Presidential Primary Debates Analysis

For many years since 1879 citizens of the United States wait in line to vote for the next great president who will help the country stand tall for another four years. But the mistake doesn’t lie in who you vote for, but what you are voting for and supporting. We sometimes ask ourselves, “what does each party do?” or “what are their beliefs for our country?”

When George Washington was elected President in 1789 by members of the fledgling United States of America, he was setting into motion a tradition that has stood the test of over 225 years - the presidential election. Even as the United States has seen dozens of wars, made hundreds of scientific advances, and selected thousands of politicians to seats everywhere from small town councils to Congress, the principles of the election have remained the same; the people band together to determine who will best protect their interests at home and assure that the US will always remain on top in foreign policy. Oftentimes, this is found to be a difficult decision, as public opinion is constantly wavering. One sees this in action particularly during the 1992 election - a battle of wills between Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ross Perot; complete with lead changes, major vote swings, and Perot’s unprecedented initial success - ultimately a false alarm to the bipartisan establishment.

We hold debates between the Republican and Democrats before the primaries, and then we hold debates between the two remaining presidential candidates. Upon first glance it may appear that the presidential debates are held to get to know the candidate’s positions on the various issues that are important to the American people; however, the format of the debates make it difficult to accomplish that task. Instead, it is more plausible that these debates are held in order to discover what the candidates are like personally because the debates provide ample opportunities for us to discover the candidate’s values. Ultimately, we want to find out the values that these potential presidents have because we want someone we trust to lead the

Jay Van Bavel’s 2016 article addresses an important and relevant issue: voters’ deeply divided perceptions of presidential candidates. According to Bavel, approximately 70 million viewers tuned in to watch the final presidential debate on October 19, 2016. In theory, one would be valid in assuming that while processing such an event, everyone should be experiencing the same reality—all are watching the same debate, hearing the same words said by the same people. Strangely, however, this is not the case: in reality, Republicans and Democrats concluded the debates with drastically separate conclusions on the candidates. According to a CNN poll referenced to within Bavel’s article, Hillary Clinton won the first debate, with 67% compared to Donald Trump’s 27%. However, a further examination of these statistics reveals an obvious divergence between the democratic and republican parties. According to democrats, Clinton won (89% to 5%); according to republicans, Trump won (54% to 28%). Why is there such a great divide when both parties were presented with the exact same information? People do not see the world objectively—without the influence of personal biases. Instead, people reinforce the goals and values of the partisan group they identify with, allowing the party’s views to color their perceptions of identical information (Bavel).

Because truth contains the power to bring our nation together, prosperity to our citizens, and purpose to our role as a nation, I seek to let it be my guide in policy. As I compete in Congressional Debate, I draft legislation that knows no party, with policy that adjusts to the current geopolitical landscape. True conservatism is not exhaustive conservative policy. True conservatism responds to the voice of the nation at that time. One day after debate, one of my opponents commended me for flexibility and thoughtfulness in debate. That commendation means more to me than any first place award. Participating in Congressional Debate is one of the most fulfilling parts of my life. In the debate chamber, I speak not for points or awards, but to guide people to truth. I speak not always to persuade or convince, but to share perspectives that create the kind of dynamic existence President Coolidge achieved in his life, constant examination of policy for his constituents. My desire is that my speeches do not fool others into supporting one policy over another. My desire is to share policy options, only for the most effective to be chosen at the end of the round. This is not always the policy on which behalf I spoke – dynamic

Amidst the past eight years of lackluster economic advancement, America’s prowess and respect declining worldwide, increasing government involvement in daily lives, and a President seemingly unwilling to take a solid stance on a the global threat of terrorism, the transfer of power between political parties in the White House is not so stunning. Due to the two-party system, this is not an unprecedented phenomenon. The American people are constantly seeking a political party to garner their attention and adapt to changing times, opinions, demographics, and attitudes (Cohen) and this results in the alternation of power between the two key political parties.

In his State of the Union Address for 2016, Barack Obama uses logical and ethical arguments to emphasize shared ground rather than partisan disputes. He also taps into the audience’s desire to feel better about themselves and their country. By using humor and irony, Obama paints his opponents into corners, out of which it would require outrageous extremism to effectively squirm away. At its best, this approach demonstrates how much Americans actually have in common in a culture dominated by ideologically polarized cable-news channels, Facebook, and cultural tribes that increasingly live and socialize apart from one another. The president's technique throughout the speech is to frame issues through a rhetorical jujitsu to persuade his opponents,

Every four years, American citizens have the opportunity to elect a president and vice-president to lead their country. Although we have developed an impressive system that allows the people to choose their president, a problem occurs when the citizens of the United States are divided on who they desire as president. As 40th president of the United States, Ronald Reagan gave a successful inauguration speech to the people by using rhetorical devices to address the ways he will fix the problems of the country. Reagan commences by addressing the opposing side and explains why we should put aside our differences and unite together to become one country. After addressing the issue of separation, he adequately uses emotion filled words, factual

This year’s election has reached new extremes that were never predicted to come about. We have two candidates that are both unfit to run America based on past occurrences and current ordeals. Along with this, there is bound to be arising conflict, yet who knew it would become as horrible as it is?

The upcoming Presidential Election is unlike any other. Two very different candidates with widely disparate political experience and personalities square off against each other in a bitter, contentious battle. Neither candidate seems very popular or likeable, yet one of them will be sworn in as President of the United States come January. In many ways this presidential election is unprecedented. The candidates from both parties are perceived as extremely unfavorable. And, while the establishment candidate Hillary Clinton currently leads the race, more recent polls show that her lead over her outsider opponent, reality television star and real estate magnate Donald Trump, is weakening. What is not unprecedented about this election, however,

A constructive national debate is something that is quite important to the functioning of the American system of democracy. A simple definition of democracy offered by the Merriam-Webster dictionary is that democracy is “a form of government in which people choose leaders by voting” (Merriam-Webster). Now, at a time of heightened awareness from many American people, the political debates in this country don’t seem to be providing them with good cogent arguments. Instead they are filled with fallacies and many falsehoods. In this essay I argue that the presidential debate system is currently not living up to its potential, and I will focus specifically on Republican primary debate that took place at the Reagan Library in Simi Valley, California. In doing so, I will argue that the main flaws in this cycle’s presidential primary debates were the amount of fallacies used, as structure used as well as provide some counter-arguments to my claims.

In the wake of the death of Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court Justice , Republican candidates had a debate and met in South Carolina for the 9th GOP debate.This debate mainly discussed what each candidate would do if they were to become president. During these debates, the candidates are given a chance to deliver their messages , and to help voters determine which candidate will be best as president. In the republican debate, each candidate was asked a question which they was expected to answer but somehow didn't appear to do so. While watching, I came to conclusion that some of the arguments were successful and others unsuccessful. In the first section of the debate when candidates Ben Carson, Donald

The adoption of rules is subject to change every election cycle and is determined by the Republican National Convention prior to the convention date. An example of this is Rule 40b of the RNC which was in effect in 2012, but has not been adopted for the 2016 convention in Cleveland. Under this rule, a candidate must have the support of a majority of the delegates of at least eight states in order to get the nomination. Rule 40e then states that if no candidate has received the majority of votes, "the chairman of the convention shall direct the roll of the states be called again and shall repeat the calling of the roll until a candidate shall have received a majority of the votes."

What topics are labeled important enough to be talked about during presidential debates? Topics such as terrorism and national security; the economy; jobs and employment; and the Affordable Care Act and Healthcare all managed to be the center of attention during all debates. What topics were almost entirely ignored? Topics such as gun policy; social issues like LGBT rights and abortion; and the environment and climate change were put to the side to instead talk about Hillary Clinton’s email scandal or the sexual assault charges brought up against Donald Trump. While terrorism and national security; the economy; jobs and employment; and the Affordable Care Act and Healthcare are all very important topics, but one topic that was ignored and should have been at the forefront of the debate was climate change.

The criteria that is important to me when it comes to voting is watching the presidential debates. The debates are important because it helps the voter get a better idea of who is running. Presidential debates allow the voter to see what the candidates stand for. Knowing what the candidates stand for can have a huge impact on who a voter votes for. Most voters that vote choose presidential nominees that best fit or line up with their beliefs. A candidate that values and supports what a voter believes in is more likely to get the vote of that