Tuesday, October 16, 2012
Town Hall Format Poses Risks for Obama and Romney
This article discusses how difficult it has been for both President Obama and Mr. Romney to answer questions asked directly by voters. It primarily discusses how tonight's debate could lead to serious problems for both men, who have previously shown a serious inability to give answers that satisfy the person asking the question. The primary problem is that the men are too defensive of their own policies, or will ramble on in order to try and reach whatever it is that the voter is looking to hear. For example, it discusses a time when President Obama gave a 17 minute answer to a question that even at the end left the voter unsatisfied. However, the same thing has happened to Mr. Romney, and it has happened to both men on multiple occasions. The article concludes by bringing up how likely it will be that the "winner" of this debate will be the man who can better answer the public's questions, which is certainly a fair assessment.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This is very interesting. I feel like many candidates go through the same problem as Romney and Obama do in every election. I can't imagine the pressure that must run through them when a normal voter asks them a question and how they will respond to it. These moments are very crucial to the election because it demonstrates not only how the president will respond to a normal person, but how much the normal people will vote for them (in my opinion). It plays a very big factor in the election.
ReplyDeleteWith Obama having that black woman say what she said, it surprised me, but I see why she said it. I hope Obama has learned from it and will continue to make the country better. As for Romney, he is really awkward around voters and is not very good with his choice of words. Don't get me wrong, he is a candidate and this is his first time doing this, but saying that he is unemployed (while still worth $250 million) around unemployed people isn't the best thing to say.
Overall, they both have a chance of getting some good out of this debate, but from what I watched, Obama did much better this time around.
I definitely agree with Aubrey. Being under that kind of pressure is unimaginable. Politicians are so used to prewritten and approved speeches, and even during normal debates the questions aren't nearly as specific as during the town hall format. That format opened the door to more specific questions which required more specific answers. When you're caught off guard some pretty stupid things can come out of your mouth, so that clearly poses a risk this close to election day.
ReplyDeleteAfter watching the debate both candidates did a pretty good job with the format though. Romney of course was fairly vague with his answers, but neither Obama nor Romney seemed too uncomfortable or awkward. I thought the most uncomfortable moments were actually when the two were bickering with each other; however, neither candidate made any serious blunder or responded with some awkward response or failed attempt at humor.
It is key to answer the questions the public poses, but I agree with Nora and Aubrey. Just getting put on the spot on national television must be one of the scariest things ever. I feel as though there are pluses and minuses to it. With the sudden shock you may actually get to find out how the candidate really feels on the matter while on the other hand, as the article mentioned, you could get a long response where a satisfying answer is never correctly articulated. I felt horrible for Obama when someone asked why he deserved a second term. It was a completely valid question, but justifying it in that short of a time-frame must really suck. Overall both men did fine when the debate came around, but I feel as though Obama really had that edge and just did a much better job answering the questions overall. I was happy to see him like this because the first debate was not like him at all (given the fact that Obama is a fantastic orator). All of that being said I feel as though the evidence shows that Obama won that debate.
ReplyDeleteThere is not doubt that both of them are under tremendous pressure, especially when there is no prewritten speech, or teleprompter. Although, they do do rigorous practice debates with questions that could be asked. However, I think this type of format is much more beneficial for the voters, because this way they can truly see what the candidates are like and what they truly believe. They don't have time to make everything nicely worded, they have to be persuasive likeable and straight to the point at the same time. As the article mentions and gives examples of each of them have has some not so great moments. Some being worse than others. But all politicians do that, they are only human. It is amazing enough that each of them is able to answer questions on the spot the way they do. I think for the most part those types of slip ups are not the end of the world as long as they recognize their mistake, but do not go back on what they said. When a candidate takes back what he said, that brings up many concerns with voters.
ReplyDeleteAs for the actual debate, Obama definitely won, although it was not even close to the same victory margins Romney had after the first debate. I think Obama won largely because of the way he interacted with the voters on stage, as well as the way he answered the questions. Although at times we veered to topic because he wanted to make a different point, for the most part he answered the voters question and how he would help them specifically. Romney seemed to be very repetitive about his five point plan. He also when asked a question would talk about all of the things Obama has done done, instead of what he would do. You could tell there was disconnection between Romney and the voters.
I agree with Seb about the fact that this type of debate is definitely most beneficial for the voters. If I were able to vote, I‘d be more interested in how much the candidates really know and what they really think without a scripted speech in front of them. I also think that this format allows the candidates to show voters how well they can relate to them. The article points out that this can definitely have some consequences for the candidates, but I think it’s important to remember that the candidates are humans too. Obviously they need to conduct themselves in a more professional manner than most people but everyone makes blunders and just because you’re running for president doesn’t mean that you’re suddenly going to stop making mistakes. However, neither of the candidates made any sort of huge slip-up. I was quite impressed. I know that there’s no way I could answer random questions on the spot like that. I also agree with Seb on the fact that I think Obama was successful in this debate because he truly showed how well he can connect with voters. That seems to be something that Romney has trouble with. If he wants to pull ahead in the pool that’s definitely going to be something that he has to work on.
ReplyDeleteAll of the points made above I think are accurate. I think Sebastian made the best point in saying that this type of format is most beneficial to the voters because here they will see what the candidates are really like and what they truly believe. Candidates will also be able to prove in this type of format whether or not they are actually persuasive, likeable, and straight to the point. I also like this format the most just because here the candidates are more humanized. Like the article said, they live in a bubble and questions that throw the candidates off guard can bring them out of their bubble and give a good idea of how this candidate will act in real situations when he can no longer perfectly script everything that he wants to say. With this format, candidates also are given a reality check. Voters are more than willing to tell them what they are doing wrong and if a candidate realizes something is important enough to the people, then maybe that will benefit both voter and candidate.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIt seemed that the candidates did not care much for the questions that were asked since many times they ignored them and went on to their own points which they have each said hundreds of times. This took away the element that the format of the debate was supposed to add, the fact that the questions are from people who could ask tough questions to both candidates about anything. It's kind of pointless when they don't answer the questions being asked. It is understandable from the campaigns' perspectives I guess. They just don't want to mess up so close to the election so they stick to what they've been saying for the last six months. It would be cool to see them actually think about the questions and give real answers instead of fabricated talking points but I can't see that happening in this day and age.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Dan that both the candidates ignore the question, that was asked, and go on to say the same thing they have been saying the past six months. Also, as many have said previously, this kind of debate does help voters evaluate how the candidates can relate to the voters. I agree with Nicolette that just because you are the President or running for the President doesn't mean that you are perfect all of a sudden. Many of you said that President Obama won the debate, and I agree with that. When Romney mentioned 100% of Americans in his closing speech, really hurt him.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Nora that the format didn't seem to hamper the candidates that much, and it most certainly did not stop the candidates from redirecting the conversation towards the other candidate. At one point in the beginning I thought the two were about to come to blows. However, the moderator did a very good job, especially compared to that of poor Jim Lehrer. Unfortunately, I did not see Governor Romney's 100% comment that sats and Mr Danson mentioned, but that seemed to cast the entire debate in a bad light for Romney. However, I think that the margin of victory in this debate was much smaller for Obama than that of Romney in the first
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with Moe that both candidates rambled on and on without answering the voter's questions, in order to mention their own policies. Many people criticize the presidential candidates for rambling about their own policies without answering the voters, but I believe the candidates are being smart with this approach. The debates are created to show the policies of the presidential candidates, so why shouldn't they take every opportunity to vocalize them. However, I agree that the questions of the voters should be answered. the answering of the voters could be the difference in future presidential debates to come, since both candidates have failed to answer them.
ReplyDeleteAs the article points out, the candidates were most awkward when confronted by the common voter during their campaigns and I felt that this debate format gave them a chance to redeem themselves. However, like Dan said, the candidates kept repeating themselves over and over again, and they didn’t exactly answer the voters' questions. Most of you said that Obama won the debate, and agree with that and I also agree with Satish’s point about how Romney’s 100% remark hurt him at the end of the debate.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the candidates kept repeating themselves. It has been a trend in the last two debates that both candidates were vague and didn't answer the questions. It is important that for someone who wants to be the leader of this country be able to decisively answer a question. I think that Obama did a much better job during the third debate.
ReplyDelete