| Follow us on Twitter |
According to Bill Benoit, MU professor of communication, in 1960 and 1976-2004, presidential debates are similar in tone: 57 percent positive statements, 35 percent attacks and 9 percent defenses (refutations of attacks). The first debate of 2008 was a bit more negative than past elections’ debates, but not vastly more negative.
“It might seem as if these debates are more negative than this because the news highlights attacks,” Benoit said. “Reporters quote or paraphrase attacks significantly more than the candidates use them in debates.”
Benoit said that although there is no true incumbent in this race, McCain is a representative of the incumbent party – and Obama worked hard to link McCain with President Bush. Only Obama mentioned the president by name (10 times), and four times Obama directly linked the two (e.g., “Now Senator McCain and President Bush had a very different judgment”). Analysis of the first debate shows their comments were distributed as if McCain was the incumbent and Obama the challenger: McCain had more positive statements and fewer attacks than Obama, which is true of incumbent candidates in the past. Given the fact that President Bush has low levels of popularity, it is not surprising that Obama would work to link McCain and Bush.
According to Benoit’s analysis, one unusual feature of the debate was that McCain was the target of more attacks (Obama attacked in 42 percent of his debate statements while McCain attacked 34 percent of the time) but Obama used defenses more frequently (Obama 12 percent, McCain 5 percent). Usually, the candidate who is attacked the most defends the most. Although they were not writing about the debates, some have suggested that one factor contributing to Michael Dukakis’ loss in 1988 was that he defended too little and too late. On the other hand, Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign was known for its quick responses to attacks.
“The two candidates discussed policy more than character, 73 percent to 27 percent, in this initial debate,” Benoit said. “This emphasis is almost exactly in line with past presidential debates, 75 percent policy, 25 percent character.”
Concerning the upcoming debate, Benoit says that vice presidential debates were not held in 1960, when there were four presidential debates. The first vice president debate occurred in 1976. No debate between the vice president candidates was held in 1980; in that year only one presidential debate featured the Democratic and Republican candidates (Carter and Reagan) and it was held only eight days before the election. In 1984 the vice presidential debates resumed and have been held in every campaign since.
Content analysis shows that vice president debates are somewhat like presidential debates: vice president debates have more attacks (40 percent to 34 percent) and fewer defenses (2 percent to 8 percent), but the level of positive statements is virtually the same (vice president debates 57 percent, president debates 58 percent). In debates, the second spot on the ticket is a bit more of an “attack dog” than the top spot, but not greatly so. Both kinds of debates stress policy (vice presidential 69 percent, president 75 percent) over character (vice president 31 percent, president 25 percent). It is not surprising that the running mates talk a bit more about the candidates of the presidential candidates, but again there is not a huge difference.-University of Missouri-Columbia
Posted September 30th, 2008 by harminka
Your Money And Your Life
THE WALL STREET BAILOUT IS A TRAP:
YOU DID THE RIGHT THING people by stopping this 700 billion dollar bailout of Wall Street with your money. It's a trap set by the Bush McCain administration years ago to spring on you, and the World just before the November elections. It will cripple our economy for years to come by taking away money from important social programs like health care reform, education, and social security.
What ever congress does to try and fix our stunning economic catastrophe needs to be done very carefully. Congress needs to take their time, and be sure of what they are doing. Whatever is done needs to be sharply focused at helping, and protecting the best interest of the ordinary Americans. In particular the vast American middle class. 700 billion dollars is a lot of the peoples money to spend to bail out a bunch of corrupt Bush loan sharks.
When have you ever known any government plan, or project to only cost what the government said it would. Remember the war in Iraq. Bush and his so-called advisers said it would only cost you about 80 billion dollars. But we now know that the war in Iraq will cost you, and your children, and your grand children over a trillion dollars, and still counting.
So if 80 billion can end up costing you over a trillion dollars. How much could 700 billion end up costing you. Any math wizards out there. I come up with 9 trillion...:-(
My fellow human beings, just as I warned you ahead of this catastrophic economic meltdown, I must now warn you that what is ahead has the potential to be even more catastrophic than what we are going through now. The worlds geopolitical landscape has been booby trapped by the Bush McCain administration and their republican allies in congress. These booby traps are poised to spring at any time.
Fortunately the Worlds Nations have been blessed with many excellent leaders (except the US) who have been careful, wise, strong, and self-restrained in dealing with the provocations, and antagonism's of the Bush, McCain administration.
Barack Obama and the democrats are your best hope now. Tell your family, friends, and everyone you know to support them as best you can, and vote for them like your life, and the lives of your loved ones depends on it. Because it does. You will not survive 4 more years of Bush McCain.
JACK SMITH - WORKING CLASS...