In a sit-down interview, Sam Nelson, director of the Cornell Forensics Society (Speech and Debate), and Senior Lecturer in the Cornell Forensics Department, offered his insight and unique perspective on the three recent presidential debates.
Nelson indicated that the secret of every academic debate is not necessarily to persuade in general, but merely to persuade a uniquely defined and targeted audience, and to tailor one’s arguments with that specific audience in mind.
“In non-critical debates, or in front of a political audience, the rationale for engagement is somewhat different,” noted Nelson. The vast majority of the individuals in the audience already know who they will vote for before the debate is even announced. But they are watching in order to determine why they will vote as they plan to.
Thus, observers of a political debate are “watching simply because they are in search of clear reasons to vote for the candidate they already know they’ll be supporting,” he added. They merely watch to affirm a decision that has already been made in their minds. Hence, there are a very small percentage of voters who base their decisions on who actually “wins” the televised debates.
“Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on your political perspective, that three percent of voters is potentially critical in American elections, especially because of the importance of undecideds in battleground states,” cautioned Nelson.
Nelson’s rapid but cogent assessment was that Romney arguably won all three debates, or at least secured a 2-1 victory overall.
After all, his performances appeared (1) sufficiently concrete (impressive) and (2) he made no major gaffes. Based on the conventional criteria for winning presidential debates, he obviously won the first debate, in which he aggressively pursued Obama, who was decidedly weak in style and lacked animation. Romney’s entire crisp delivery, demeanor, presence and temperament appeared presidential. This carried over into the second debate; although Obama “fought back hard,” Romney was merely required to hold his own (rhetorically) sufficiently while still appearing presidential.
As for the foreign policy debate, Romney, who might have initially appeared to be at a disadvantage, fulfilled his role in that he didn’t show considerable weakness in substance, he stood toe-to-toe with the president on his own turf in a substantive manner, he didn’t make any obvious blunders, and he “appeared reasonably intelligent.”
The unspoken implication, which was the subtext of Nelson’s analysis throughout the interview, is that Romney’s debate performances did not offer his supporters – and even undecideds – any glaring reasons not to vote for him, given the criteria set forth here. In fact, he did quite the contrary.
Roberto Matos is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He can be reached at rlm387@cornell.edu.