A functional analysis of American vice presidential debates.

• Author: Benoit, William L.

Compared to presidential debates, vice presidential debates tend to receive short shrift. Of course, there have been far fewer of them. No vice presidential debates were held in 1960 or 1980; other years featured two or three presidential debates but only one encounter between the vice presidential candidates. Through 2004, we have seen 7 debates from running mates but 23 debates featuring the top of the ticket. Unfortunately, scholars tend to ignore debates between the running mates of the presidential candidates. Numerous books (e.g., Benoit & Wells, 1996; Benoit, McHale, Hansen, Pier, & McGurie, 2003; Bishop, Meadow, & Jackson-Beeck, 1978; Bitzer & Rueter, 1980; Carlin & McKinney, 1994; Coleman, 2000; 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 (e.g., Benoit, Hansen, & Verser, 2003; Louden, 2005; Racine Group, 2002) have been published on presidential debates. In contrast, no books and a limited number of book chapters (e.g., Decker, 1994; Devlin, 1994; Ragsdale, 1997; Sauter, 1994; Trent, 1994) and articles (e.g., Beck, 1996; Carlin & Bicak, 1993; Clayman, 1995; Sullivan, 1989) have investigated vice presidential debates.

Is this neglect reasonable? In 1963, Vice President Lyndon Johnson became president after President John F. Kennedy was assassinated. However, voters had not had an opportunity to see Johnson, or Henry Cabot Lodge (Richard Nixon's running mate), in a vice presidential debate. In 2004, Gwen Ifill noted, "Ten men and women have been nominees of their parties since 1976 to be vice president." She then asked Senator Edwards, "What qualifies you to be a heartbeat away?" Obviously, election years in which vice presidential debates occur offer voters an extended opportunity to learn about, and compare, the vice presidential candidates. Furthermore, voters can learn about the presidential candidates because the vice presidential candidates also discuss their running mates. In fact, in 2004, Gwen Ifill felt compelled to demand that the candidates answer at least one question without mentioning their running mates; Edwards could not manage to do so.

Furthermore, it is clear that voters see value in vice presidential debates. Focus group participants in 1992 indicated that these encounters "served to highlight the presidential candidate's decision making and provided insight into the abilities of the vice presidential candidate" (Kay & Borchers, 1994, p. 107). Tens of millions of viewers-an average of over 42 million-have watched the vice presidential debates. (1) Research shows that watching vice presidential debates can influence opinions (Payne, Golden, Marlier, & Ratzan, 1989; Wall, Golden, & James, 1988), voters' perceptions of the candidates (Holbrook, 1994), and their voting intentions (Holbrook, 1994). Finally, as Carlin and Bicak (1993) explain, "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.

In order to illuminate these important campaign events further, this study analyzes the seven American vice presidential debates held through 2004. Results are compared with content analysis of the presidential debates held in the same years (Benoit et al., 2005; Benoit, Blaney, & Pier, 1998; Benoit & Brazeal, 2002; Benoit & Wells, 1996; Wells, 1999). First, the functional theory of political campaign discourse, which provides the underpinnings for this study, will be discussed. Then specific hypotheses will be advanced. The method will be explained. This will be followed by presentation of results and a discussion of the implications of the findings.

FUNCTIONAL THEORY OF POLITICAL CAMPAIGN DISCOURSE

Carlin and Bicak (1993) identify five purposes of vice presidential debates: showing the nominees' fitness to serve as president, explaining their proposed role in administration, explaining policy positions, defending their running mate, and attacking the opponent. These purposes accord well with the three basic purposes of political campaign discourse identified in the functional theory. The first three are essentially acclaims (self-praise) of the presidential and vice presidential candidates (who they are and what they will do if elected), the fourth is defense (response to attack), and the fifth is attack (criticism of an opponent).

Benoit (1999) argues that campaign discourse is functional, a means intended to accomplish an end. The end is to secure election to public office by obtaining the most votes from citizens. A candidate solicits support from voters by persuading them that he or she is preferable to opponents (according to whatever criteria are most important to each voter). Three functions in political campaign discourse can establish that one candidate is preferable to another. Acclaims, or self-praise, identify the advantages of a candidate. Attacks, or criticisms of an opponent, demonstrate the weaknesses of an opponent, thus increasing the attacking candidate's net desirability. Defenses, or responses to attacks, refute alleged weaknesses of a candidate. These three functions work together as an informal form of cost-benefit analysis: acclaims increase benefits, attacks increase an opponent's costs, and defenses reduce a candidate's alleged costs. The statement that this is an "informal" version of cost-benefit is meant to indicate that functional theory does not assume that all voters quantify costs and benefits or combine them mathematically. Instead, acclaims, when persuasive, tend to increase a candidate's perceived desirability. Attacks, when accepted by the audience, should tend to reduce an opponent's perceived desirability. Defenses, when effective, are likely to reduce a candidate's apparent costs.

Functional theory also posits that political campaign discourse occurs on only two kinds of topics: policy (issues such as taxes, jobs, terrorism, health care, Social Security, education) and character (e.g., honesty, compassion, courage, strength, leadership ability). Functional theory further subdivides both policy and character into three types. Policy includes past deeds, future plans, and general goals; character includes personal qualities, leadership ability, and ideals. The Appendix cites examples of acclaims and attacks on each form of policy and character taken from the 2004 vice presidential debate.

Research on presidential debates in 1960 and 1976-2004 has found that acclaims are more common than attacks (57% to 35%) and that defense is the least common function (8%; Benoit, 2005). The topics of presidential debates favor policy over character (75% to 25%). Incumbent candidates acclaim more (64% to 51%), attack less (25% to 44%), and defend more (12% to 6%) than challengers. Benoit (2004) reported that Democratic candidates in debates discuss policy more (77% to 73%) and character less (23% to 27%) than Republicans. Benoit (2004) found that election winners discuss policy more than losers (78% to 72%); losers address character more than winners (28% to 22%). With this background in mind, we turn to the specific hypotheses and research questions addressed in this study.

The first prediction is specific to this message form. Carlin and Bicak (1993) argue that "a vice presidential nominee is not expected to be as 'presidential' as the presidential nominee. Thus, a more aggressive posture is expected" (p. 123). Consistent with this expectation, Walter Mondale observed in the first-ever vice presidential debate, in 1976, that "Senator Dole has richly earned his reputation as a hatchet man tonight, by ... stating that World War II and the Korean War were Democratic wars." This means we should expect that vice presidential candidates will attack more than presidential candidates:

H1. Attacks will be more frequent in vice presidential debates than in presidential debates.

The remaining predictions are based on functional theory and past research on presidential debates. After we test a prediction with data from the vice presidential debates, we will compare these data with data from presidential debates. Functional theory anticipates that acclaims will be the most frequent function, followed by attacks and then defenses. Because acclaims have no drawbacks, candidates have no reason to moderate their use of this function. In contrast, many voters indicate that they do not like mudslinging, a reason for candidates to moderate their attacks, at least somewhat (Merritt, 1984; Stewart, 1975). Finally, defenses have three drawbacks. They make the candidate appear reactive rather than proactive. Given that one usually is attacked over one's weaknesses, defenses are likely to take a candidate off-message. Furthermore, one must identify an attack to refute it. This means that defending against an attack may remind or inform voters of an alleged...