On Thursday night, just two days after the New Hampshire primary, Democratic candidates Senator Bernie Sanders and Former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took the stage for their sixth presidential debate, on the campus of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, hosted by PBS News Hour and Facebook. Before this debate began, there was speculation circulating on how Clinton would do after her 22-point loss to Sanders in the New Hampshire primary. Would she remain calm during the debate and subtly make up for the votes she couldn't get in New Hampshire or would she come out blazing with a need to succeed?
It turns out Clinton used both implicit and explicit tactics to show she has what it takes to become America's next president. She took to the stage in seemingly ready to go with an opening statement that focused on breaking down all of the barriers that are in the way of the American people who are just trying to get ahead. Sanders' opening statement was similar to a point; instead he focused more on the idea that just 9 months ago he was a virtually unknown candidate and now he has been able to insight a political revolution against the establishment of the Democratic Party. The first part of the debate focused on how each candidate saw the role of the federal government in everyday Americans lives. Sanders at first did not answer this question directly but rather danced around it saying that he wanted to guarantee health care, public education, and good infrastructure, essentially implying that the federal government would grow under his presidency. Clinton meanwhile explicitly stated that under her administration the federal government would increase in size by about 40%. She also agreed with Sanders goal to guarantee health care to Americans, but didn't understand why there needed to be another health care debate in the country and why the plan that he proposes doesn't seem to add up monetarily. She instead proposed that we continue on the path that the Affordable Care Act provides, a fight she said she has been fighting since it was called "Hillarycare." The debate continued with questions surrounding Social Security, homeland security, and immigration, all important issues that both Sanders and Clinton spent time discussing their plans to solve in much more detail than it seems the Republicans tend to do when they debate.
However, some of the moments that stood out to the media were not when Clinton or Sanders described their differences on immigration or how they want to fix the growing issue of Social Security, but how each candidate conducted themselves during the debate. In a world where the 30-second soundbite could be the most news an American gets during the day, candidates must be perfectly poised 24/7 so they can get the most appealing shot on replay. To some, like myself, Clinton appeared confident and knowledgeable about the issues at hand while other such as the prominent conservative newspaper The National Review thought otherwise. They thought Clinton had a "sleepy showing" and that "she tried to trip up Sanders with detailed policy answers...but caught in a defensive crouch and struggling to explain her own campaign's shortcomings, she never really found the opening she needed." In comparison, The National Review painted Sanders as a winner whenever he said something that could criticize Clinton or put her on the defensive such as immigration reform or her ties to Wall Street with phrasing such as "he showed up" and the idea that he was "forcefully" answering questions. By using specific language the media has the ability to influence voters by describing a candidate either in a flattering or unflattering light.
Another point that the media tends to focus on, specifically when talking about the Democratic race for president, is the gender difference between Clinton and Sanders. Clinton was asked during the debate why such a large percentage of female voters were turning out in support of her opponent Sanders, rather than her. In my opinion she responded with one of the best answers I have heard when listening to a political debate on gender. Clinton essentially said that just because you are a female, that doesn't mean that it is necessary for you to vote for me, the female candidate. She instead said that women have the right to choose who they want to vote for based on their own ideals and directed the conversation to one focused on raising the standard of equality for women in this country. This answer was a refreshing break from the notion that all women must vote for Hillary Clinton based on their gender and a relatively good response to the quote from Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright who said that "there's a special place in hell for women who don't help each other."
Overall, Thursday's Democratic Debate appeared to be much more substantive than the Republican Debates have been in recent weeks. Perhaps that's due to the candidates who appear on stage, but I think that it also has to do with the media that surrounds each parties presidential nominees. Clinton was portrayed as the De facto nominee and given free media attention for months before Sanders and his grassroots momentum grew into a national campaign gaining their own media attention, that for both candidates tends to appear slightly more professional than that of the Republicans. In contrast, the Republicans tend to be portrayed as a bit of a circus with multiple clowns running around stage at any given time. So as a student of political science I have a challenge from you: read news articles that go against what you normally believe. Try to dig deep and figure out how much of what the candidates say is really true by using sources such as FactCheck.org. This is something I plan on doing for the remainder of this presidential debate because to be an informed voting citizen you need to gather actual information from reputable sites, not just what the biased media outlets repeat every hour.
No comments:
Post a Comment