The 2012 Presidential Debate
The presidential elections debates are debates that happen every four years with participants being presidential candidates that meet the requirements of eligibility. The criteria for the presidency are that they have to be qualified under the constitution, they must reasonably appear to be able to garner about 270 votes, and they should hold an average of 15% on five nationally conducted polls (Harnden and Gye, 5). The 2012 presidential debates were between the Republican candidate Mitt Romney, and Democrat leader and incumbent president Barrack Obama.
The first presidential debate was on 3 October 2012, and the topic was domestic policy. For over an hour, the two candidates debated on their domestic policies giving reasons why the others approach would fail, and in essence delivering promises of how they would repair problems in the U.S. overnight. This was a chance for Governor Romney to make an impression given that his policies differed markedly from those of Obama. This debate was focused primarily on the state of the economy and strategies that both would take to revive it.
Mr. Obama in this debate was mostly complacent. Both parties were cordial and none of the intense arguments that had characterized past debates was seen. This debate failed to reveal anything substantive and the answers posed by the candidates while not untruthful, did not address the issues deeply enough. Governor Romney understandably reminded Mr. Obama of a litany of promises that the president had made at the beginning of his term that were yet to be fulfilled without any firm answer from Mr. Obama. Mr. Romney spoke on his accomplishments in his term as governor while mentioning the need for more stringent checks on Wall Street. He however notably failed to give clear answers on how he would prevent tax hikes while decreasing the deficit in the US budget.
Suffice to say Governor Romney stole the show giving quick and concise answers addressing the room while president Obama was put on the defensive and at one point even seeming lethargic. The president was ill prepared, it seemed, for the debate and seemed to take the debate as a chance to try to address voters at home rather than address the room he was in. he also did not take criticisms from his opponent too kindly not bothering to give forceful responses where he should have.
The second debate was on 16 October 2012 and was held in the town hall format where the candidates took questions from the audience. At this point, the president seemed to take the debate more seriously than he had the first time and it saw Mr. Obama greatly improve his performance from his first debate. The town hall format provides a unique platform for candidates to address voters in a direct manner and address concerns and complaints equally (Meyers and Gilbert, 10). Seeing it was hard to anticipate the nature of questions that the candidates were to be asked, the second debate was perhaps the most emotionally charged of all the debates.
In the second debate, Mr. Obama came across much more forceful than he had been the first time around. He debated very passionately that it seemed at one point that his anger would best him before returning to a more somber tone. The candidates debated on the increasing gas and commodity prices and the issue of gun control. Mr. Romney also gave his position on how to deal with relations between America and Libya and how his approach differed from that of former republican president George Bush. Mr. Romney was also adamant that he would create new jobs but did not go into specifically how he would go about doing this. Mr. Obama contradicted this statement stating that the governors’ plan was to outsource jobs to China, which would serve to reduce jobs rather than increase them.
These debates were dominated by Mr. Obama who recovered from his dismal performance in the first debate. Mr. Romney however received praise for standing up to the harsh barrage from Mr. Obama and standing in support of his stated policies. However, for the most part of the debate Mr. Romney was continually on the defensive having to withstand incessant disparaging and witty remarks and comments from his opponent at his expense.
The second debate was much harsher on the candidates than the first. When dealing with questions from the audience, questions tend to be rather direct and blunt and this left both candidates at pains to provide sufficient answers. Further, since this was much more emotionally charged, it would have been very difficult to garner new support from voters at this debate (Meyers, Seth and Katie Gilbert, 19). This is because the typical reaction from voters would have been to pick sides based on their personal feelings rather than from an objective point of view.
The third presidential debate, which was also the final one, was on foreign policy. Here the candidates discussed strategies the country should take on dealing with other nations and how to tackle external threats. Mr. Romney criticized how Mr. Obama was dealing with nations that posed a threat to American safety. Mr. Obama, on the other hand, stated that the Mr. Romney’s policies were unclear and irresponsible and would further endanger citizens. Mr. Obama conveyed that he felt that Mr. Romney was skirting around issues and did not have a particular approach to deal in particular with issues in the Middle East. The governor Mr. Romney countered this by stating that Mr. Obama did not have a strong enough hand to deal with these issues.
On matters such as the ongoing wars in Afghanistan and Syria, both parties were in tacit agreement over the withdrawal of American troops from these war torn areas. They were however in disagreement as to whose policies would have a greater benefit to the interests of the country. Here the friction between the candidates was palpable as the governor stated that under the president’s leadership, threats to America such as Iran had increased their nuclear arsenal and were much closer to attacking than at any other point. The counter to this was that he would take a tougher approach to this menace. The candidates were in agreement as to tougher measures that needed to be taken against Iran.
At the end, Mr. Obama stated that the measures he was taking were effective and although Governor Romney agreed as to this point, he then stated that his policies were more inclusive and better. The governor believed that he could take a tougher approach to emerging issues such as Russia whom he viewed as a huge foe. This position was not held by Mr. Obama who believed that Mr. Romney was making the problem seem bigger than it really was.
In this final debate, which was held on October 22, was dominated primarily by president Obama who defended his position effectively. It also seemed that Mr. Obama appeared more relaxed and confident as compared to Governor Romney. The president’s victory in this round was hugely because Governor Romney seemed to agree with most of his policies, which meant that there was little for him to criticize.
The purpose of the presidential debates was to allow America and the world to view the candidates out of their element and to inform voters as to the nature of their preferred candidate. The debates themselves are too diminutive to be useful in discerning the policies of a candidate (Schroeder, 80). Rather their purpose is to give voters an idea of where their preferred candidate stands. They are mostly about how effective a speaker a candidate is.
These debates are usually emotionally charged on the part of the voter. Very rarely will these debates be effective in persuading a voter to change their vote as by this time most voters have already decided who they will elect. Voters will usually use the candidates’ answers as an affirmation of what they already believe and if their candidate should stumble, this would not be taken as a sign that they are not effective. The debates however are not effective at gauging the stand of a particular candidate, as the implication would be that a candidate would resort to any methods to prevail in the debates (The Huffing Post Media Group, 5). In the 2012 debates, the candidates were clearly persuasive but sacrificed specificity to achieve this. Most points stated were hanging at times and did not go deep enough to address issues.
Works Cited
Harnden, Toby, and Hugo Gye. “It’s WAR! Unfriendly fire as Obama says Romney treats military as ‘game of Battleship’ but Mitt blasts rival’s ‘apologies’ in final debate.” The Daily Mail Online. 5 Dec. 2012 Web. 23 Oct. 2012. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2221686/Presidential-debate-2012-Obama-says-Mitt-Romney-treats-military-game-Battleships.html>
Meyers, Seth and Katie Gilbert. “Presidential Debates: What’s the Point of Them?” Psychology Today, 5 Dec. 2012. Web. 4 Oct. 2012. <http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/insight-is-2020/201210/presidential-debates-whats-the-point-them>
The Huffing Post Media Group. “Presidential Debate 2012” The Huffing Post, 5 Dec. 2012. Web. 5 Oct. 2012
Use the order calculator below and get started! Contact our live support team for any assistance or inquiry.
[order_calculator]