Around the Water Cooler panelists this week answered the following question: Do American voters rely too much on the physical presentation of candidates in presidential and vice presidential debates?
Jim West: “Yes. What else you got? “Facts” careen around like flies on a horse. You hear a string of points & numbers spat-out as one candidate tries to overtalk the other candidate and monitor. You might try to analyze the debate later, but when it happens its a show and all you can judge is showmanship.”
Richard Place: “I don’t know if the average voter makes much out of the candidates’ physical presentation but I certainly enjoyed Sarah Palin’s presentation more than any of the others. Physically speaking that is.”
Louise Ledesma: “Yes. The most famous example was the Kennedy/Nixon debate. People who watched the debate on TV thought Kennedy won and the people who listened to it on the radio thought Nixon won. With today’s technology, no one listens to debates on the the radio. Several of our former Presidents would never have been elected if TV and smart phones were around.”
Ruth Erickson: “While the physical presentation, including appearance, behavior and demeanor are important, voters listen to and digest the political rhetoric, then use their personal judgment to make their voting decisions on the candidates’ platforms.”
Mary Zanger: “Yes, it’s sad! Why do the debates default to superficialities? Maybe because the questions are known ahead and are asked in such a way as to beg agreement. The answers are framed ahead in order to shine the best light on the candidate. The public does not hear exact answers but qualified answers and non-answers. Real answers need time and should be aired on PBS without sponsors. This current method produces no winners. The American public loses. This is a rather sad trick to play on viewers who watch to educate themselves. I think that the culprits are the corporate beverage, finance and oil industry sponsors.
