A functional analysis of the 2008 vice presidential debate: Biden versus Palin.

• Author: Benoit, William L.
• Position: Report

A FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF THE 2008 VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE: BIDEN VERSUS PALIN

The choice of a running mate is perhaps the single most important decision that a presidential candidate will make during the course of a campaign. The assassination of President John Kennedy elevated Vice President Lyndon Johnson to the presidency in 1963. After Richard Nixon resigned the presidency in 1973, Gerald Ford (who was appointed Vice President following Spiro Agnew's resignation) became the 38th President. There can be no doubt that America needs a Vice President who is qualified to serve as President if the need arises. Given the fact that presidential candidates are usually better known than their running mates, this makes the opportunity to learn about the vice presidential candidates through debates significant for voters.

Despite the importance of the office of vice president, however, the presidential debates tend to receive far more attention than do the vice presidential debates. Fewer debates have featured the vice presidential candidates. No vice presidential debates occurred in either 1960 or 1980; and in other years we have had two or three presidential debates but only one encounter between the candidates in the second spot on the ticket. Thus, through 2008, there have been eight debates between vice presidential candidates but twenty-six debates featuring the presidential candidates. Not surprisingly, the debates between the vice presidential candidates have also received significantly less attention from scholars. Numerous books (see, e.g., Benoit & Wells, 1996; Benoit, McHale, Hansen, Pier, & McGuire, 2003; Bishop, Meadow, & Jackson-Beeck, 1978; Bitzer & Rueter, 1980; Carlin & McKinney, 1994; Coleman, 2000; Dailey, Hinck, & Hinck, 2007; Friedenberg, 1994, 1997; Hellweg, Pfau, & Brydon, 1992; Hinck, 1993; Jamieson & Birdsell, 1988; Kraus, 1962, 1977, 2000; Lanoue & Schrott, 1991; Schroeder, 2000; Swerdlow, 1984, 1987) and many articles (see, e.g., Louden, 2009; Racine Group, 2002) investigate presidential debates. On the other hand, there are no books, only a handful of book chapters (e.g., Carlin, Vigil, Buehler, & McDonald, 2009; Decker, 1994; Devlin, 1994; Kay & Borchers, 1994; Ragsdale, 1997; Sauter, 1994; Trent, 1994), and a few articles (e.g., Benoit & Airne, 2005; Beck, 1996; Carlin & Bicak, 1993; Clayman, 1995; Sullivan, 1989) on vice presidential debates.

Despite their potential importance the vice presidential contests have typically attracted fewer viewers than have the presidential debates. Through 2004, the average audience for presidential debates was 59.1 million; for vice presidential debates, the mean audience size was 42.4 million (Commission on Presidential Debates, 2009). In 2008, however, this situation was reversed. The average size of the audience for the three debates between Obama and McCain was 57.4 million, but the audience for the Biden-Palin vice presidential debates was 69.9 million. Of course, with the possible exception of Admiral James Stockdale (Ross Perot's running mate in 1992), perhaps no vice presidential candidate who participated in a televised debate was less well-known than Sarah Palin in 2008. A September 11th interview with Charles Gibson was the first extended glimpse of Sarah Palin for much of mainstream America. During this interview, her discomfort in articulating the "Bush Doctrine" turned out to be quite minor compared to a rather small statement she made when asked about her readiness to lead in the area of foreign policy. She credentialed herself by discussing how close her home state of Alaska was to Russia. What Palin actually said was, "They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska" (Exclusive, 2008). This statement, and others offered by Palin, caused political pundits on the left to openly question her credentials and intellectual fortitude (see Zakaria,, 2008), but many in the American public were beginning to question her ability to lead the nation as well. Ten days later, CBS news released a series of interviews with Governor Palin conducted by Katie Couric covering the economy, foreign policy, and more personal matters. In the September 25th interview, Palin did some damage control and tried to explain her Alaska-Russia proximity comment. News reports, such as one in the New York Times, argued that she should have anticipated the question and her answer did little to help her rebuild her image (Stanley, 2008, p. A20). This series of interviews seemed to lower her credibility even further because she was unable to name a single newspaper that she frequently read, unable to articulate McCain's "maverick" past actions in the Senate, and on October 1st, appeared to be unable to name more than one Supreme Court decision. In less than one month, the concern regarding Sarah Palin's experience turned to alarm for some Americans.

Although Palin was trying to appear knowledgeable, Senator Biden had a different problem walking into this debate. The New York Times reported that Biden should be concerned about sounding like he was talking down to his opponent (Seelye, 2008, p. A20). Biden was also known for making verbal missteps. In the days leading up to the debate, Republicans reminded the public of the better moments of "Senator Motormouth's" public tenure (St. Louis, 2008, p. A12). The Washington Post quoted one Republican strategist as saying, "Biden is a one-man gaffe machine; he needs not to make one in this debate..." (Bacon, 2008, p. A4). Strategists also observed that Biden needed to avoid any appearance of sexism. In the 1984 Bush-Ferraro vice-presidential debate, Ferraro indirectly accused her opponent of being sexist (Bacon, 2008, p. A4). Others, however, argued that the comparison between the two debates was inappropriate (Grady, 2008, p. A11). The potential comedy of errors that could have been the vice-presidential debate might have been a significant reason for increased viewership. Clearly, many voters-far more than usual-thought the 2008 vice presidential debate was worth watching. The fact that Governor Palin was only the second woman-and the first Republican-to be nominated for vice president by one of the two major political parties added to the interest surrounding this campaign event. McCain and Palin were Republicans, the same party as term-limited President Bush, but--perhaps in part due to the president's low approval rating-they chose to run as mavericks rather than as a continuation of President Bush's two terms. Of course, it was in the interest of the Democrats to portray the GOP ticket as more of the same, which meant an interesting clash in the campaign.

Research has demonstrated that viewing vice presidential debates can affect voters' opinions (Payne, Golden, Marlier, & Ratzan, 1989; Wall, Golden, & James, 1988), perceptions of the candidates (Holbrook, 1994), as well as vote intentions (Holbrook, 1994). Furthermore, Carlin and Bicak (1993) argue that "Regardless of whether or not the [vice presidential] debates have a significant influence on an election's outcome, they serve an important educational function" (p. 120). Clearly, vice presidential debates merit scholarly attention, and arguably, none more than the Biden-Palin debates of 2008, which was held October 2, 2008, in St. Louis, MO. This paper will present the results of a functional analysis (Benoit, 2007) of the 2008 vice presidential debate.

FUNCTIONAL THEORY OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGN DISCOURSE

Benoit (2007; see also 1999) argued that political campaign messages are functional and constitute a means to accomplish a goal. In this case, that goal is to obtain election to public office by receiving a winning margin of votes from citizens. Candidates solicit support from citizens by attempting to persuade voters that they are preferable to opponents (on the criteria that matter most to individual voters). Three possible functions can persuade voters that one candidate is preferable to another. Acclaims, or self-praise, identify the pros of a candidate and increase the candidate's favorability. Attacks, or criticisms of an opponent, identify the cons of an opponent and increase the attacking candidate's net favorability. Defenses, which are responses to attacks, refute purported weaknesses of a candidate. Together, these three functions work as an informal variant of cost-benefit analysis: Acclaims increase benefits, attacks increase an opponent's costs, and defenses reduce a candidate's alleged costs. Functional theory does not assume that voters quantify costs and benefits or combine them mathematically. Instead, acclaims, when acceptable...