Introduction
The world of politics is complicated indeed, and all its participants should follow a number of rules, consider special ethics, and believe in personal opportunities respecting the abilities of the others. The case study aims at discussing the political interests, motivations, and opinions explained in the article by Mullinix. The main argument is all about the necessity to understand how different political figures are able to use their knowledge to achieve the best results in their careers. Debate evaluations help the method that is used in the article to comprehend the main idea of presidential debates and their effects on society.
The analysis of the article and its findings explains the worth of communication effects, campaigns, and the opinions offered. The paper states that the presidential debates become a good example of a political tool that provides the candidates with a chance to display their skills and appeal to the electorate’s demands more effectively than the opposition in spite of the fact that not all of the electorate can be easily swayed by the chosen activities.
Analysis
There are a lot of mitigating factors that influence the decisions we make every day as individuals. These factors affect our overall decision patterns as well as our predispositions while choosing our individual stances on a number of important issues. According to Mullinix, successful presidential candidates can appeal to these preferences and reinforce the electorate’s individual opinions regardless of their party affiliations (272).
Therefore, electoral success depends on a candidate’s ability to argue the issues and discuss them with the representatives of the opposition. The candidate should not interfere with the electorate’s propensity for motivated reasoning, as their individual attitudes depend on for the formation of personal opinions (Mullinix 273). However, all candidates should be careful with alienate sections of the electorate, try to dominate without neglecting the morals, and accept the validity of their arguments with respect.
In politics, some individuals are able to formulate arguments and counterarguments better than the others, and research indicates that this is not a random occurrence. It depends highly on an individual’s interest in politics and leads to the establishment of political sophistication in those with a lot of political interest (Mullinix 274). Such individuals can form counterarguments better than their less interested counterparts and have more experience and familiarity with the political issues. Therefore, they are good at presidential debates due to their extensive knowledge of the issues as well as their ability to argue against the information that is inconsistent with their personal opinions and attitudes (Mullinix 274). The candidates can also influence the amount of support that they get as a result of their participation in presidential debates utilizing their proper communication skills.
Persuasion is considered to be a vital element of human communication as well as a part of a political scene. A presidential candidate can place a candidate in a position to win an election, especially if the candidate appeals to the bulk of the electorate. However, the reinforcing effects of political debates can further detriment a candidate’s standing with the electorate. The example of Obama-McCain debates in 2008 may be used to understand the essence of the issue. Republicans increased their negative feelings towards Obama significantly, while Democrats increased their support for him (Mullinix 278). In his turn, McCain lost a lot of ground with Democrats as he gained very little support from his fellow Republicans (Mullinix 279). Mullinx also notes that the individuals, who are less interested in politics, may also be less prone to reinforcement effects due to such public debates and sided with the candidates, who are not from their parties (280).
The candidates should understand the electorate’s interest in politics since the more interested individuals are, the more likely they are eager to watch presidential debates (Mullinix 284). While some representatives of the electorate team share their loyalty between the parties that the presidential candidates represent, some individuals bear no party affiliations whatsoever. Unlike such partisan individuals, the independents have no party affiliation and become less affected by the partisan interests while making their political decisions (Mullinix 282).
As a result, they cannot make decisions based on their needs to reinforce their opinions and, instead, base their decisions on the information that the candidates present. Therefore, they can engage more wholesomely with the debate, and their lack of partisan interests means that they are less likely to screen information that does not appeal to them (Mullinix 284). According to Mullinix, this group is also able to be more objective after the presidential election, and such individuals do not change their attitudes towards the candidates once they are elected (284).
Conclusion
Presidential debates are just as important as other campaigning tools for the candidates, who are seeking to increase their legitimacy in the electorate’s eyes. While most of the electorate tend to choose their preferred candidate beforehand, it is possible to sway them by utilizing proper political communication. People, who are more interested in political matters, are able to provide strong counterarguments during presidential debates; still, many of them participate only to reinforce their belief systems. Party affiliations try to reduce the chances that individuals can use to accept the legitimacy of the information since such a decision would essentially mean that they initially support a flawed stance. However, it is possible to gain the support of the independents and opposition supporters by providing certain persuasive and well-informed arguments. All candidates should pay more attention to the presidential debates due to their abilities to reinforce a candidate’s legitimacy to the electorate.
Works Cited
Mullinix, Kevin J. “Presidential Debates, Partisan Motivations, and Political Interest.” Presidential Studies Quarterly 45.2 (2015): 270-289. Print.