2004). Spin (and Pitch) Doctors: Campaign Strategies in Televised Political Debates. Political Behavior, 26, 227-248.
-:''Summary'':
+:''Summary'':  “Spin” is a large part of how candidates are perceived before and after debates.  If a campaign sets the bar low for their candidate, they can later say that he/she did better than expected.  In the first study done, no post-debate information was given, and lowered expectations for a candidate led to a lower rating of performance.  However in the second study, when positive feedback was given after expectations were lowered, participants did rate performance positively.  However this only happened when the ‘spin’ was provided by a credible news source, not by campaigns.
 S. Fein, Goethals, G.R. and Kugler, M.B. (2007). Social Influence on Political Judgments: The Case of Presidential Debates. Political Psychology, 28, 165-192.

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 K.L. Fridkin, Kenney, P.J., Gershon, S.A. and Serignese Woodall, G. (2008). Spinning Debates: The Impact of the News Media's Coverage of the Final 2004 Presidential Debate. International Journal of Press/Politics, 13, 29-51.
-:''Summary'':
+:''Summary'':  This study focused on the media spin that followed the last presidential debate of 2004.  They found that the media’s analysis in the 24 hours following the debate was extremely one-sided, favoring President Bush.  They used several tactics to come to this conclusion, including an experiment, a content analysis, and a public opinion survey.  The experiment entailed having one group of people watch the debate and then tracking the stability of their opinions in the midst of a bombardment of media coverage, while the representative public opinion survey was conducted immediately after the debate.  The content analysis included analyses of TV, internet, and newspapers for 24 hours following the debate.
 K. Kenski and Stroud, N.J. (2005). Who Watches Presidential Debates? A Comparative Analysis of Presidential Debate Viewing in 2000 and 2004. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 213-228.

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 K. Kenski and Stroud, N.J. (2005). Who Watches Presidential Debates? A Comparative Analysis of Presidential Debate Viewing in 2000 and 2004. American Behavioral Scientist, 49, 213-228.
-:''Summary'':
+:''Summary'':This study focuses on the composition of debate audiences and the differences between debates within elections and between elections of different years.  The NAES show that audiences in 2004 were larger than in 2000, and in both years the first presidential debate had the most viewers.  The data also showed that those who watched an entire debate were generally older, more educated, with higher incomes, and tended to be more partisan than those who didn’t watch the debate at all.
 M. Norton and Goethals, G. (2004). Spin (and Pitch) Doctors: Campaign Strategies in Televised Political Debates. Political Behavior, 26, 227-248.

← Older revision		Revision as of 03:03, 13 October 2008
Line 34:		Line 34:
	J.W. Jarman (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, 229-242.		J.W. Jarman (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, 229-242.

−	:''Summary'':	+	:''Summary'':This study uses the second presidential debate in 2004—George W. Bush vs. John Kerry. Participants 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.” The results showed that partisan preferences strongly affected the participants’ reactions in that each thought their own party’s candidate did better during the debate and thought that they won afterwards. This raises questions about the amount of learning that takes place in a debate, compared to the extent that a debate would simply reinforce existing partisan ties.

@@ Line 5: / Line 5: @@
 # Discuss the change in criteria used for picking Vice Presidential candidates.
 . What factors affect an individual's assessment of candidate performance in a debate?
 '''Readings'''

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:09, 12 October 2008
Line 4:		Line 4:

	# Discuss the change in criteria used for picking Vice Presidential candidates.		# Discuss the change in criteria used for picking Vice Presidential candidates.
		+
		+	2. What factors affect an individual's assessment of candidate performance in a debate?

	'''Readings'''		'''Readings'''

@@ Line 3: / Line 3: @@
 '''Possible Exam Questions'''
-# Nobody has offered any yet.
+# Discuss the change in criteria used for picking Vice Presidential candidates.
 '''Readings'''