Assess each candidate’s performance in
the first presidential debate. What debate strategies (noted in Trent et al Ch.
8) did they employ? How did their performances compare to those of previous
candidates? And, if you were a debate coach, what advice would you give each
candidate going into their next meeting? *Note: The due date for this blog post is noon on THURSDAY, September 29th. This will give you time to reflect on the first debate.
ReplyDeleteThe first debate in the race to November is one that can change the trajectory of the rest of the election season. In the run up to last night’s debate expectations were high once the candidates took the stage. In the Clinton v. Trump debate, the winner was clear, and that could be due to the clear use of pre-debate strategies.
The text Political Campaign Communication cites that a candidate should devise and rehearse possible answers as a pre-debate strategy. Although Clinton at times seemed too rehearsed, it was clear that she had prepared for all of the debate topics. Trump on the other hand at some points seemed to ramble until he stumbled upon a point. The New York Times article, “Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too,” sums up Trump’s approach to debate preparation quite accurately. “Mr. Trump, in turn, is approaching the debate like a Big Man on Campus who thinks his last –minute term paper will be dazzling simply because he wrote it (Healy et al 2016).”
The text also notes that an important pre-debate strategy is lowering public expectations. “If prior expectations are low, then it may not take a strong effort on the part of the candidate to appear to have done well (Trent et al 202).” The problem with that strategy when it is applied to this year is that this election has been so unusual that expectations have been high from the beginning. A good example of this is that on pre-debate television media professionals used round tables to discuss whether Trump would be able to stay calm and not attack Clinton. This is where Clinton’s preparation also paid off because during the debate Clinton was able to easily bait Trump multiple times, while she never seemed rattled.
Back in 2008, the first debate was a chance for then Senator Obama to prove that he could project an image of “presidential competency (Trent et al 224),” against the more well known Senator McCain. In a way, the first debate was a chance for Trump to attempt to do the same thing. Clinton is widely known in the political atmosphere whereas Trump is a newcomer.
A strategy comparison can be drawn from the 2012 election, when President Obama’s campaign spent the summer developing effective attack ads against Mitt Romney. This year, Clinton’s campaign has put out numerous ads going after Trump’s personality following the DNC.
If I worked for the Clinton campaign ahead of the next debate in Virginia, I’d focus on attempting to make her responses seem less rehearsed. The preparation the campaign did going into last night seemed to have paid off, so I would want to keep that going.
If I worked for the Trump campaign, I’d urge Trump to focus on coming up with more concise answers. I would want him to prepare answers more so that instead of shouting and become visibly shaken he could steer conversation back towards policy instead of tax returns.
Works Cited
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Healy, Patrick, Amy Chozick, and Maggie Haberman. "Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Sept. 2016. Web. 27 Sept. 2016.
The first debate sets the tone for future debates. Every media sources are ready to report on the highs and lows of the debate and ready to declare a winner. This debate is important because of how close the two candidates are in the polls and could change the minds of those undecided voters.
ReplyDeleteExpectations for the presidential debates are always high. But for the candidates a key strategy is to lower their own expectation to the public. “If a candidate is expected to be outclassed but does well, it may be perceived as a major victory.” (Trent et al 202). We saw this play out in the Gore vs. Bush debate and Obama vs. McCain (Trent 203). In this 2016 debate, even if the candidates tried to lower expectation it would not have worked because the media hyped up the debate so much that people were expecting a blowout. In the Bush vs. Gore debates, Bush’s campaign team was very vocal about Bush being a weak debater. The expectation going into the debate was that Gore would come out victorious but in the end Bush “benefitted more from the debates than Gore” (Trent et al 203). I personally did not see much of anything about the candidates lowering expectations. Trump criticized Clinton about taking time off to prepare for the debate, which did lower expectations that Trump would not be as prepared. All trump really had to do was show he was prepared and look victorious but he was unable to do that.
One of the pre-debate strategies mentioned in the Trent textbook is “devising and rehearsing possible answers.” It was clear from the start that Hillary Clinton’s time off of the campaign did her well. Trump’s approached to “wing it” left him looking unprepared with his responses, especially with his response to the question about his federal tax return. An article by CNN states Trump “had no other candidates or aggressive moderators to save it – and it showed” (Brander 2016). This showed true at Tuesday’s debate; he was no longer on the stage with countless other GOP candidates to soften his unpreparedness.
This debate was also a way for Trump to create a new image for himself, that he can be taken serious in a political debate. Trump is without a doubt a newcomer in politics he does not have the experience that Clinton has. Personally, I felt that he had a lot to prove tonight to show those undecided Americans that he can hold his own at a debate without having to rely on attacking others. If I was a debate coach for Trump I would advise him to prepare for the debate, know what his policies are and be able to express that to the public. Delivering an answer that sounds articulated and concise will help him sound more presidential.
Work cited
DeleteThe first debate sets the tone for future debates. Every media sources are ready to report on the highs and lows of the debate and ready to declare a winner. This debate is important because of how close the two candidates are in the polls and could change the minds of those undecided voters.
Expectations for the presidential debates are always high. But for the candidates a key strategy is to lower their own expectation to the public. “If a candidate is expected to be outclassed but does well, it may be perceived as a major victory.” (Trent et al 202). We saw this play out in the Gore vs. Bush debate and Obama vs. McCain (Trent 203). In this 2016 debate, even if the candidates tried to lower expectation it would not have worked because the media hyped up the debate so much that people were expecting a blowout. In the Bush vs. Gore debates, Bush’s campaign team was very vocal about Bush being a weak debater. The expectation going into the debate was that Gore would come out victorious but in the end Bush “benefitted more from the debates than Gore” (Trent et al 203). I personally did not see much of anything about the candidates lowering expectations. Trump criticized Clinton about taking time off to prepare for the debate, which did lower expectations that Trump would not be as prepared. All trump really had to do was show he was prepared and look victorious but he was unable to do that.
One of the pre-debate strategies mentioned in the Trent textbook is “devising and rehearsing possible answers.” It was clear from the start that Hillary Clinton’s time off of the campaign did her well. Trump’s approached to “wing it” left him looking unprepared with his responses, especially with his response to the question about his federal tax return. An article by CNN states Trump “had no other candidates or aggressive moderators to save it – and it showed” (Brander 2016). This showed true at Tuesday’s debate; he was no longer on the stage with countless other GOP candidates to soften his unpreparedness.
This debate was also a way for Trump to create a new image for himself, that he can be taken serious in a political debate. Trump is without a doubt a newcomer in politics he does not have the experience that Clinton has. Personally, I felt that he had a lot to prove tonight to show those undecided Americans that he can hold his own at a debate without having to rely on attacking others. If I was a debate coach for Trump I would advise him to prepare for the debate, know what his policies are and be able to express that to the public. Delivering an answer that sounds articulated and concise will help him sound more presidential.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Brander, Eric. “6 Takeaways from the First Presidential Deabte.” CNN. Cable News Network. 27 Sept. 2016. Web. 27 Sept. 2016.
On Monday, the first of three debates took place between the two most disliked presidential candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. For many, the outcome of the debate will not shift their presidential preference; however, the debate is a chance for the candidates to appeal to the unidentified and undecided voters to change the course of the election. Popular new stories leading up to the highly anticipated debate highlighted Clinton’s extensive debate prep and Trump’s reluctance to prepare. During the debate, it was very evident that Clinton’s preparation made all the difference in her obvious win for the first debate.
ReplyDeleteClinton clearly demonstrated her use of the three stages of debate strategies that are highlighted in Political Campaign Communication. Her pre-debate strategies, such as, determining the target audience and rehearing answers were evident based on her performance Monday night, while Trump utilized one – lowering public expectations. Clinton clearly articulated messages to relate to the democratic base, middle-class and unenthusiastic voter by making herself appear relatable with personal stories and jokes. She also had clear, organized and coherent answers to the questions the moderator asked. Trump on the other hand, went into the debate with the expectations that he was unprepared and not known for his policy depth. The bar was set low for him, which can be an advantage in future debates if he improves.
In a CNN article, How Hillary Clinton took debate prep seriously, it was reported “Clinton has told friends and supporters that her biggest concern is not knowing which Donald Trump will show up on Monday night: A more moderate, controlled Republican nominee or the more blunt and combative candidate?” (Merica). This demonstrates that Clinton’s pre-debate strategies also incorporated studying her opponent and having comebacks ready for his questions, interruptions and comments. When Clinton responded to Trump’s comments on stamina, not only did she reinforce her resume in her remarks, but also she developed an image for herself.
In 2012, President Obama also utilized personification. He “sought to portray himself as the champion of the middle class and by implication suggest that Governor Romney was more interested in the wealthy,” (Trent 212). Similar to President Obama, Clinton took a similar approach trying to appeal to the middle class. Several times during the debate she strategically implanted the words middle-class in to describe her upbringing, her father’s career, her own career work, etc. She tried to portray herself as a champion for the middle-class like President Obama and highlight those differences between herself and Trump. Political Campaign Communication considers “the effort of the candidate to personify a definite role,” or personification an important image strategy (Trent 212). Clinton utilized it when touting her resume to personify herself as a middle class champion as well as a qualified leader.
Trump had many missed opportunities during Monday’s debate and creating an image for himself was one of them. The public already knows him as a businessman, but what he failed to do was bring these redeeming qualities to the stage. Not only was he underprepared, but also he didn’t even appear to be ‘businessman like’ on stage. I could not fathom doing business with an interrupting, side-eyeing, yelling, babbling man like the one that showed up to the debate. If I were to give Trump advice for the next one, it would definitely be to prepare. Using a surrogate would be effective practice for Trump and a good way to test his fuse. On the other hand, Clinton was in my opinion flawless. If I could give her some advice, I would suggest she should use more relatable language. At one point in the debate she used the word ‘precipice’ in a very easy to understand sentence. I realize she is trying to appear intellectual and presidential; however, if she is trying to be relatable and appealing, she should communicate clearly and easily with her audience on their level.
Works Cited:
DeleteMerica, Dan. “How Hillary Clinton took debate prep seriously,” CNN. 26 September 2016. Web. http://www.cnn.com/2016/09/26/politics/hillary-clinton-debate-prep-strategy/
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
By and large, the first presidential debates of 2016 did not surprise me. Trump could have been slightly more offensive, but overall he appeared classically uninformed, unknowledgeable, crass, and ill-tempered. Clinton was as expected, well prepared, sharply critical of Trump, and unstimulating as ever. For these reasons, I’m not particularly convinced that part one of the debate trilogy will move the needle in a significant way.
ReplyDeleteTheir preparedness (or lack thereof), was quite evident. Hillary was notably ready at the helm to deliver her policy stances. It didn’t appear that Donald had even cracked a book to prepare for this event, as he was quickly put on the defense for the last two thirds of the program. But how were these clues of preparedness evident of an underlying strategy? It’s very easy to tell. Hillary has been painting herself as the far more experienced and intelligent option during this election cycle. She publically admitted to taking many days off from the campaign to prepare for the evening. Patrick Healey of The New York Times said that in addition to of course brushing up on policy, “She [Hillary] is mentally readying herself for multiple Trumps: the disciplined opponent who sticks to big themes, the no-holds-barred adversary who goes on the offensive, and the snide antagonist who calls her a “loser” to her face. Her advisers are hurling a host of Trumpian assaults and counterattacks at her to test her responses and adjust them as needed.” This came across very obviously as Clinton did her best to not get visually heated during Trump’s scores of interruptions and preposterous suggestions (i.e. Clinton has been fighting ISIS for 30 years). It’s clear that Clinton’s strategy was to satisfy expectations and find several opportunities to bait Donald Trump into outright head-scratching moments of absurdity. Andrew Romano of Yahoo noted one of these cringe worthy moments, “He praised stop-and-frisk, a policing tactic that was ruled unconstitutional in New York because it largely singled out black and Hispanic men. He seemed proud of the fact that he spent years spreading falsehoods about Obama’s birthplace, going so far as to claim that he ‘did a great job and a great service not only for the country, but even for the president.’” When Donald called her out for staying home and studying, Hillary then delivered one of the more memorable zingers of the evening: “I was preparing to be president.”
Trump’s strategy on the other hand was to dramatically lower expectations to the point of boasting about not preparing. This is obviously a subliminal admission of self-awareness. Our book mentioned this as an established media/preparation tactic. “If prior expectations are low, then it may not take a strong effort on the part of the candidate to appear to have done well (Trent et al, e-text 347).” He knows that he doesn’t possess the attention span nor natural intellect to adequately prepare for such a marathon test of presidential capability. What does he then do? What he does best. Regurgitate the same garbage that got him this far. The major issue with that strategy is that Trump was not able to derive energy or response from the crowd like he’s used to doing, and that was quite evident at the debate. In my personal opinion, this debate was a no contest victory for Clinton, but Donald has a way of surprising us and will likely be less restrained during the next showing.
The only advice I could give to Hillary for the next debate would be to appear less stiff and choreographed in her responses. This is likely a tall order for her, because these are her core personality traits that likely won’t turn around in a two-week span. Other than that, I felt like she dealt with this buffoon of historic proportions in the best way she could—simply by taking the high road with his outrageous behavior and remarks. Trump on the other hand might want to actually dedicate an afternoon to go over his policy positions, or even establish them as it’s growing increasingly evident that he nor his campaign has actually arrived at any. He should also consider releasing his tax returns. Just a thought.
DeleteWorks Cited
DeleteHealy, Patrick, Amy Chozick, and Maggie Haberman. "Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Sept. 2016. Web. 27 Sept. 2016.
Play, By. "Debate Scorecard: How Clinton and Trump Compared on Six Key Presidential Qualities." N.p., 27 Sept. 2016. Web. 27 Sept. 2016.
Trent, Judith S., and Robert Friedenberg V. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 8th ed. New York: Praeger, 2015. Print.
Monday night’s debate proved to be one of the most watched debates in American history with almost 85 million people tuned in. In the days leading up to the debate, the media raised anticipation and many people – even those that hadn’t been at all involved with the elections – had their nights planned out. While the unexpected nature of Donald Trump’s campaign gave the impression that the debate was going to be nothing short of an MMA fight in terms of excitement, viewers approached it more like an entertainment event than a political one. There were various expectations for the debate as well as for the candidates. Clinton was expected to be her usual bland self, sounding too rehearsed and ultimately boring; while Trump’s performance was expected to be nothing but ordinary. In terms of factual knowledge, the consensus was that Clinton had the upper-hand. Her preparing for the debate was much of a hot topic during the week leading up to the debate while Trump made himself appear as more laid back and worriless about his performance. This undoubtedly caused shift in expectations among voters regarding the candidates’ performances. As Trent et al suggests in our reading, lowering expectations before a debate is a common strategy (Trent et al, 202), which I think is what Trump used for this debate. This was to his benefit as voters expected less from him and it would be easier for him to exceed expectations. Clinton on the other hand looked like the more responsible and hard working candidate on the stage next to her opponent. She had the harder task because she needed to find the balance between seeming likeable, getting a rise out of Trump and tying everything back to her campaign’s message all the while looking presidential and strong on policy.
ReplyDeleteSubstance has been a big problem of this election since Trump started attacking candidates on a personal level rather than focusing on policy, and traces of this pattern could be seen at the debate as well. As Trent et al underlines in the text, in modern debates, “candidates [don’t] have adequate time to deal with major public issues.” (Trent et Al, 195) Candidates had two minutes to answer Holt’s questions, which inevitably limited the depth and length of policy talk. Considering the reasoning behind many viewers tuning in to the debate, this wasn’t a major issue, and it surely helped Trump “spitball” his ideas and “secret plans”, showing him a way out of having to explaining his policies.
Another way that this and other modern debates in the past majorly differ from the first political debates initiated by Lincoln and Douglas is that in modern day, candidates look for ways to personally attack each other. As Healy mentions in his article, “Mrs. Clinton has a thick dossier on Mr. Trump” containing analysis on how to knock him down on a psychological level, while Trump “has been watching video of Mrs. Clinton’s best and worst debate moments, looking for her vulnerabilities.” This shows us how much today’s debates have moved away from substance and towards being an entertaining fight between politicians.
I think that if Clinton wants to succeed in the next debates, she needs to focus more on getting under Trump’s skin and showing voters how unfit he is to be president by getting him tempered and frustrated on camera. Trump on the other hand needs to work much harder to prepare for the debate when it comes to substance, and invent new ways to prove his qualifications other than constantly calling himself a successful businessman.
Works Cited
DeleteHealy, Patrick, Amy Chozick, and Maggie Haberman. "Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Sept. 2016. Web. 27 Sept. 2016.
Trent, Judith S., and Robert Friedenberg V. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 8th ed. New York: Praeger, 2015. Print.
After watching the presidential debate on Monday night I have to say that both of these candidates are completely unfit for presidency. Both candidates brought with them positives and negatives throughout their time on the stage. Trump began strong and composed. He answered the question the moderator asked and was clear and concise with his explanations. Hillary came into the debate well prepared as she had a lot to make up for in the end. After Hillary’s pneumonia and email scandal she needed this debate to redeem herself. I thought Trump began strong and not as obnoxious as he usually is but within the first twenty-six minutes of the debate Trump interrupted Hilary twenty-five times. That is just about every minute Hillary was interrupted and unable to complete her statement. Although Trump brought out his obnoxious after a great start Hillary was able to stand her own. Hillary didn’t flinch when she was interrupted; she just smiled and let Trump make a fool of himself. Hillary kept her emotions in check and shut down many accusations Trump sent her way. I feel like Donald Trump came into the debate unprepared with no clear strategy in place. I believe Trump decided his normal strategy of attacking Clinton and being an obnoxious, sexist pig would bring in more voters. On the other hand, Hillary came in unbelievably prepared for the debate. She must have had her campaign team prepare questions in advance so that if any question was posed she would automatically have a statement ready with information to back it up. According to Crockett and Frostenson, “Many commentators were expecting it to cost Trump dearly if he came off as too domineering or bullying—and that he would moderate his style as a result. Apparently not” (Crockett and Frostenson). I was surprised by the fact that he didn’t change the way he approaches the media and his opponent since he needs to gain the millennial votes. If I were a debate coach for Trump I would have advised him to tone down the obnoxious bullying behavior and addressed the questions in a clear concise manner so that he could be finally seen as presidential to those who didn’t before. Now if I was Hillary’s debate coach I would have advised her to take responsibility for her actions with the leaked emails but I would not answer any more questions about it. Then I would have advocated that she be classy and controlled in the hopes it would make Trump look like a fool. I believe that this debate on Monday was pretty tame compared to the Lincoln and Douglas debate. “Lincoln and Douglas confronted one another. They met on the same platform, questioned one another, and refuted one another” (Trent et al). In the debate on Monday Clinton and Trump definitely questioned on another but there wasn’t much refuting going on or fact checking from the moderator. In the past they were less regulations which made for a more intense confrontational debate.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Crockett, Emily. "Trump Interrupted Clinton 25 times in the First 26 Minutes of the
Debate." Vox. Vox Media, 26 Sept. 2016. Web. 28 Sept. 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert Friedenberg V., and Robert Denton E. Political Campaign
Communication:8th Revised Edition: Principles and Practices. Lanham, MD: ROWMAN &
LITTLEFIELD, 2015. Print.
On Monday, September 26, 2016, the hyped-up debate between the potential first female president, Hillary Clinton, and a zealous businessman, Donald Trump took place in historic fashion. Although opinions and viewpoints may not shift much after this debate, it allowed candidates to hopefully reach those who still haven’t decided or might still be considering voting in the first place. While Clinton prepped and studies and drank her fluids, Trump found no need to prepare, and that may have determined the total outcome of the debate.
ReplyDeleteAs according to the strategies in chapter 8 of Political Campaign Communication, Clinton absolutely took advantage of the “Devising and Rehearsing Possible Answers.” She made it clear to those around her and her audience that she was going to take her time to seriously study for the debate; that being said, she was likely preparing to answer the big ticket questions, such as her emails, Benghazi (which Trump so desperately should have mentioned,) or her “lack” of stamina. According to “Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too,” by Partick Healy, Healy highlights that Clinton likely “is mentally readying herself for multiple Trumps: the disciplined opponent who sticks to big themes, the no-holds-barred adversary who goes on the offensive, and the snide antagonist who calls her a “loser” to her face.” Her responses were well articulated, well informed, and for the most part factual, which was clearly a result of rehearing possible answers. Clinton also used the “Determining a Target Audience” strategy with personal anecdotes that might relate to the democratic and middle class community, as she discussed her father’s blue collar job and bringing up her children and grandchildren. It also might have won over those who were still on the fence about her, as it showed a warm, friendly side of her the general public doesn’t see as much. Her opponent, however, clearly utilized the likely opposite strategy, which is “Lowering Public Expectations.” Trump repeatedly informed the media and Twitter that he would in fact not be studying, because he simply didn’t need to. According to Political Campaign Communication, this strategy allows the candidate to exceed expectations, showing a “strong effort, (allowing) the candidate to appear to have done well.” (Political Campaign Communication, 202). In “Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too,” Trump “paid only cursory attention to briefing materials. He has refused to use lecterns in mock debate sessions despite the urging of his advisers. He prefers spitballing ideas with his team rather than honing them into crisp, two-minute answers” (“Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too,” Healy).
In 2012, President Obama seemingly chose the same path as Donald Trump for the first debate. While Romney “began his preparation in July, fully thirteen weeks prior to the first debate,” President Obama “did not prepare as he had in 2008…one member of Obama’s inner-circle claimed that the president was disdainful of Romney and did not believe he needed to practice” (Political Campaign Communication, 207). Therefore, during the first debate, he came “across as detached, perhaps distracted, and clearly was bested by Governor Romney (Political Campaign Communication, 207).
DeleteTrump could have used Monday night’s debates to prove himself presidential, and shift away from his businessman persona. He also could have showed some professional, even presidential qualities, such as not interrupting and being condescending towards your opponent, but he did just that. Therefore, if I were his advisor, I would tell him to hold his tongue for the next debate. It was annoying, even for my Trump supporting friends, to watch and try and listen when he kept on interrupting and piping in every few seconds with a “you’re wrong” breathed into the microphone. For Clinton, I would suggest she drop the large political jargon that the average American might not understand, and even use simpler words. Other than that, I would tell her to continue to use the family anecdotes and well-spoken but professional jabs at Trump that really got the crowd excited.
Sources:
DeleteTrent, Judith, S, et al. Political Campaign Communication. 8th ed., New York, Rowman and Littlefield, 2016.
Healy, Patrick, et al. "Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too." New York
Times [New York], 23 Sept. 2016.
The first presidential debate between presidential candidates Clinton and Trump was certainly a memorable and interesting one. Firstly, Trump did well in the first 20 to 30 so minutes of the debate, he was impressive and definitely did better of expected of him… then he deteriorated to his normal slightly bombastic self. Secretary Clinton on the other hand did well, she did what was expected of her and showed a slightly wittier side of herself at times. This doesn’t mean that she blew her expectations out of the water.
ReplyDeleteAfter the first 30 minutes or so, once Trump’s calm wore off, he said some rather memorable things including his ‘stop and frisk’ stance, stuff about the birther movement, denying his stance on Iran, Isis, and that his ‘temperament’ is better than Secretary Clintons. Not only did he go after Clinton at time, which to be fair was expected and would have been no matter who the candidates were, but he also went after the moderator Lester Holton. On the other hand, Clinton’s only memorable line was that she was prepared for to be a president. She attacked her opponent far less, barely grazing him, if that.
However, as a first debate over all I felt that it was good and generally met people’s expectations of what they expected it to be like. Looking forward, I feel like people are only going to want to see this amplified. There is something about these two together on one stage that makes people want to see them actually go at each other’s throats. If the next debate isn’t more extreme than this one than people would be very disappointed.
That being said, there’s talk that Trump may not participate in the next debates. I think this would be an extreme mistake on his part. People want to see him be his extreme self, they don’t want to see him accept defeat by omission again Secretary Clinton. Plus, in the Trent et al. book, it is mentioned that, “Today, presidential candidates risk the possibility of severe backlash if they decline to debate” (Trent et al. 199). With this in consideration, if I were advising Trump, there is no way that I would advise him not to do the other debates, if anything I would advise him to actually prepare for the next one, and maybe lie less as the fact checkers were all over him at the last debate.
For Secretary Clinton, I would tell her to step her game up some. At this point it’s obvious and almost trite for her to talk about policies, we know she can. We need to see her more than just hold her head above the water with Trump. She needs to deliver her own memorable punches. It may require her to get a little ‘dirty’ but in an election like this one if she doesn’t throw her own jabs then she’s not doing well.
Trent, Judith, S, et al. Political Campaign Communication. 8th ed., New York, Rowman and Littlefield, 2016.
Since the announcement of the Republican and Democratic nominees, the media and its viewers have been eagerly anticipating the back and forth that would soon be happening between Donald Trump and Clinton during the first presidential debate. With almost 100 million viewers tuning in on Monday night to watch the first debate, many considered this to be the most critical election of our time. The media hyped up the debates, even forcing people who are not interested in politics in the slightest to tune in to see all that it was talked up to be. These debates however more than learning about a candidate’s policy but instead it’s used as insight into a candidates behavior and disposition.
ReplyDeleteAt the first debate Trump did not stay on image that his team wanted him to. They wanted him to control his temper and portray a more diplomatic approach, which he did when he first came out; he called Hillary Clinton Secretary Clinton, instead of the highly expected crooked Hillary and was quiet on the podium but he soon got riled up and started gripping the stand. Trump also went back to talking points from the stump and didn’t modify it. He went for applause lines and relied more on stump speech than Clinton who actually used different catchphrases such as “Trumped up, trickled down.” Clinton looked healthy and smiling a lot however Hillary felt more rehearsed and even feeling at times a bit unauthentic.
From the start the first debate had high expectations but the candidates set low expectations of themselves. This strategy is used to lower the public’s expectations, so when the debate is over the viewers would be pleasantly surprised at how well the candidate ended up doing, “If prior expectations are low, then it may not take a strong effort on the part of the candidate to appear to have done well”(Trent et al 202.) Trump repeatedly claimed he had no debate prep strategy, all in ploy lower expectations and exceed those expectations.
In the past there was an example of how setting low expectations before an upcoming debate benefited a candidate like in the 2000 debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Gore talked a big game, claiming he was an excellent debater while Bush chose an opposite approach alleges he was not good at debating. In the end Gore looked pompous and bombastic while Bush surpassed the viewer’s expectations and ultimately “benefited from the debate than Gore”(Trent et al 203).
There were a lot of missed opportunities on Monday night that Trump could’ve took advantage of such as when the topic of cyber security was brought up. Trump could’ve called Clinton out for her emails but surprisingly held back. My advice for Trump would be to act the way he did in the beginning of the debate when he sounded civil and well mannered and to keep his calm. As for Clinton I think she did a good job but to try to be less boring and less rehearsed.
Works Cited
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis was the first debate I genuinely watched. I've never been into politics nor did I care to learn about them. However, this election has definitely been one for the books. It's almost hard to not know what's going on because it's so hectic. Sitting down and watching all while having some clue as to what was going on, made me realize how absolutely ridiculous some parts of the debate was. I think one debate strategy that Clinton used was, lowering public expectations. I don't know if she even knew she was doing it. I feel like because of the whole pneumonia thing, people expected less from her. Lowering expectations is honestly such a good strategy, "If prior expectations are low, then it may not take a strong effort on the part of the candidate to appear to have done well" (Trent et al, 202). It's a way to almost trick the audience in a way. With Hillary, because she was sick, people viewed her as weak and maybe expected her to be sickly at the debate. Personally, I think she did a fairly good job considering I don't have much to compare it it to. Another strategy that I think Clinton utilized very well was rehearsing potential answers. We all know she took the few days prior to the debate to prepare, "Candidates must work out answers to possible questions and practice them" (Trent et al, 205). I think using this strategy really benefited her. At the debate, it came across as her knowing what she was talking about and Donald Trump looking inarticulate. In the days leading up to the debate, Trump made snide remarks about her not being on the campaign trail (because she was preparing for the debate) and in the end it made him look foolish because she knew what she was talking about.
ReplyDeleteAs for Trump, I'll start off by saying, pretty much everything he did at the debate made me angry. Between his snide remarks and his childish behavior of interrupting literally anyone who spoke, it just made my blood boil. His team wanted him to come off as more presidential and put together. I will say, in the first, 20-ish minutes, he was quiet and listening to what Hillary was saying (I think I even noted that in one of my tweets). Once he had the floor, he almost riled himself off. He became agitated and rude toward Clinton and Holt. At one point he even began to speak about how rude Hillary was to him and I was taken aback beyond words when he said that. ABC quoted Trump saying, "I'm going to be very respectful of her. I think she deserves that and I'm going to be nice. And if she's respectful of me, that’ll be nice". While I'll give him a little bit of credit for trying, that plan definitely go as planned.
It was interesting to me that Trumps team didn't have such a rigorous debate prep as Hillary did. I'm not surprised but I feel like if I was his debate coach, I would have made him prep the way Hillary did, or at least a little bit like Hillary did. I feel like Donald doesn't take direction well (but that's just my own opinion). I feel like not taking the time to prep, hurt Trump in the end because he lost his temper with some of Hillary's answers and had he prepped for some of the things she said, he might've been able to keep up the "presidential" act.
Works Cited:
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Keneally, Meghan, and Candace Smith. "How Debate Prep for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Is Starkly Different." ABC News. ABC News Network, n.d. Web. 28 Sept. 2016.
Monday night’s event of the 1st presidential debate of 2016 was well received; being viewed by over 80 million televised watchers. I believe this number to be much higher as it is 2016 and everyone under the age of 40 streamed it [which are not accounted for in any way]. The showdown, Trump v. Clinton, has proven to be the election where both candidates are equally ill received. Although these debates will likely not cause anyone to shifts sides or ideals – it is a time that allows candidates to appeal to undecided voters as well as those tinkering in the middle.
ReplyDeleteBoth candidates did, from what I garnered, better than expectations. Hillary came out strong and looked fairly healthy, fighting for over the 90-minute battle slot. Trump on the other hand pulled a tactic we discussed in class and came into the event purposely not at 100%. In this case, Hillary has a lot to lose when she messes up. Trump on the other hand realizes he is the signal of change and that small missteps will only help to increase media attention.
Trent highlighted a number of campaign strategies that the two candidates used or neglected to use throughout the debate. While expectations are usually high for any candidate entering a debate, it is wise for them to lower initial expectations so as to appear as though they surpassed initial outlooks. This was seen prior to the 2012 elections where Obama declared that he was “just ok,” at debating while maintaining that Romney was, “a good debater” (Trent et al 204). By Obama claiming this so outright, he thus lowered the standards that would be set for him. A comparison may be drawn between Trump/Hillary of 2016 with Obama/Romney in 2012, respectively. Like Hillary, Romney, “began his preparation in early July, fully thirteen weeks prior to the first debate,” (206) meanwhile Obama [like Trump], “did not prepare like he did in 2008” (207). Hillary planned for weeks and practiced like fiend prior to the debate. Trump on the other hand, walked in and put on a bad show, hopefully with intensions to do better the next time out; such as the case was for Obama/Romney, where Obama ended up coming out better the following times.
Acting as debate coaches for either party would be very thought provoking. Being Hillary’s coach, I would remind her the importance of smiling while on stage. Her general demeanor is not very likeable or ‘warming,’ by any means. For Trump I would relate how importance professionalism and composure is. There will be no more of him leaning over the podium and interrupting – giving off the appearance of a lack of patience. I would also stress to keen in when Hillary starts fumbling her words and taking more time to think of a response to really attack.
In the end, it is difficult to pick a clear winner – it depends who you ask. Of course the liberal media will spew that Trump was horrible and it was a clear victory for Hillary, meanwhile others contend that Trump had a good showing for what was expected and that Hillary shall be worried. No one is discussing articles such as NYPost's editorial "How Trump won over a bar full of undecideds[sic] and Democrats," or "Hillary Clinton's completely wrong about 'racist' policing." Even the article by the NYTimes, “Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too,” was written with such polarity that it was aggravating to read – but I digress, as there is no real realm to grab truly impartial and independent literature on politics.
Works Cited
DeleteHealy, Patrick, Amy Chozick, Maggie Haberman. "Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too." New York Times 23 Sept. 2016. Web.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
When assessing the nature of this year’s debate we must first mention the history of presidential debates. Debating looked very different before the first televised debate between Nixon and Kennedy in 1960. It was much more of a pure debate on singular issues, while today the debates act more, as a stage for the candidate to express what is important to them. Debates today often lack “direct confrontation, equal and adequate time, one stated proposition, and a clear direction on issues” (Trent et al 196). This year definitely fell into the categories of the modern debate. A lot of people expressed their anger in how the two candidates were vague and didn’t actually go into detail about their ideas. The strategies of the two candidates were also mentioned in the Trent et al reading. Trump definitely played the “Lowing Public Expectation” approach. The fact that he was debating on that stage was something many people couldn’t see happening early in the presidential race. His outsider approach to the political world allowed for him to lower expectations without even trying. On the other hand Clinton played to certain audiences much better than Trump. One example is when she mentioned the rising prices of college tuitions. Her appeal to the youth vote was direct and smart because most of the unenthusiastic voters fall in this category. This was also a demographic that Trump was struggling to reach. One final strategy that Clinton clearly had the edge in was rehearsal of possible answers. The amount of training that each candidate put into the debate was evident once the debate was in full swing. The media spin after mentioned how trump seemed extremely underprepared, while Clinton was vocal about her preparation. Though over-preparedness has hurt people like Mark Rubio, no preparation might look worse. Another aspect of the debate that has and continues to evolve is the media coverage. The introduction of social media has changed how quickly the information about the debate travels. People become “live reporters for the candidates through stylish videos and photos” (Mayer et al. 139). One of the most shared aspects of the debates is the debate memes. This spread like wildfire on things like Twitter and Facebook creating a narrative for the overall debate. The memes can often reflect the performance of the candidate and feed into the media spin that occurs afterwards. Moving forward my advice for the candidates would be as follows. Clinton should continue her current course of action, as her strong debate performance will help her build momentum. She could also attack Trump for his lack of preparation. If I was advising Trump I would not decline the future debates, as there were talks to do this. This would show weakness at a terrible time in the campaign. Trump being Trump has gotten him this far and there is no turning back on this strategy now. Trump must rehearse more in order to provide the proper sound bites from the debates.
ReplyDeleteWork Cited
Trent, J. S., Friedenberg, R. V., Denton Jr., R. E. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Mayer, J. D., Semiatin,R. J., Graf, J. “Campaign Press Coverage-Changed Forever.” In Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 3d. ed., Richard J. Semiatin, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2016.
The first debate is extremely important. It is where candidates get to establish who is the better man\woman for presidency. In this election the entire running process has changed, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have gone a different direction as we all know, but we saw common debate strategies. Lowering the public expectation was something Hillary did more then Trump. Donald Trump continued to state how she was to fatigue and sick to do the debate and he was in great health. Meanwhile Hillary made social media claims that she is not that great of a speaker and that she is going to do her best, allowing for a lower expectation from the viewers. It goes to show that with planning it could lead you to a debate victory as Hillary did Monday night. However, sometimes candidates over prep for the debate and use a method Clinton did, which was devising and rehearsing possible answers. By doing this, the candidate makes them seem almost untrue and just answer the questions so that they appeal to the ears of the viewers; it can be a little sketchy. As we all know Donald Trump’s motto is “Make America Great Again” it is all over his merchandise and he repeatedly goes back to that in ever response of his political career. In the debate that is a strategy, “most successful political debaters have been able to integrate the specific issues into an overall framework” (Trent et al. 208). This strategy is called relating issues to an overall theme, which means when a question is asked about a certain issue they will talk about the issue and redirect back to their theme in the closing statement. We saw this method with Barack Obama and Senator John McCain. Obama used this strategy more than McCain and it benefitted a substantial amount. Overall strategy is a necessity in these debates and unfortunately for Trump, it hurt him big time.
ReplyDeleteIf I were Clinton and Trump’s debate coaches I would definitely have some words to say to both candidates, Trump more than Clinton. If I were Donald Trump’s debate coach I would start off by telling him he needs to prepare better, as far as practicing on the actual stage prior to the debate. It could help speak better and maybe prepare his stamina more; he seemed very out of breath and drank a ton of water. Id also recommend for him to keep track of the things he says and do more research on facts to make sure what he’s saying is true. The last big mistake I saw on stage during this debate was his body language when he wasn’t speaking. Trump constantly made facial expressions, rolling his eyes and looking like he was in disgust. As for Hillary, I would first off start by saying job well done because she played Trump’s game better then he did. Hillary got under his skin with many things but by calling him “Donald” it got to him so much that the viewers could see his rage. The unforgettable nicknames are usually Trump’s forte and she caught him off guard. I would tell Hillary to prepare just as well as she did but to kick him more when he’s down, he didn’t know his facts and she clearly did so why not take a major shot at Trump. Other then that I cannot wait until the next debate; to see how furious Trump comes out and how well Hillary plays his game.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWith the first debate of the 2016 election in the books, we can now take a better look at where each candidate stands in this presidential race. The first debate presents the opportunity for one candidate to try to one-up the other in seeing who’s actually done the right preparation and in this case, I’d have to give it to Hillary Clinton. Overall, she seemed extremely more prepared with her answers and maintained a better overall confidence as compared to her opponent. A definite smart strategy was seen in her various arguments against Trump attacking his business failures and his refusal to release his tax returns which seemed to really catch Trump off guard. Donald Trump, on the other hand, seemed to start out strong but certainly did not finish that way as the debate progressed. To quote Chris Cillizza of The Washington Post, “Trump was simply not prepared well enough for this debate. He regularly struggled to deal with questions he had to know were coming. His answer on his five-year quest to show that President Obama was not born in this country was like watching a car accident in slow motion.” Trump overall just seemed not prepared and his stage presence came off as very negative and immature. To me, Trump’s debate strategy to me seemed as that of a small child towards the end where he would often make small one or two worded responses while Clinton spoke (ex. “Not true”; “Wrong”). This is almost reminiscent of the 2008 first presidential debate between Barack Obama and John McCain where we saw Obama reference several specific policies and maintained a very optimistic attitude throughout. McCain’s first few responses lacked the specific references to policies and rather came off as more of a broken record in repeating the same responses that didn’t even necessarily attack the question. As stated in Political Campaign Communication, “There is a close relationship between a candidate’s response to specific issues and the image that the candidate projects.” (279)
ReplyDeleteOne of the most significant parts to the debates are definitely the opening and closing speeches. “The opening and closing statements of debates give candidates a unique opportunity to develop their image, for they are the only portions of the debate over which the candidates have complete control (Trent et al. 275). In Trump’s strategy, we saw his opening speech him try to relate everything to an overall theme as we heard the phrase numerous times to “get our jobs back” and a greater focus on foreign issues. On the other side, we saw Hillary took a much more broad take in her opening speech focusing on a variety of different issues. She often was kept a smile on her face and spoke with a great deal of confidence where Trump on the other hand often maintained a more smug look on his face when answering a question or listening to Clinton speak, conveying more of a negative image.
If I was a debate coach for these candidates, the advice I would give to Clinton would really just maintain the strong preparation we saw in the first debate and remember to keep a positive manner on stage for her overall image. For Trump, all I would say is better preparation. Not just this but he also needs to be able to admit to being wrong on certain past statements or situations (to which he refused to do in this debate) and definitely just try to create more of a positive, more confident image on stage.
Works Cited
DeleteTrent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Cillizza, Chris. “Winners and losers from the first presidential debate”. The Washington Post. 09.26.16. Web.
While I thought this debate was memorable, mainly because I watched it closely, it also solidified my belief that this election remains a raucous affair. Despite varying performances from Clinton and Trump, I still believe that like most debates in the past, I am left feeling a little less hopeful and a lot more irritated. Despite my ill sentiments toward the entirety of the debate, I will say that more than anything else, one candidate looked more prepared. Clinton did, in my opinion, demonstrate more presidential prowess than Trump who seemed controlled and calm in the beginning, but like a loose cannon by the end of the night. That being said, their equally calm demeanors in the beginning surprised me, as they walked out in striking, yet seemingly swapped colors.
ReplyDeleteIf we go back to earlier debates such as the Lincoln-Douglas debates, there was more focus on one larger issue. Lincoln really pushed Douglas to repudiate either the Supreme Court ruling on the Dred Scott decision or his own program of popular sovereignty (Trent et al 194). Although far removed from our modern way of debating, “those debates were a true clash of ideas, assumptions, evidence, and argument” (Trent et al 195). However, as time passed there was a shift toward the rise and necessity in the viewership of debates. Kennedy and Nixon proved this in their 1960 debate in which they covered a multitude of topics. We can see the shift in the 1858 debate to the 1960 one and even our modern ones in that “contemporary political debates that are heavily oriented toward the broadcast media audience are not in the tradition of issue-oriented debates” (Trent et al 195).
In terms of debate strategies I believe that Clinton and Trump, to some extent, devised and rehearsed possible answers for this debate. This past debate parallels the previous election cycle with Romney and Obama. As the text mentions, Romney prepared for a longer amount of time whereas Obama did not, which ultimately showed due to his “distracted and detached” appearance in practice sessions (Trent et al 207). Preparation style is also something to take into account as mentioned in The New York Times article, “Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too.” Clinton is presented as the more “dutiful student” who has an knack for absorbing a lot of material, whereas Trump has been studying Clinton’s vulnerabilities and has the “self-confidence” to size up his opponents (Healy et al). For their next debate I would tell Clinton to keep that same momentum going, by that I mean she needs to deliver those one-liners and maintain composure despite provocation. As for Trump, I would recommend that he brush up on policies (mainly because Clinton looks like she is well-versed in many of them) and hint at that surprising composure he maintained in the beginning of the debate. He too often goes off on these tirades that end up gaining him attention for the wrong reasons. However, as mentioned in the text, perhaps his seemingly poor performance sets the expectations low whereas Clinton set them a bit higher. It will be interesting to see how our previous thoughts might play into the next debate.
Works Cited:
Healy, Patrick, Amy Chozick, Maggie Haberman. "Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too." New York Times 23 Sept. 2016. Web.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Tuesday’s debate did not live up to the high expectations I predicted (I thought Trump was going to use profanity to talk about Hillary), but was still very entertaining. Both candidates acted in the debates how they did in previous primary debates. Clinton throughout the debate was poised, well prepared, and presidential. Trump started out cool and calm but quickly turned into his usual loud, demagogic, and angry self. Though this was a debate like no other, both candidates hit many of the same beats you would expect in a Presidential Debate.
ReplyDeleteOne major thing seen in all presidential elections is the expectations game. Political Campaign Communications describes it as, “The candidate who is perceived to have won the debate is often a function of what people expected… If prior expectations are low, then it may not take a strong effort on the part of the candidate to appear to have done well“ (Trent et. al. 202). Going into the debate Hillary Clinton had to just humanize herself, prove to the American people why she can be trusted, and for a lot of people not cough. Donald Trump just had to prove he could be taken serious and not say anything too damaging to his campaign. Trump obviously won this part of the game by having lower expectations, but this did not help him win the debate.
It is hard to compare Donald Trump’s performance to the performance of previous candidates, but he is such a one of a kind candidate. It might be because this is first presidential election of my adulthood, but I don’t know of any other debate moment of a candidate just saying more of a blatant lie than Trump saying that Hillary Clinton has been fighting ISIS her entire adult life. Normally, if I get the feeling that something said in a debate is a lie I go to the fact check sites to see their response. I am excited to see the inevitable Saturday Night Live skit of Hillary Clinton as an 18-year-old fighting ISIS.
For the next debate, Trump needs to keep himself together. He can’t keep cutting her off and trying to talk over her. According to Vox, he cut her off 51 times in the hour and a half debate. He also needs to not say the first thing that pops into his head and then act like it didn’t happen post debate. When he said that not paying any Federal taxes was a good thing it made him look really bad. Especially when Hillary followed it up with saying that not paying your taxes means you are not supporting this country. For the next debate, he has to work on his language, something he’s been criticized for since he announced his candidacy.
Hillary doesn’t need to change very much for the next debate. Our class criticized her for directing people to her website, but she needed to do that so people can read in depth about her policy. Being a policy wonk isn’t appealing to most American voters, but it is what she is. It will take way more than her allotted two minutes to talk about her plan to defeat ISIS so that’s why she doesn’t go fully in depth on it. I think for the next debate it might serve her well to push Trump a little more. He obviously get fluster when she did a little, if she does it more often his poor temperament will continue to show.
References
ReplyDeleteCrockett, E., & Frostenson, S. (2016). Trump interrupted Clinton 25 times in the first 26 minutes of the debate. Retrieved September 29, 2016,
Trent, Judith S.; Friedenberg, Robert V.; Denton, Robert E., Jr.. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices (Communication, Media, and Politics) (p. 202). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Kindle Edition.
The first presidential debate between Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton and Republican candidate Donald Trump was one to go down in history. From the countless sniffles circulated in Trump’s microphone to the awkward shimmy dance move performed by Clinton, all eyes and ears were well in tune to the candidates. It only took about 15 minutes into the debate for candidates to bring out their ready-to-use attacks and remarks of destruction to each others’ reputations and image. Hillary was quick to question Trump on his missing tax returns while Trump retaliated with Clinton’s email scandal. Although the purpose of these debates is to discuss each candidates political views compared to the other, it seemed to be more of who could make the other look worse.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of the debate, each candidate kept their cool and treated each other respectfully while the other spoke. It was even decided as to how each candidate would address each other throughout the night. Hillary Clinton preferred to be called Secretary Clinton. On the flip side, Clinton was not as respectful to her opposing candidate in calling Donald Trump solely by his first name. Journalists and news outlets quickly picked up on this in their reporting. An article written by Jenna Johnson in the Washington Post reads, “‘Donald’ is a first name that few use in Trump Tower, where even high-level employees and top aides usually address the candidate as ‘Mr. Trump.’ The casual greeting seemed to annoy Trump, who asked Clinton if it he could call her ‘Secretary Clinton.’” (Johnson 2016). This could have been interpreted as Clinton viewing herself as a higher figure compared to Trump. To continue in terms of respect, all bets were off as soon as Trump interrupted Clinton on something she was saying that he just didn’t agree with. As soon as one thing was said to criticize one candidate, the other felt the need to defend themself snowballing into off-topic arguments.
As the debate went on and topics got further in depth, it began to seem obvious who had done full preparation for the night. Clinton came off as composed and knowledgeable of each topic spoken about. She named off political stats and incorporated her ideas of her planned presidency ahead. Trump attempted the same, however some claim the only thing he was talking about were modified stump speech lines.
In previous presidential debates, such as the 2012 Obama versus Romney debate, Obama “sought to portray himself as the champion of the middle class and by implication suggest that Governor Romney was more interested in the wealthy,” (Trent et al 212). This also seemed to be an underlying theme between Clinton and Trump. Clinton always takes the opportunity to attack Trump as a wealthy millionaire who is only in favor of the top one percent. She used previous debate strategies that Democratic president Barack Obama had used against his Republican running mate to get him to the position he landed back then. Along with studying previous debates, it was clear Clinton did her research on her opponent’s views in order to know what to say against him to make him look like the wrong choice. Unfortunately, Trump’s only defensive response was to question Clinton’s source and interrupt her by rambling and yelling “wrong” when she would speak.
My personal overall advice to the candidates is to prepare much harder than they did for this first debate, especially Republican candidate Donald Trump. He needs to know his statistics and political views of his opponent in order to work them against her. It’s also important for both candidates not to give into the other’s antics in trying to get a rise out of the other. Clinton did do a good job of not giving into Trump’s tantrums, however she did break a few times to feed off of his arguments. For the next presidential debate, I think people will be more interested in the behaviors of the candidates rather than what they have to say about their policies because the American public picks up easily on these personality types.
Works Cited
DeleteJohnson, Jenna. "Trump Yells and Sniffs His Way Through the First 2016 Presidential Debate." Washington Post 26 Sept. 2016. Web.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton’s performances at the debate left many confused and curious, especially myself. This debate broke the record for being the most watched debate in history, which makes sense considering this election is vastly unlike the others (Stelter). It is hard to believe that all debates were not always televised, considering the importance and major impact of television today. The first televised debate was in 1960 between JFK and Nixon and is still one of the most notable and famous debates. It introduced how vital image truly is and how it impacts one’s political career (Mitchell). To this day, people believe that a reason why Nixon lost to John F. Kennedy was simply because of his appearance and demeanor. He looked nervous, sweaty and not put together, while on the contrary, JFK knew exactly how to work the camera and had excellent personal presence (Mitchell). America is very critical, and will not vote for a president that appears unfit in any way. America was certainly looking for every flaw on Trump and Hillary during their performances.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of Monday’s debate, Hillary began by calling her opponent, Donald and not Trump, which led him to calling her Secretary Clinton (Wilson). Trump was irritated because it is obvious that it was a part of her strategy to almost make him seem less powerful, by referring to him as his first name. For about the first half hour, Trump was very focused and filtered, which is a rare occurrence for him. His performance in the beginning was respected, until his facial expressions and finger pointing got extremely aggressive. He even listened as Hillary spoke in the beginning but he made up for it later on when he interrupted her about 55 times (Wilson). Hillary was out to win and even said at the end that she “prepared to be President” (Sheth). I found myself quite impressed with Hillary and thought her performance was stellar. It is evident that both candidates took two different approaches when preparing for the debates. According to Political Campaign Communication, there are pre-debate, debate, and post debate strategies (Trent et al 202). Determining the target audience and devising and rehearsing possible answers during a debate are some of the key pre-debate strategies. Hillary exemplified both of these during the debates because she knew her audience and said exactly what they wanted to hear. Additionally, she has been doing research on Trump and meeting with her debate team for months (Healy, Chozick, and Haberman). If there were superlatives to sum up the debate, I would call Hillary, “most prepared to be president.”
Although Hillary was prepared, Trump had jabs and composed himself better than usual. One of Trump’s notable digs was, “She doesn’t have the look… she doesn’t have the stamina… I don’t believe she has the stamina to be president of this country” (Johnson). Once again, Hillary and Trump argued and exchanged digs, which will be interesting to see what happens during the next debates and what their debate advise them to do.
If I were a debate coach, I would advise for each candidate to answer each question with confidence, poise and honesty. Clearly, America is in need of a confident and collected leader. It is easy to tell who is answering each question honestly and who is being genuine. I would advise each candidate to watch the tone in which they answer questions and to watch their facial expressions as well. I personally was distracted by Trump’s facial expressions and some of Hillary’s tone. In the past, Hillary has sounded robotic, but during this debate, she smiled more frequently and came across as a relatable and a common and likeable person.
Works Cited:
DeleteGoodwin, Liz. “Clinton Campaign: Debate Moderators Should Fact-check Trump.” Yahoo News. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.
Healy, P., Amy Chozick, and Maggie Habberman. “Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on that, Too.” New York Times. Web 27 Sept. 2016
Johnson, Jenna. “Trump Yells and Sniffs his Way Through the First 2016 Presidential Debate.” Washington Post. Web. 26 Sept. 2016.
Mitchell, Dan. “10 Memorable Moments in Presidential Debate History.” Time. Web. 27 Sept. 2016.
Sheth, Sonam. “One Memorable Line by Hillary Clinton Sums up Monday’s Debate.” Business Insider. Web. 27 Sept. 2016.
Stelter, Brian. “Debate Breaks Record for Being Most-Watched in U.S. History.” CNN. Web. 28 Sept. 2016
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 8th edition. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016. Print.
Last nights debate was truly one to remember. From the minute it started to the minute it ended we got a taste of what I think most of the debates are going to be like. A rile up Trump that feels the need to interrupt Hillary whenever we can, and a shy Hillary that allows herself to get shut up. It was pretty clear by 11:00 PM who the winner of the debate was and the reason why it was so clear was because of the strategies that this candidate used, which are mentioned in Political Campaign Communication. First lets start off by saying that Hillary was the overall winner of last nights debate even though many felt the only person they heard speak all night was Trump. She was prepared for most of the questions and strategically threw in some clever smack talk at Trump through out the night. According to Chris Cilliza of the Washington Post, “She was, unsurprisingly, very well prepared—using a slew of facts and figures to not only make her positive case but also to slam Trump. She was terrific in bashing Trump on taxes. Her response to Trump’s attack on her temperament – the shoulder shimmy!” (Cilliza et al 2016).
ReplyDeleteYou can’t even compare this debate to President Obama’s debate with John McCain, which was the only other debate that I really sat down and watched in its full. There has been too much controversy surrounding Trump and Hillary, which definitely affected the overall debate, where as Obama and McCain’s debate, both candidates were respectful (for the most part) and focused more on answering the questions given by the moderator and less time on bashing each other. That is how a real debate should be handled.
The main issue with Trump’s performance last night was that he wasn’t prepared enough for the tough questions that Lester Holt had for him. Instead he resulted to bringing up Hillary’s emails and bashing her for not being a good Secretary of State under the Obama administration. My advice to Trump is too come into the next debate being more prepared to answer the questions given by the moderator. Just as Judith Trent puts it, “candidates must work out answers to possible questions and practice them” (Trent et al 205). I couldn’t agree with this more. Practice makes perfect and I feel that if Trump wants to walk away with a W he needs to take Trent’s advice seriously. For Hillary, my main advice for her would to sound less robotic and scripted and sound more natural when answering questions. According to Chris Cilliza of the Washington Post, “Clinton wasn’t perfect in this debate. At times she came across as overly rehearsed and robotic” (Ciliza et al 2016). Additionally I know this isn’t part of the question, but I do not think the moderator gave either candidate an opportunity to really show America what they think on important issues because the questions he asked were terrible. Given better questions, I think both candidates would have done a lot better.
Works Cited
Cilliza, Chris “Winners and losers from the first presidential debate.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/09/26/winners-and-losers-from-the-1st-presidential-debate/ Tues. 27. 2016
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 8th edition. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016. Print.
On Monday, over 80 million people tuned in to one of the most anticipated political debates in history. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton were together on stage to address the American people. With so many viewers watching, it is so important for the candidate to portray a Presidential image while presenting their ideas and strategies. Political Campaign Communication states that “As the debate progresses, the candidates must constantly respond to the questions on the issues of the day” (Trent et al 208). In the beginning of the debate, Trump began to answer the questions given to him by the mediator Lester Holt, but then continuously became off topic, and went off into tangents. Clinton on the other hand, I believe had a better overall grasp of the questions and had the knowledge and skill to actually inform the people watching what her plans were if she were to be elected as President. Overall, Clinton did a better job of relating the issues to her overall theme of “Stronger Together”. Another debate strategy noted and lack thereof in this debate was the importance of developing an image. Political Campaign communication states that “The principal image strategies that can be utilized in political debating include the development of a leadership style, personification, and identification” (Trent, el. al. 210). How the audience views the candidates is important. Clinton appeared very put together, presented well, and appeared more Presidential, while Trump continuously sniffed his nose, drank lots of water, appeared very jittery and even clenching the podium to visibly show his anger. Although it doesn’t resonate with all audiences watching, it definitely portrayed a weaker more incompetent leader, in my opinion.
ReplyDeleteContinued:
ReplyDeleteThis book mentions that image is important when it comes to debating, and there is no better example than the Nixon Kennedy debate. Richard Nixon appeared on TV as very sweaty, sick, and nervous while JFK appeared poised, and very presidential like. This sat with audiences and critics who say if they were to judge the debate from TV, then JFK would have been the winner. So if you were to ask a critic about Monday’s debate on who won based off of image, I whole heartily believe they would choose Clinton.
In a debate like this, expectations must be lowered in case the candidate goes against the odds and performs worse than expected. If they are expected to perform poorly, but end up performing great, that can change the mindset of a potential voter. Elaina Johnson, and Alexis Levinson, writers for The National Review concluded that, “Trump hurling insults, Clinton tickling off items on her resume: both candidates, utterly themselves” (Johnson, Eliana and Levinson, Alexis). Both candidates were projected to appear and act as themselves, and they did for the most part. Trump behaved like we all expected him to, defensive, aggressive, and just utterly rude. While Clinton performed a bit better than expected, her temperament , and ability to articulate her thoughts and ideas helped prove her point. If I were a debate coach, I would praise Clinton on her behavior and image she portrayed, but I would advise her to present herself in a less “stiff” way. She seemed a bit robotic, although she made excellent points. For Trump, I would advise that he behaved in a more Presidential manner, control his anger and temper, and quit interrupting Clinton. I would advise him to fully answer the questions given to him, and to act in a more relatable way, that the majority of American citizens would be able to relate to him. Overall, Monday’s debate reassured that I am making the right decision in November as to whom I am voting for. The candidates have shown their true colors on live television.
Work Cited
ReplyDeleteWork Cited
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 8th edition. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016. Print.
Johnson, Eliana, and Alexis Levinson. "Clinton and Trump Grapple in First Debate." National Review. N.p., 27 Sept. 2016. Web.
James Conway
ReplyDeletePO348 Blog
09/28/16
The first Presidential Debate of the 2016 race has come and go and honestly, it went exactly how I expected it to. In terms of the pre-debate strategies mentioned in Chapter 8 of the Trent book, I believe Hillary really took advantage of two of them specifically. Although this was probably not planned, her pneumonia diagnosis a week or so ago really did lower pubic expectations of her this debate. Not in just her ability to debate but to look the part and not seem worn out, tired or sick. Part of this was her opponent, Donald Trump, constantly chastising her leading up to the debate for not continuing to campaign and instead preparing for the debate. While Trump may have gotten some laughs on Twitter, it was Clinton who got the last laugh as she was totally prepared, and had clearly been “devising and rehearsing possible answers” (Trent, 205) and rebuttals. When Donald Trump called once again called her out for staying at home the weekend prior to the first debate, Clinton responded with the most memorable line of the entire evening saying: “You’re right Donald I was preparing for this debate. And you know what else I was preparing for? Becoming President.” This was pure brilliance from Clinton here as she not only got to make the most presidential statement, but she did it in response to an attack from Trump, further crushing him on a night that hadn’t gone his way in the first place. For pre-debate strategies, Trump seemed to really have none honestly. His constant digs at Clinton and chatter on social media had his followers riled up and ready for a night that would completely expose Hillary as a failed candidate. By doing this, he actually raised public expectations and that could be the reason so many Republicans I have talked to felt let down after watching Monday night. To say Trump didn’t devise or rehearse a single answer is unfair, but I feel like instead he just put together of lists of points he wanted to get across, but in an unorganized way that made him seem like he was scrambling to come up with concrete policies and solutions. In a sense, this debate looked a lot like the first Obama-Romney debate. Obama came out flat footed, unprepared and a bit cocky, whereas Romney came out calculated, confident and charming. As the Trent book notes on page 204, a poor first debate can really hurt a candidate’s perception as many viewers may not even tune into the second or third debate.
For in-debate strategies, I felt that Clinton once again outperformed her counterpart. Trump talked a lot, but he talked a lot about one or two issues, namely our jobs going to Mexico and our relationship with China. Clinton talked far less but was able to touch on a wide range of issues and continuously relate them back her Presidential campaign as a whole. In class, we talked about showing oneself an “agent of change” during debates and what’s amazing to me is that, no matter how many times Trump aligned Clinton with the “failed” Presidency of Barack Obama, she was still able to come off as this “agent of change”. For someone who was literally part of Obama’s cabinet, she came across as a leader with her own ideas, strategies and policies and I believe that was invaluable to her success Monday night. As Andrew Romano put it, in his piece for Yahoo News titled “Debate scorecard: How Clinton and Trump compared on six key presidential qualities”,
“Clinton steered confidently from paid family leave to clean energy to criminal justice reform to mutual defense treaties, Trump floundered whenever the exchange shifted from his comfort zone — trade, jobs, Mexico, China — to less familiar terrain.” (Romano, 2)
DeleteClinton also really helped improve her image Monday night by lying and bending the truth a considerable amount less than Trump. Somehow, Clinton was still viewed as the less trustworthy candidate prior to Monday night’s debate but afterwards, there is simply no way that trend continues. Trump lied, childishly interrupted Clinton and denied things there is clear evidence he had said. On a night where one wants to develop an image of a good leader, Trump came across as simply a bad person and that is going to really help Clinton. Not only was it the truthfulness, but Clinton also came across as real Presidential Monday night. So far this debate season, I really hadn’t seen a moment from either candidate that made me think ‘Okay, this is it. I can see you as my Commander in Chief.’ But Monday night, Clinton did just that. Although her answers seemed over-choreographed at points, it was far better to look over-prepared than severely underprepared like her opponent. Finally, something that everyone was looking for in Monday’s debate was whether or not Trump’s temperament could handle a one on one debate with unbiased questions and no commercial breaks. The unanimous answer across the nation seemed to be an easy NO. He gripped his podium angrily, he made a fool of himself, he sniffled for the full ninety minutes, and even had the nerve to say that it was this exact temperament that was his strongest quality!! I just cannot think of something he could have said that would have hurt his chances more.
In the end, this debate seemed to go the way everyone was expecting it to (except for maybe Mr. Trump). But the election is not over!! Trump did have a solid opening fifteen minutes and he can find a way to bottle that up and use it for a full debate, he will do a lot better in the town hall debates that are coming up. His national expectations for next week are at an all-time low but Obama was in a similar boat just 4 years ago and ended up dominating the rest of the televised debates. If Clinton put her best foot forward Monday and begins to get repetitive down the road, Trump could absolutely still shock some people. For America’s sake, I hope that is not the case.
Play, By. "Debate Scorecard: How Clinton and Trump Compared on Six Key Presidential Qualities." N.p., 27 Sept. 2016. Web. 27 Sept. 2016.
DeleteTrent, Judith S., and Robert Friedenberg V. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 8th ed. New York: Praeger, 2015. Print.
The first debate leading up to November sets the tone for the rest of the debates and the rest of the sprint that follows. As this being one of the most unusual and highly followed presidential races, the expectations leading up to this debate were very high. Many were expecting Trump to blow up in a fit of rage when he did not get his way and Clinton to be the poised, monotone candidate she has been. In some ways the expectations were met and some ways they were not.
ReplyDeleteDebates are a vital part in the race to November and always have been. Leading up to the debates voters are thrown information like “As President I will…” The debate is the place where candidates are to explain how they want to do the things they say and go more in depth with policy. The debates play a major role in the final deciding factor for many voters and because of this, expectations become very important. "If prior expectations are low, then it may not take a strong effort on the part of the candidate to appear to have done well" (Trent et al, 202). Expectations were very high leading up to this debate. Trump managed to stay cool, calm and collected within the first twenty to thirty minutes, which was not expected by most, myself being one of them. He then let his rage get the best of him, however, in my opinion he still managed to stay below the expectation I had in mind. Clinton managed the calm, poised presidential persona expected of her. However she managed to be wittier and a bit more upbeat than usual. She showed that she was prepared and knew what she was talking about.
Preparation is key when it comes to debates. As mentioned in the Trent textbook, one of the pre-debate strategies is, “devising and rehearsing possible answers.” Clinton’s preparation was very evident during the debate and could be seen even if you had not been following the news the days leading up to it. Trump had been criticizing Clinton constantly for taking time off the campaign trail to prep. However, she was able to throw it back in his face during the debate by saying she was prepared to be the President of the United States. Trump met the expectation of not being prepared. He started out strong, but his answers began to ramble on until he found a point to prove that he liked as the debate rolled on.
One thing I think both candidate can work on is really getting to the answer of how. Both went on and on about what they want to do with the topics raised and mentioned all the plans they had; the tax plan, the plan to defeat Isis, but what exactly are those plans. I know I, and would like to think other voters as well, want to hear the how. Especially since I am the unenthusiastic voter, I want to know the how.
Moving forward to the next debates, I would advise Trump to take some time out of his campaigning to prepare a little better. He needs to be able to find his points quicker and not ramble on about the jabs Clinton throws at him. I would advise Clinton to keep doing what she is doing, but also work on getting the how across to voters. I’m very excited to see what the future debates hold.
Works Cited
Semiatin, Richard J., ed. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage, 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAfter Monday’s debate, I was feeling not only hopeless, but surprised. I dislike both candidates and I’m not a die-hard fan of either’s political party so that gives me a fairly unbiased view. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton surprised me during the first debate. Trump was less composed than I thought he would attempt to be and Clinton was more likable. I predicted, as most people potentially did, that Trump would have been coached and prepped to not lose his cool. As many people have said – all kinds of experts, journalists, analysts, coaches – all he needed to do was NOT lose his cool… but he did! Hillary needed to be likable. She needed to out-class him and show the public that she is a well-versed politician, and arguably, she did.
ReplyDeleteThe New York Times posted an article before the debate, “Debacle: What Al Gore’s First Debate Against George W. Bush Can Teach Hillary Clinton” that recapped the prep, the actual, and post of Gore and Bush’s debate. The article concluded one of Gore’s major downfalls was his apparent dislike for Bush. The article states, “For all of Gore’s good answers, his feelings for Bush was his fatal flaw. You can’t afford to look across the stage with that kind of contempt at someone who millions of people have nominated as their standard-bearer, and not have it bleed over to the audience and have them see you negatively” (Healy). It’s clear that just like Gore and Bush, Hillary and Trump don’t like each other very much. Hillary is not a very charismatic person by popular opinion. After her “deplorables” comment about Trump’s staff, you can tell she has a huge distaste for him but she certainly did not show it like Gore did. In fact she was likeable. She was reserved when Trump interrupted her and was very well-prepared. Hillary seemed to prepare by determining her target audience. In Political Campaign Communication, the authors explain that debate audiences, “Typically, they will be the same as the normal campaign target audiences. However, due to the unusual size of the audience, it is possible that the candidate may choose to go after a new target group of voters during a debate” (Trent, Friedenberg, and Robert 205). I think Hillary did this by understanding and knowing that she may not be liked to a certain audience that is down the middle on the candidates. She made herself more charismatic and therefore, appealed to that audience she needed. She smiled more and showed more personality while also being collected. In support, I think she was successful at this because I thought she was likable, and I don’t like her. If that isn’t proof that she targeted a different audience then I’m not sure what is! I saw an overwhelmed bumbling Trump fighting with a calm and collected well-spoken woman.
Theoretically, if I were a debate coach my advice would be focused on Trump. Trump needs to keep his cool. A Vox article said Trump interrupted Hillary 51 times compared to her 17 (Crockett and Frostenson). He’s got to keep it together! He did well in the beginning but when he lost it, there was no getting it back. I think Trump needs to prep better. He sniffled and shouted his way through the debate so much, I wonder if he was even prepped at all. He needs to focus on the details of his ideas and be able to see details and big picture so he can relate the two. He needs to know them front to back. His strategy needs to be devising and rehearsing possible answers. Again from Political Campaign Communication, “candidates must work out answers to possible questions and practice them” (Trent, Friedenberg, and Robert 205). If Trump knows his stuff he won’t get as flustered and he’ll be more composed and put together. People will take him more seriously. He also has the lower hand now so he can really come in and surprise people next debate. He’s so unpredictable for all we know, this could be part of his plan. He could have done poorly so next debate he can blow us all away. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.
Works Cited
DeleteCrockett, Emily and Sarah Frostenson, "Trump Interrupted Clinton 25 Times in the First 26 Minutes of the Debate." Vox 26 Sept. 2016. Web.
Healy, Patrick. "Debacle: What Al Gore’s First Debate Against George W. Bush CanTeach Hillary Clinton." New York Times 25 Sept. 2016. Web.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Being prepared for a debate is crucial for the candidates. Last night we saw that one was prepared and the other was not. Was last night a proper debate? Likely not. Debates have not followed the criteria since the 1960s when debates first became televised. As we saw last night current political debates are missing many of elements of a true debate. The main element being, “The contestants are closely matched. If one contestant is vastly brighter, more fluent, more poised, more knowledgeable, and better prepared, no real debate can take place” (Trent et al 259). If Donald Trump prepared he may have been a better match for Hillary Clinton. He criticized her for putting in so much preparation to which she responded, “I’m prepared to be president.” Donald would have done better in a typical old debate. He questions people and he’s not afraid to confront them. This style did not work in this current political debate because they are so structured. He looked and sounded like utter chaos. Gripping the podium struggling to keep his temper, Trump was all over the place.
ReplyDeleteBefore any debate the key is to downplay what will actually take place. Lowering the public’s expectations for this debate wasn’t difficult for the most hated candidates ever in a presidential election. However, roughly 80 million viewers were excited enough to tune in. Hillary’s strategies were very precise down to what she called her opponent, “Donald”. Nobody calls him Donald at Trump tower they all call him Mr. Trump (Johnson). Her goal was to show everyone that she had the stamina to be president of the United States. Donald had to convince the nation that he had a very good temperament. Which he claimed, several times, was better than Hillary’s as she stood there poised and collected. He lost his temperament that night interrupting Hillary 25 times in 26 minutes and that was just the beginning (Crockett). Even though Hillary was expected to resemble Al Gore during his debate with President G.W. Bush she did not. She threw the illness rumors to rest and looked healthy as ever next to sniffling Donald. Her preparation clearly paid off last night.
For the next debates I would recommend that Trump find a better strategy. He needs to keep his cool on stage. The undecided voters are not going to think positively of someone who can’t keep their temper. However, the bar has been set rather low for Donald so if can just act slightly calmer it would affect him positively. I would not recommend dropping out of the debates because that would reflect badly on him and make him seem cowardice. Hillary may have set the bar a little too high she has to keep up that stamina and be prepared for whatever Donald has coming. He is still unpredictable and she should not relax just yet.
Crockett, Emily. "Trump Interrupted Clinton 25 times in the First 26 Minutes of the
DeleteDebate." Vox. Vox Media, 26 Sept. 2016. Web. 28 Sept. 2016.
Johnson, Jenna. "Trump Yells and Sniffs His Way Through the First 2016 Presidential Debate." Washington Post 26 Sept. 2016. Web.
Trent, Judith S.; Friedenberg, Robert V.; Denton, Robert E., Jr. (2011-08-16). Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices (Communication, Media, and Politics) (p. 259). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Kindle Edition.
From my personal view, it seemed that Trump was clearly playing defense, especially when challenged about his beliefs on New York’s “stop-and-frisk” policy and whether or not he claimed global warming was invented by China to harm US industry. Trump was also, in some ways, contradictive. For instance, he was quoted as stating that Clinton “doesn’t have the look” and “doesn’t have the stamina” to be president, yet during the entire debate was sweating, sniffing, and drinking lots of water while Clinton remained much more composed and postured (Burleigh). I think this highly discredit’s Trump – if you’re going to accuse Clinton of being unfit, then at least don’t look unfit yourself. Clinton, on the other hand, was fairly impressive. Even though I think of her as a shady politician, she looked energetic and at least seemed like she knew what she was talking about. In addition, she was much more respectful to Trump than he was to her. Clinton was interrupted by Trump a total of 51 times, while Clinton interrupted Trump only 17 times (Crockett). In fact, Trump interrupted Clinton 25 times in the first 26 minutes of the debate (Crockett). Clinton remaining mannerly during the debate definitely positively affected her image, while Trump’s constant interruptions came off as rude and awkward.
ReplyDeleteOur text outlines a couple strategies that the candidates employed on Monday night. One of these strategies was to lower expectations. If a candidate can successfully lower the expectations of himself or herself before the debate, then “it may not take a strong effort on the part of the candidate to appear to have done well” and if the candidate does well, then the debate “may be perceived as a major victory” (Trent et al 202). This is a strategy that was employed by Trump, such as when he announced in the days leading up to the event that he was not preparing for the event.
The tactics used by the candidates this year are similar to ones used in debates in the past. For example, George Bush used Trump’s strategy of lowering expectations in the 2000 election. While Gore was raising his viewer’s expectations, Bush was making it known that he wasn’t the best debater and setting the bar low for the debate. Because his expectations were low, Bush “benefited from the debate more than Gore” because it was much easier for him to impress viewers than it was for his opponent (Trent et al 203). Another similarity arises when comparing Hillary to Obama in the 2012 election. During that debate, Obama “sought to portray himself as the champion of the middle class by implication that Governor Romney was more interested in the wealthy” (212). Hillary does this by not only appealing to the middle class, but by also suggesting that Trump’s political interests are rooted in helping wealthy business owners as well
If I were Hillary’s debate coach, I would advise her to continue doing what she is doing – showing up to debates looking preparing and allowing trump to continue to bury his own political grave. If I were Trump’s debate coach, I would have him have him actually prepare somewhat for the next debate while still advertising that he isn’t preparing. This way his expectations stay seriously low, while his preparation could help impress during the next debate. I would advise Trump to find a way to start discrediting Hillary. Hillary looked very presidential at the debate, despite the fact that she has been involved in numerous illegal scandals, such as her email scandal. By discrediting her, Trump could potentially gain new voters.
Works Cited:
DeleteBurleigh, Nina. “A Review of Donald Trump’s First Presidential Debate By Wealthy New Yorkers.” Newsweek. N.p., 27 Sept. 2016. Web. 29 Sept. 2016
Crockett, Emily. “Trump Interrupted Clinton 51 time at the Debate. She Interrupted Him Just 17 Times.” Vox. N.p., 27 Sept. 2016. Web. 29 Sept. 2016
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 8th edition. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016. Print.
If I were to be the debate coach for either Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump I would emphasize one piece of advice over all else: stick to the strategies. Whichever candidate can more acutely follow this advice will have the advantage throughout the debates. Trent et al. argue that, “Contemporary political debates that are heavily oriented toward the broadcast media audience are not in the tradition of issue-oriented debates.”(Trent et al. 195) That is why it is important for a candidate to follow strategies to display the style of leader she would be in office, otherwise voters will not feel comfortable electing her. This election will be taken by the candidate whom the American people feel will provide the most national and personal security. The primary talking points throughout this election indicate that Americans are unsure of the future, and will seek a comfort-food president to avoid the dangers of economic instability, inequality, and foreign threats such as ISIS and Russia. The pre, during, and post debate strategies ensure that a candidate can properly communicate who she is, the main issues she wishes to tackle from The Whitehouse, and why the voters should elect her. By following the strategies as closely as possible a candidate will be able to establish that they are a safe bet for America, or as some, if not most, would argue, the lesser of two evils.
ReplyDeleteIf I were to evaluate how well the candidates performed the task of convincing the American people that they are the safest option to vote for I would say both candidates need work, but Trump needs more. As I write this I do not believe that there has been enough time to evaluate the post-debate strategies, so therefore, I will keep my analysis focused on the pre-debate and during-debate strategies. As far as the pre-debate strategies are concerned both candidates did an excellent job lowering audience expectations: just look at their approval ratings in polls. As I watched the debate it become more and more evident that Clinton was more prepared for the debates, and therefore seemed more presidential. For proof of this look no further than this snippet of Andrew Romano’s article, Debate Scorecard – How Clinton and Trump Compared on Six Key Presidential Qualities, in which he states, “In moments like these, Trump sounded less like a potential president than like a student bluffing his way through an oral exam.” (Romano) This statement is a reaction to Trump’s difficulties with attempting to get points across, which often came of as nonsensical ramblings of a madman such as this gem trump delivered: “The security aspect of cyber is very, very tough […] And maybe it’s hardly doable.” Gaffes such as this paired with Trump’s ill-temperament juxtaposed with Clinton’s strong grasp on policy leave Trump looking similar to Nixon during the first televised Debate: like a fish out of water. Clinton, however, was able to execute, and created a moment by doing what Andrew Romano may consider to be her best impersonation of Reagan’s there you go again” with her line of the night: “I think Donald just criticized me for preparing for this debate […] And yes, I did. And you know what else I prepared for? I prepared to be president. And I think that’s a good thing.” This line displayed Clinton’s ability to identify her audience, (Americans seeking security) and her insight to strike a chord with them.
Romano, Andrew Debate Scorecard – How Clinton and Trump Compared on Six Key Presidential Qualities Yahoo News. Yahoo. 27 Sept. 2016. Web. 28 September 2016
Trent, Judith S. et al. Political Campaign Communication: Principles & Practices. 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
We can all agree that this election is much different than what we’ve seen before. The debate this past Monday was very anticipatory because this is the first time we saw Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on one stage, together, for 90 minutes with no break.
ReplyDeletePrior to the debate, there was a lot of media coverage on how prepared Donald trump would be due to this being his first debate with Hillary Clinton. The same went for how Clinton would strategize and prepare for Donald Trump’s outbursts. Initially, I believe, the trump campaign had wanted to undermine the preparedness of Donald Trump by “studying policy ideas and practiced answering questions” and not practicing a full debate (Colvin & Lemire). By undermining his preparedness, it puts candidates “in the best possible position to capitalize on a strong performance and to rationalize for a weak one.” (Trent et. al 202). This strategy would make Clinton seem as though she’s preparing too much. Granted, her campaign did not pull back on undermining how much she was practicing. She “cleared her schedule on multiple days to test arguments” and was “prepping ways to use Mr. Trumps words against him for the debate” (Nelson and Meckler).
When the debate night approached, I initially predicted that Clinton had over prepared for the debate. While I predicted Donald Trump may have prepared well enough to have a presidential stature during the debate. During the first 20 minutes, Donald Trump did provide policy driven, strong held arguments against Clinton. While for Hillary Clinton, she came prepared with her own term “Trumped-up Trickle Down” which on her part was clever. It’s a term that can be memorable about the debate. On the subject of body language, Trump had kept himself quiet, reduced his hand gestures and produced few facial expressions that showed anger and disgust. But that was all undone in under an hour. He reverted back to his constant interruptions, bombast hand gestures, uncontrollable facial expressions and incoherent answers. While Hillary stood firmly, smiled often, took the time to answer questions, was a little aggressive and, best of all, had great clever responses (Chapter 11 reference, prepared to be president). I think for Clinton, she gained a lot of points for keeping herself level headed as well.
The post-debate, “who won the debate” question definitely went to Hillary Clinton. Many major media networks initially declared it a tie. Some said that it leaned towards Clinton; some said it leaned towards Trump. However, both candidates equally showed new presidential characteristics that benefited them tremendously.
There is a lot to consider as the next debate approaches. Being that it is a town hall debate, body language, movement and spatial awareness is an important factor that audiences will be viewing. The advisement for Donald Trump is to practice a full-length debate, to be aware of when he is losing his cool and study more than just his main policy areas. As for Hillary Clinton, she should not feel comfortable with her win in the first debate, and prepare for the debate as she would with an emphasis on body language.
Works cited;
DeleteColvin, Jill, and Jonathon Lemire. "Trump’s Unconventional Debate Prep Skips Mock
Debates." PBS. PBS, 24 Sept. 2012. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
Nelson, Colleen, and Laura Meckler. "Hillary Clinton Prepping for Two Trumps at
Debate." WSJ. Wsj.com, 20 Sept. 2016. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, Robert E. Denton. Political Campaign
Communication: Principles and Practices. 8th ed. New York: Praeger, 2016. Print
It is clear that the outcome of the first debate has the most impact on any election. It can set the tone for the rest of the debates and even the rest of the election cycle. The first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton was heated, and they both were strategic to a degree. In the weeks leading up to the debate, the American public had low expectations of Trump doing well against Hillary Clinton. She is a very seasoned politician and this was not her first one on one debate. So she was expected to win. However, the lowering expectations is exactly what the Trump campaign wanted for the debate. If the bar is set low, it does not take that much to exceed expectations. Furthermore, if Clinton is expected to dominate the debate from the beginning, than all the pressure is on her and the debate is hers to lose (Trent el al 202). Clinton’s strategy, being the experienced politician, was to study up, practice, and go into the debate prepared with rehearsed answers. She did exactly that from the very beginning. She greeted Trump by calling him by his first name. Reminding him and the millions watching that he has never had a title or held a political office the way that nearly every major party nominee has in the past. She prepared to do that to set the tone for the next 90 minutes. By preparing answers and reviewing your opponents history you can really be seen as a much more intelligent candidate. Candidates have used the same tactics in many previous debates. Before the first 2012 presidential debate, President Obama’s campaign manager tried to lower the expectations of Obama’s performance by talking to the media about how great of a debater Mitt Romney was in comparison to the president. Even the President himself said at a campaign rally that Romney “was a good debater” (Trent el al 204). In the Trump vs. Clinton debate, there was a noticeable amount of changes in facial expressions and body language. This can have a more significant impact on the outcome of the debate than most people think. There were countless times that Clinton formed forced smiles at some of Trump’s comments. Trump himself started out calm in the beginning of the debate, but was very soon moving around at the podium quite a bit and squinting his face in his frustration (Gamio and Uhrmacher). In the first debate of 2000, Al Gore received a poor outcome from his constant shrugging and sighing. If I had the opportunity to advise Trump for the next debate, I would tell him to rehearse more prepared answers. Now that he has exceeded the lowered expectations set before the debate, he needs to come at Hillary with more than he his usual stump speech buzz words and phrases. I would tell Hillary to not give Trump the chance to interrupt her as many times as he did in the last debate. He interrupted her about 30 times. If her goal is to get points across that she has rehearsed, she can’t give him the wiggle room to interrupt him.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Gamio, Lazaro, and Kevin Uhrmacher. "What Were Clinton’s and Trump’s Expressions Saying at the Debate? Let’s Go to the Tape." Washington Post 28 Sept. 2016
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
During Monday’s premiere presidential debate the two candidates clearly showed a dramatic difference in debate strategy. With the vast majority of post-debate analysis giving the win to Clinton, it appears clear that she dramatically out performed Donald Trump. She overall seemed more collected, knowledgeable, well prepared, and most importantly, presidential. Trump on the other hand, while he started off calm and collected, eventually seemed to get frustrated. He cut off both Lester Holt and Clinton numerous times, and several times flat out denied the claims of the moderator when he was fact checked. Devising and rehearsing possible answers is a hugely important step in pre-debate preparation. It seems as if this was something that Clinton took very seriously, as she was absent from campaigning for several days prior to the debates. This seems like it paid off, just like it says in the textbook “preparing for a debate may well mean curtailing other campaign activity for a few days, but given the attention normally focused on the debates, this sacrifice would seem worthwhile” (Trent et. al. 206). Clinton seemed prepared to take on Trump in a much more professional manner than his GOP opponents had attempted during the primaries. Hillary was able to establish her image by presenting herself in what could be considered an active leadership style. She confidently spoke of policy, plans, and the shortcomings of her opponent. She even managed to add some humor, which is something that she has seemed to struggle with in the past. The New York Times accurately predicted Clinton’s strategy when they said “she needs the huge television audience to see him as temperamentally unfit for the presidency, and that she has the power to unhinge him” (Healy et al). In the beginning, Trump appeared as if he was going to remain calm and poised throughout the debate. However Clinton got under his skin, and soon he was back to interruptions and nonsensical answers. The audience laughed when Trump claimed that he has a strong temperament, making Clinton’s case for her.
ReplyDeleteTrump on the other hand seemed significantly less well prepared. He had not taken any significant breaks from campaigning to prepare for the debate, as he probably felt confident after ‘winning’ so many debates in the primaries. Starting out he seemed very collected and even calm, he laid out a strong opening statement and he hit Clinton hard over the TPP. Everybody knows that his theme is “Make America Great Again” and his talking points definitely seemed to support this theme. This is a great strategy, as Trent points out “developing an overall thesis, which can be presented in opening and closing statements and repeat ably reinforced by the response to many specific issues, is a highly effective strategy” (Trent et al 210). Trump however, seemed to break away from his theme and instead just started to argue. He very much lost his cool that he presented early on in the debate. When it came down to the issues, Trump dodged talking about the facts and turned the questions into an ideological battle. This made him seem under-informed next to Clinton, who has answers seemingly prepared for many questions. This ultimately took away from his presidential image and made him seem immature, especially considering that Vox writers noticed “By the end of the debate, Trump had interrupted Clinton three times more than she interrupted him — 51 interruptions, compared to Clinton’s 17” (Crockett and Frostenson). If I were to advise Trump for his next debate I would tell him to take a page from Clinton’s book. He needs to prepare, and he needs to be confident enough on the subject matter that Clinton cannot get under his skin. If he remains calm and presidential then he can put up a much better fight.
Works Cited
DeleteCrockett, Emily. "Trump Interrupted Clinton 25 times in the First 26 Minutes of the
Debate." Vox. Vox Media, 26 Sept. 2016. Web. 28 Sept. 2016.
Healy, Patrick, Amy Chozick, and Maggie Haberman. "Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Sept. 2016. Web. 27 Sept. 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
ReplyDeleteMonday night’s debate averaged 84 million viewers, which made it the most-watched presidential debate in American history (Stelter). As stated in chapter 8, “debates create conflict, the essence of drama” (Trent et al. 218). This election has been very nontraditional in various ways and so Americans were curious to see how the two candidates would interact with one another. It was the first time Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton debated each other and people of course wanted to hear what they were going to say to each other and how harshly they were going to criticize one another.
Overall, I thought Hillary Clinton did very well throughout the night. Clinton is typically a boring speaker and I thought she would be the same during the debate, but I was wrong. I had low expectations for her and she definitely exceeded my expectations. This is a pre-debate strategy used by many candidates. They seek to lower public expectations so that if he/she does well, it may be perceived as a major victory (Trent et al. 202). Clinton managed to stay very calm throughout the debate, despite being interrupted consistently by Trump. She was not boring, in fact, she had many humorous remarks. She came off as very well prepared and knowledgeable. She had many great quotes from the night and one of my favorites was when she said, “I prepared for this debate. And I prepared to be president.” She also came off as much more experienced than Trump, like when she said she visited 112 countries during her time as Secretary of State. Another debate strategy mentioned in the book is devising and rehearsing possible answers. “Candidates must work out answers to possible questions and practice them” and “practice the answers the answers in a situation as similar to the real one as possible” (Trent et al. 205). Clinton poured herself into debate prep, wrote out answers, and tested attack lines on the campaign trail (Healy et al.) She appeared as physically healthy and smiled more than she typically does. She also jotted down notes as Trump spoke and didn’t even need to drink water. It was clear that Clinton dedicated lots of time and effort preparing for the debate and I think it truly paid off.
I was surprised at how well Trump did in the beginning. He asked if he was allowed to call Clinton “Secretary Clinton” and I was shocked because I hardly see him being respectful. He managed to remain calm and put together for the first 25 minutes and then his anger and frustration became apparent. Once Lester Holt asked questions related to foreign policy, it was clear that he did not know what he was talking about. He would get more and more frustrated and it was apparent that he had spent little time preparing for the debate. I also thought he made a fool out of himself when he said he has the “temperament” to be president. One of Trump’s debate strategies was to continue developing an image of himself as “the law and order candidate.” He called out Clinton for refusing to use the three words “law and order” and went on to explain why he is fit for protecting and keeping America safe.
DeleteClinton tried to develop a very different image for herself. She wanted to appear as an experienced leader, similar to how Obama consistently talked about what he had done and what he wished to do (Trent et al. 211). He attempted to portray himself as an activist leader who would move the country forward and Clinton took a very similar approach on Monday night (Trent et al. 211). Compared to Obama’s first debate against Mitt Romney, Clinton was much more energetic and put together. Though I have always been impressed with Obama’s public speaking and debating skills, I thought she did a great job. She came off as respectful, confident, and knowledgeable on various issues. A post-debate strategy that Clinton has already implemented is using ads to underscore debate themes. I’ve already seen an advertisement paid for by a pro-Clinton superPAC, which revolves around the idea that Trump is unfit to be president because he doesn’t have the proper “temperament.” Compared to previous republican candidates, I think Trump did an awful job. Something that really struck me was his lack of empathy. When race relations were brought up by Lester Holt, Trump related the events to his businesses. He spoke about the events in Charlotte, North Carolina as well as countless shootings in Chicago and said he has businesses there. It came off as him only caring about recent events and tragedies there because of his investments in those locations.
If I had to give advice to Trump for the next debate, I would tell him to be more conscious of his facial expressions and tone. It was very clear on television when Clinton was getting under his skin. He grasped the podium and squinted and it made him look bad. I would also advise him to actually prepare by having a duplicated stage, similar to what Obama’s advisors did for him in 2008. He should spend less time at rallies and more time studying foreign policy following up to the next debate, like Clinton did. As for Clinton, I would advise her to keep on practicing zingers and strong comebacks. It helps her come off as less “boring” and more appealing on television. If she continues with a similar approach in future debates, I think she will continue to do better in the polls and eventually come November.
Works Cited
DeleteHealy, Patrick, Amy Chozick, and Maggie Haberman. "Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, Too." The New York Times. The New York Times, 23 Sept. 2016. Web. 28 Sept. 2016.
Stelter, Brian. "Debate Breaks Record as Most-watched in U.S. History." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 27 Sept. 2016. Web. 28 Sept. 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. Print.
The debate on Monday night lived up to its hype and was quite the spectacle. Both candidates approached campaigning right from the start from two different angles, one having a more aggressive style and the other sticking to more of the traditions. One candidate has more experience in the entertainment industry and knows how to manipulate the camera, while the other candidate has more experience in the professional policy world. A New York Times article written about the two candidate’s debate prep strategies highlights that Trump was advised to contain himself and not get too defensive, much like he might on entertainment TV. Expectations for this debate were high, most likely because of the media attention surrounding the candidates and the track record both of them carry. There were a few questions about Clinton, however, considering her recent bout with sickness. Some questioned if she had the stamina to stand for 90 minutes and field questions. Trent writes in regards to prefacing a speech, "If prior expectations are low, then it may not take a strong effort on the part of the candidate to appear to have done well" (Trent, 202).
ReplyDeleteThough it was not watched as much as the Superbowl, there were still impressive statistics. 84 million people tuned in, according to Nielsen ratings. Syracuse.com published an article following the debate which had statistics for different markets. New York City raked in the highest rating at 55.1, while local Hartford had a 53.4 rating. Perhaps the high ratings were a result of the lack of moderation that occurred during this debate from Lester Holt. Donald Trump’s campaign manager, Kellyanne Conway, would disagree, as she thought Holt did a great job saying, “I thought he did a great job as the moderator under tough circumstances” (Guthrie). By letting both candidates have control, it turned in to entertainment rather than a serious debate just because of the nature of the two personalities. The lack of moderation might’ve played to Trump’s advantage after reading about his debate prep strategies in the New York Times article. “He has paid only cursory attention to briefing materials. He has refused to use lecterns in mock debate sessions, despite the urging of his advisers. He prefers spitballing ideas with his team rather than honing them into crisp, two-minute answers.” (Healy et al). Less moderation means less enforcement to stay on subject.
Going in to their next debate, I would advise Donald Trump to stay clear of trying to impress people with his business smarts because in the end, it seemed to just hurt him. Right out of the gate he was talking about China, Mexico, and how well his company is doing. He didn’t relate well to those who don’t know much about business. Clinton, on the other hand, spoke in terms that were easy to understand and was very relatable. I would advise that she keep the same temperament and interrupt Trump in a professional manner when he takes her speaking time. By being assertive but polite, it shows us that she can stand her ground.
Works Cited:
DeleteAxe, Brent. "Presidential debate ratings: How many watched Trump vs. Clinton." Sytacuse. 27 Sept. 2016. Web. 29 Sept. 2016
Healy, Patrick, Amy Chozick, and Maggie Haberman. "Debate Prep? Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump Differ on That, too." The New York Times. 23 Sept. 2016. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.
Trent, Judith, Robert Friedenberg, and Robert Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
The 2016 race to the White House is already going down in history as one of the most memorable elections to date. We saw Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton take center stage on Monday for the first debate of the 2016 lineup. For many, they said Hillary Clinton won. She was focused, smart, quick, and gave the people what they wanted. Trump on the other hand didn’t seem as prepared as he could have been, missing golden opportunities to bash Hillary Clinton for her scandals. But, in the end I feel polls and assessments show that Clinton won was because for her preparedness and debate strategies. But both candidates’ brought with them strengths and weaknesses. I feel there was no clear winner.
ReplyDeleteFor the first half hour Trumps performance was strong. He answered each question with thought and got right to the point. He was being polite in his own way asking “Secretary Clinton- yes, is that OKAY?” Good. I want you to be very happy. It’s very important to me” ( Blake). But after 15 minutes, he let Clinton get under his skin and he started spiral down and act out. For Clinton, she commanded the stage and acted composed the whole time, getting under Donald Trumps skin while keeping her composure. I feel this has to do with her debate preparedness and strategies. Donald Trump is known for saying how he feels off the cuff, but in this setting being prepared may be his best friend. Although Clinton came off as robotic and over rehearsed at times it may have worked in her favor. Because Trump didn’t practice like Clinton did, I feel his performance in the beginning was strong, but he missed prime opportunities to call Clinton out on her many insane scandals. For example, he should have brought up her emails, server, Benghazi, The Clinton Foundation, Bubba Foundation, and so much more. I feel he didn’t have a clear strategy and let her off too easy.
Political Campaign Communications book lays out three debate strategy stages. The first is pre-debate strategies lowering public’s expectations; the second is determining the target audience, and lastly devising and rehearsing possible answers. ( Trent et al 202). For Trump, was this his plan to the public’s expectations and come out with a bang next time? If I was on Donald Trumps advising team, I would say that he needs to speak at the next debate. There have been rumors going around that he wasn’t going to speak. He needs to practice so next time Hillary Clinton comes at him he can have thoughtful and concise answers that wont get him in trouble with the media and people. He needs to have a plan on how he is going to bring out Clintons faults. She may have said she is ready for the presidency, but if he wants to become president he needs to show the people that this is false. For Clinton, I think she still needs to be more personable and not as robotic. No one wants a President who reads off a teleprompter or someone who you can’t connect with.
Works Cited:
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Blake, Aaron. "The First Trump-Clinton Presidential Debate Transcript, Annotated." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 26 Sept. 2016. Web. 29 Sept. 2016.