Argumentation and Advocacy

ISSN: 1051-1431 (Print) 2576-8476 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rafa20

A Functional Analysis of American Vice

Presidential Debates

William L. Benoit & David Airne

To cite this article: William L. Benoit & David Airne (2005) A Functional Analysis of
American Vice Presidential Debates, Argumentation and Advocacy, 41:4, 225-236, DOI:
10.1080/00028533.2005.11821632

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2005.11821632

Published online: 02 Feb 2017.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 4

View related articles

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rafa20
ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY
41 (Spring 2005): 225-236

A FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF AMERICAN

VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES
William L. Benoit and David Aime

Compared to presidential debates, vice dent after President John F. Kennedy was
presidential debates tend to receive short assassinated. However, voters had not had
shrift. Of course, there have been far fewer an opportunity to see Johnson, or Henry
of them. No vice presidential debates were Cabot Lodge (Richard Nixon's running
held in 1960 or 1980; other years featured mate), in a vice presidential debate. In 2004,
two or three presidential debates but only Gwen Ifill noted, "Ten men and women
one encounter between the vice presidential have been nominees of their parties since
candidates. Through 2004, we have seen 7 1976 to be vice president." She then asked
debates from running mates but 23 debates Senator Edwards, "What qualifies you to be
featuring the top of the ticket. Unfortunately, a heartbeat away?" Obviously, election years
scholars tend to ignore debates between the in which vice presidential debates occur of-
running mates of the presidential candidates. fer voters an extended opportunity to learn
Numerous books (e.g., Benoit & Wells, 1996; about, and compare, the vice presidential
Benoit, McHale, Hansen, Pier, & McGurie, candidates. Furthermore, voters can learn
2003; Bishop, Meadow, & Jackson-Beeck, about the presidential candidates because
1978; Bitzer & Rueter, 1980; Carlin & Mc- the vice presidential candidates also discuss
Kinney, 1994; Coleman, 2000; Friedenberg, their running mates. In fact, in 2004, Gwen
1994, 1997; Hellweg, Pfau, & Brydon, 1992; Ifill felt compelled to demand that the can-
Hinck, 1993; Jamieson & Birdsell, 1988; didates answer at least one question without
Kraus, 1962, 1977, 2000; Lanoue & Schrott, mentioning their running mates; Edwards
1991; Schroeder, 2000; Swerdlow, 1984, could not manage to do so.
1987) and many articles (e.g., Benoit, Han- Furthermore, it is clear that voters see
sen, & Verser, 2003; Louden, 2005; Racine value in vice presidential debates. Focus
Group, 2002) have been published on pres- group participants in 1992 indicated that
idential debates. In contrast, no books and a these encounters "served to highlight the
limited number of book chapters (e.g., presidential candidate's decision making and
Decker, 1994; Devlin, 1994; Ragsdale, 1997; provided insight into the abilities of the vice
Sauter, 1994; Trent, 1994) and articles (e.g., presidential candidate" (Kay & Borchers,
Beck, 1996; Carlin & Bicak, 1993; Clayman, 1994, p. 107). Tens of millions of viewers-an
1995; Sullivan, 1989) have investigated vice average of over 42 million- have watched
presidential debates. the vice presidential debates. 1 Research
Is this neglect reasonable? In 1963, Vice shows that watching vice presidential de-
President Lyndon Johnson became presi- bates can influence opmwns (Payne,
Golden, Marlier, & Ratzan, 1989; Wall,
William L. Benoit, Department of Communication, University Golden, &James, 1988), voters' perceptions
of Missouri; David Aime, Department of Communication
Studies, University of Alabama. William Benoit gratefully of the candidates (Holbrook, 1994), and their
acknowledges the University of Missouri Research voting intentions (Holbrook, 1994). Finally,
Council, which awarded him a Summer Research Fel-
lowshlp to support this research. Correspondence con-
cerning this article should be addressed to William L.
1
Benoit, Department of Communication, University of The average audience for a presidential debate in
Missouri, Columbia, Missouri 65211-2310. E-mail: the same years was 49.7 million {Commission on Presi-
benoitw@missouri.edu dential Debates, 2005; see Table 1).
226

VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES SPRING 2005

TABLE 1.
VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, 1976, 1984-2004

Date Democrat Republican Audience (millions)*

1976 10/15 Waiter Mondale Bob Dole 43.2
1984 10/11 Geraldine Ferraro Geor~ Bush 56.7
1988 10/5 llobd Bentsen Dan uayle 46.9
1992t 10/13 AI ore Dan ~uayle 51.2
1996 10/9 AI Gore ~ck emp 26.6
2000 10/5 ~oe Lieberman ick Cheney 28.5
2004 10/13 ohn Edwards Dick Cheney 43.5
Total 42.4 (mean)

• Audience data from Commission on Presidential Debates: http:/ /www.debates.org/pages/history.html.

tjames Stockdale was the vice presidential candidate of the Reform Party in 1992.

as Carlin and Bicak (1993) explain, "Regard- three basic purposes of political campaign
less of whether or not the [vice presidential] discourse identified in the functional theory.
debates have a significant influence on an The first three are essentially acclaims (self-
election's outcome, they serve an important praise) of the presidential and vice presiden-
educational function" (p. 120). Clearly, vice tial candidates (who they are and what they
presidential debates merit scholarly atten- will do if elected), the fourth is defense (re-
tion. sponse to attack), and the fifth is attack (crit-
In order to illuminate these important icism of an opponent).
campaign events further, this study analyzes Benoit (1999) argues that campaign dis-
the seven American vice presidential de- course is functional, a means intended to
bates held through 2004. Results are com- accomplish an end. The end is to secure
pared with content analysis of the presiden- election to public office by obtaining the
tial debates held in the same years (Benoit et most votes from citizens. A candidate solicits
al., 2005; Benoit, Blaney, & Pier, 1998; Be- support from voters by persuading them that
noit & Brazeal, 2002; Benoit & Wells, 1996; he or she is preferable to opponents (accord-
Wells, 1999). First, the functional theory of ing to whatever criteria are most important
political campaign discourse, which pro- to each voter). Three functions in political
vides the underpinnings for this study, will campaign discourse can establish that one
be discussed. Then specific hypotheses will candidate is preferable to another. Acclaims,
be advanced. The method will be explained. or self-praise, identify the advantages of a
This will be followed by presentation of re-
candidate. Attacks, or criticisms of an oppo-
sults and a discussion of the implications of
nent, demonstrate the weaknesses of an op-
the findings.
ponent, thus increasing the attacking candi-
date's net desirability. Defenses, or responses
FuNCTIONAL THEORY OF
to attacks, refute alleged weaknesses of a
POLITICAL CAMPAIGN DISCOURSE
candidate. These three functions work to-
Carlin and Bicak (1993) identify five pur- gether as an informal form of cost-benefit
poses of vice presidential debates: showing analysis: acclaims increase benefits, attacks
the nominees' fitness to serve as president, increase an opponent's costs, and defenses
explaining their proposed role in administra- reduce a candidate's alleged costs. The state-
tion, explaining policy positions, defending ment that this is an "informal" version of
their running mate, and attacking the oppo- cost-benefit is meant to indicate that func-
nent. These purposes accord well with the tional theory does not assume that all voters
 227

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY BENOIT AND AIRNE

quantify costs and benefits or combine them this expectation, W alter Mondale observed
mathematically. Instead, acclaims, when in the first-ever vice presidential debate, in
persuasive, tend to increase a candidate's 1976, that "Senator Dole has richly earned
perceived desirability. Attacks, when ac- his reputation as a hatchet man tonight, by
cepted by the audience, should tend to re- ... stating that World War 11 and the Ko-
duce an opponent's perceived desirability. rean War were Democratic wars." This
Defenses, when effective, are likely to reduce means we should expect that vice presiden-
a candidate's apparent costs. tial candidates will attack more than presi-
Functional theory also posits that political dential candidates:
campaign discourse occurs on only two
H 1. Attacks will be more frequent in vice presidential
kinds of topics: policy (issues such as taxes, debates than in presidential debates.
jobs, terrorism, health care, Social Security,
education) and character (e.g., honesty, com- The remaining predictions are based on
passion, courage, strength, leadership abil- functional theory and past research on pres-
ity). Functional theory further subdivides idential debates. After we test a prediction
both policy and character into three types. with data from the vice presidential debates,
Policy includes past deeds, future plans, and we will compare these data with data from
general goals; character includes personal presidential debates. Functional theory an-
qualities, leadership ability, and ideals. The ticipates that acclaims will be the most fre-
Appendix cites examples of acclaims and quent function, followed by attacks and then
attacks on each form of policy and character defenses. Because acclaims have no draw-
taken from the 2004 vice presidential debate. backs, candidates have no reason to moder-
Research on presidential debates in 1960 ate their use of this function. In contrast,
and 1976-2004 has found that acclaims are many voters indicate that they do not like
more common than attacks (57% to 35%) mudslinging, a reason for candidates to mod-
and that defense is the least common func- erate their attacks, at least somewhat (Mer-
tion (8%; Benoit, 2005). The topics of presi- ritt, 1984; Stewart, 1975). Finally, defenses
dential debates favor policy over character have three drawbacks. They make the can-
(75% to 25%). Incumbent candidates acclaim didate appear reactive rather than proactive.
more (64% to 51%), attack less (25% to 44%), Given that one usually is attacked over one's
and defend more (12% to 6%) than challeng- weaknesses, defenses are likely to take a can-
ers. Benoit (2004) reported that Democratic didate off-message. Furthermore, one must
candidates in debates discuss policy more identify an attack to refute it. This means that
(77% to 73%) and character less (23% to defending against an attack may remind or
27%) than Republicans. Benoit (2004) found inform voters of an alleged weakness. For
that election winners discuss policy more these reasons, we predict:
than losers (78% to 72%); losers address
H2. Acclaims will be more common than attacks and
character more than winners (28% to 22%). defenses will be the least common function in vice
With this background in mind, we turn to presidential debates.
the specific hypotheses and research ques-
tions addressed in this study. Functional theory contrasts incumbent
The first prediction is specific to this mes- party candidates with challenger party can-
sage form. Carlin and Bicak (1993) argue didates. Among other differences, incum-
that "a vice presidential nominee is not ex- bent party candidates have a record in the
pected to be as 'presidential' as the presiden- office sought. Some challengers have records
tial nominee. Thus, a more aggressive pos- in other offices (e.g., the Senate or as a gov-
ture is expected" (p. 123). Consistent with ernor) but, arguably, experience in the
228

VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES SPRING 2005

White House is better evidence than experi- Finally, we pose hypotheses regarding the
ence elsewhere (e.g., no other office gener- use of general goals and ideals as the basis
ates the kind of foreign policy experience for acclaims and attacks. It is easier to praise
that incumbent party candidates possess). In- a goal (such as more jobs, less inflation,
terestingly, the incumbent's record can be a greater security from terrorism) or an ideal
source of acclaims (by the incumbent) and (such as the right to education, opportunity,
attacks (by the challenger) on past deeds. faith) than to attack them.
Therefore, we predict:
H8. General goals will be the basis of acclaims more
H3. Incumbent party candidates will acclaim more, often than attacks.
and attack less, than challengers in vice presidential H9. Ideals will be the basis of acclaims more often
debates. than attacks.
H4. Incumbent party candidates will acclaim more,
and attack less, on past deeds than challengers in vice Together, these hypotheses and research
presidential debates. questions guide our analysis of American
vice presidential debates.
Public opinion data indicate that policy
matters more to voters in presidential elec-
METHOD
tions than does character (Benoit, 2003). Past
research on presidential primary and general Transcripts of the seven American vice
election debates indicates that candidates presidential debates were obtained from the
stress policy more than character (Benoit et Commission on Presidential Debates web-
al., 2002). For this reason, we predict: page (2005) and, for 1976, from Bitzer and
HS. Policy will be discussed more than character in
Rueter (1980). Each debate was content an-
vice presidential debates. alyzed for functions (acclaims, attacks, de-
fenses), topics (policy, character), forms of
Research has indicated that Democrats policy (past deeds, future plans, general
tend to discuss policy more, and character goals), and forms of character (personal qual-
less, than Republicans (Benoit, 2004). For ities, leadership ability, ideals). Intercoder
this reason, we expect that: reliability was calculated on lOOfo of the texts
using Cohen's (1960) K, which corrects for
H6. Democrats will discuss policy more, and charac- agreement by chance. K for function was .95,
ter less, than Republicans in vice presidential de-
for topic was .96, for forms of policy .98, and
bates.
for forms of character 1.0. Landis and Koch
(1977) indicate that values of K of 0.81-1.00
Research also has found that winners tend
indicate "almost perfect" agreement among
to discuss policy more, and character less,
coders. This means that our data are suffi-
than losers (Benoit, 2003). Thus, we predict:
ciently reliable for analysis.
H7. Winners will discuss policy more, and character Chi-square is used to analyze these data
less, than losers in vice presidential debates. because it is the appropriate statistical test for
differences using frequency (nominal, cate-
We posit two research questions concern- gorical) data. We report Cramer's Vas a mea-
ing distribution of the forms of policy and sure of effect size (note that Cramer's V, as a
character: measure of the size of the relationship be-
tween two variables, is not meaningful for
RQI. What are the proportions of the three forms of
policy in vice presidential debates? one-way chi-squares because there is only one
RQ2. What are the proportions of the three forms of independent variable in a one-way chi-
character in vice presidential debates? square).
 229

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY BENOIT AND AIRNE

TABLE 2.
FuNCTIONS OF VICE !'RESIDENTIAL DEBATES, 1976, 1984-2004

Acclaims Attacks Defenses I (df- 2)

Incumbent 1346 f62%l 748 f350fol 63 f3%l 52.37
Challenger 1139 53% 984 45% 45 2% p< .0001, V= .11
Democrats 1274 f59%l 847 f390fol 47 f2%l 4.22
Republicans 1211 56% 885 41% 61 3% ns
Winners 1377 f63%l 732 f340fol 66 f3%l 75.78
Losers 1108 52% 1000 47% 42 2% p< .0001, V= .13
Total VP 2485 f57%l 1732 f40%l 108 f2%l 2047.78'1.: < .0001
Presidential 3607 58% 2155 34% 498 8% 15 .12*
1976, 1984-2004 p< .0001, V= .13
*This ){- compares vice presidential and presidential debates. .
Note: Presidential debate data from Benoit et al. (2005), Benoit, Blaney, & Pier (1998), Benoit & Brazeal (2002), Benmt
& Wells (1996), and Wells (1999).

RESULTS they're trying to throw up a smokescreen.

They know the charges are false." The dif-
Our first prediction was that debates be-
ference in function in vice presidential and
tween vice presidential candidates would
presidential debates is significant with a
witness more attacks than presidential de-
moderate effect size Cl [df = 2] = 155.12,
bates. Table 2 reports that 40% of themes in
p < .0001, V= .13.) 2
the vice presidential debates were attacks,
Hypothesis 2 predicted that acclaims
compared with 34% of the themes in presi-
would be more frequent than attacks and
dential debates (note that data from presi-
that defenses would be the least frequent
dential debates only included years in which
function in vice presidential debates. This
vice presidential debates also occurred, so
prediction was supported: Vice presidential
that data from the 1960 and 1980 presiden- debates witnessed 57% acclaims, 40% at-
tial debates were excluded). For example, tacks, and 2% defenses. These differences
Vice President Richard Cheney (2004) made were confirmed as significant with a one-way
this acclaim in the most recent vice presiden- chi-square (i [df = 2] = 2047.29, p < .0001).
tial debate: "The world is far safer today The next two hypotheses concern the po-
because Saddam Hussein is in jail, his gov- tential effects of incumbency on functions of
ernment is no longer in power." Obviously, campaign messages. H3 predicted that in-
a safer world is desirable. Senator John Ed- cumbent party candidates would acclaim
wards (2004), in contrast, attacked the Bush- more and attack less than challengers. In
Cheney record in the same debate: "We lost these vice presidential debates, incumbents
more troops in September than we lost in acclaimed 10% more than challengers (63%
August; lost more in August than we lost in to 53%) and attacked 11% less than challeng-
July; lost more in July than we lost in June." ers (35% to 46%). These differences were
The increasing numbers of American deaths
would be a matter of concern for voters. 2
Cramer's Vis a measure of effect size for categorical
After Edwards attacked Cheney over prob- (frequency) data and is generally similar to Pearson_ 's r.
Both statistics can assume values between 0 (no relatwn-
lems at Haliburton (where Cheney had been ship between variables) and I (a perfect relationship
CEO), the vice president (Cheney, 2004) de- between variables), although unhke r, V does not use
negative values to indicate an inverse relationship. Be-
nied these accusations: "Well, the reason atty (2002) has argued that T rather than r is a better
they keep mentioning Haliburton is because indication of effect size.
230

VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES SPRING 2005

TABLE 3.
FORMS OF POUCY AND CHARACTER IN VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, 1976, 1984-2004

Policy Character
Past Deeds* Future Plans General Goals Personal Qualities Leadership Ideals
Democrats 316 521 69 63 459 80 162 106 205 60 63 17
837 (56%) 132 (90fo) 539 (360fo) 268 (440fo) 265 (430fo) 80 (130fo)
Republicans 326 443 47 41 402 136 127 152 238 95 71 18
769 (55°/o) 88 (60fo) 538 (390fo) 279 (400fo) 333 (480fo) 89 (130fo)

Incumbents 472 281 49 80 382 140 138 151 256 77 49 19

753 (54°/o) 129 (90fo) 522 (370fo) 289 (420fo) 333 (480fo) 68 (100fo)
Challengers 170 683 67 24 479 76 151 107 187 78 85 16
853 (570fo) 91 (60fo) 555 (370fo) 258 (410fo) 265 (420fo) 101 (160fo)

Winners 464 359 55 74 445 94 125 118 235 67 53 20

823 (550fo) 129 (90fo) 539 (360fo) 243 (390fo) 302 (490fo) 73 (120fo)
Losers 178 605 61 30 416 122 164 140 208 88 81 15
783 (55%) 91 (60fo) 538 (380/o) 304 (440fo) 296 (430fo) 96 (140fo)

TotalVP 642 964 116 104 861 216 289 258 443 155 134 35
1606 (55%) 220 (80/o) 1077 (370fo) 547 (420fo) 598 (460fo) 169 (130fo)
Presidential 844 1118 620 221 1232 204 314 379 251 147 346 86
1976, 1984-2004 1962 (460/o) 841 (200fo) 1436 (340fo) 693 (460/o) 398 (260fo) 432 (280fo)

*Acclaims/attacks; percentages do not always total to IOO'Yo because of rounding.

Note: Presidential debate data from Benoit et al. (2005), Benoit, Blaney, & Pier (1998), Benoit & Brazeal (2002), Benoit
& Wells (1996), and Wells (1999).

significant Ci [df = 2] = 52.37, p < .0001, V acter. As hypothesized, 69% of utterances

= .11 ), confirming this hypothesis. addressed policy while 31% addressed char-
The next prediction anticipated a differ- acter Ci [df= 1] = 598, p < .0001). For
ence in the use of past deeds: Incumbents example, Edwards (2004) discussed policy
would employ this form of policy more as when he brought up Cheney's record as a
acclaims, and less as attacks, than challeng- member of Congress:
ers. This hypothesis was confirmed. Incum-
When he was one of 435 members of the United
bent party vice presidential candidates used States House, he was one of 10 to vote against Head
past deeds to acclaim 472 times and to attack Start, one of four to vote against banning plastic
281 times; in contrast, challengers used past weapons that can pass through metal detectors. He
deeds to acclaim 170 times and to attack 683 voted against the Department of Education. He
voted against funding for Meals on Wheels for se·
times. The above examples of an acclaim (by
niors. He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther
incumbent Cheney regarding making the King. He voted against a resolution calling for the
world safer) and an attack (by challenger release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa.
Edwards regarding deaths of American sol-
diers) show how an incumbent can acclaim In contrast, Cheney (2004) discussed charac-
and a challenger can attack on the basis of ter when revisiting charges that the Demo-
the incumbent administration's record. Sta- crats had flip-flopped: "We have not seen the
tistical analysis confirms that these differ- kind of consistency that a commander in
ences are significant with a relatively large chief has to have in order to be a leader in
effect size Ci [df = 1] = 302.88, p < .0001, wartime and in order to be able to see the
V= .44). See Table 3 for these data. strategy through to victory." These data are
H5, concerning the topics of campaign displayed in Table 4.
messages, predicted that vice presidential H6 expected that Democrats would em-
debates would emphasize policy over char- phasize policy more, and character less, than
 231

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY BENOIT AND AIRNE

TABLE 4.
TOPICS OF VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES, 1976, 1984-2004

Policy Character >(' (df = I)

Incumbent 1404 f67%l 690 f33%l 6.06

Challenger 1499 53% 984 46% p < .05, V= .04
Democrats 1508 f71%l 613 f29%l 9.93
Republicans 1395 67% 701 33% p < .005, V= .05
Winners 1491 f71%l 618 f29%l 6.61
Losers 1412 67% 696 33% p < .05, V= .04
Total VP 2903 f69%l 1314 f31%l 598, p < .000 I
Presidential 1976, 1984-2004 4239 74% 1523 26% 26.52*
p < .0005, V= .05
*This X' compares vice presidential and presidential debates.
Note: Presidential debate data from Benoit et al. (2005), Benoit, Blaney, & Pier (1998), Benoit & Brazeal (2002), Benoit
& Wells (1996), and Wells (1999).

Republicans. Candidates from both political [df = 2] = 1011.12, p < .0001). When they
parties focused more on policy than charac- addressed character, the vice presidential
ter, but Table 4 reports that Democrats dis- candidates mainly discussed leadership abil-
cussed policy more (71% to 67%) and char- ity (46%) and personal qualities (42%), with
acter less (29% to 33%) than Republicans. fewer comments devoted to ideals (13%).
These differences were statistically signifi- These frequencies were significantly differ-
cant (1 [df = 1] = 9.93, p < .005, V= .05) ent (1 [df = 2] = 250.78, p < .0001).
with a small effect size. The final two hypotheses concerned the
H7 predicted that winners would discuss frequency with which general goals and ide-
policy more and character less than losers als were used as the basis for acclaims and
(note that we considered Gore/Lieberman attacks. In both cases, acclaims were almost
the winner in 2000 because their campaign four times as common as attacks. General
persuaded over half a million more voters; goals formed the basis for 861 acclaims and
see Duchneskie & Seplow, 2000). Once 216 attacks, a significant difference (1 [df ~
again, although candidates in both groups 1] = 385.08, p < .0001). Similarly, ideals
emphasized policy over character, still this more frequently were employed to acclaim
prediction was supported. Winners dis- than attack (134 to 35), a distribution that
cussed policy more frequently than losers was significantly different (1 [df = 1] =
(71% to 67%); in contrast, losers stressed 56.82, p < .0001).
character more often than winners (33% to
29%). These differences were statistically sig- DISCUSSION
nificant (1 [df = 1] = 6.61, p < .05,
V= .04), but with a small effect size. As Carlin and Bicak (1993) expected, vice
Table 3 also contains the answers to the presidential candidates are more "aggres-
two research questions. Vice presidential sive" than presidential candidates in debates,
candidates most often discussed past deeds with 6% more attacks (40% to 34%). These
(55%), followed by general goals (37%) and, candidates are in a sense surrogates for their
relatively infrequently, future plans (8%). running mates and there is evidence that
This distribution is significantly different surrogates attack more than challengers. Be-
from what would be expected by chance (1 noit (2005) reported that convention keynote
232

VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES SPRING 2005

speeches attack more than nomination ac- tacked less, than the challenger. This is con-
ceptance addresses and that party-sponsored sistent with past research on presidential
advertisements attack more than candidate- debates (e.g., Benoit, 2005). The incumbent
sponsored ads. In fact, it is a little surprising party candidate has a record in the office
that the candidates in vice presidential de- sought, arguably the best evidence of the
bates did not attack even more frequently. candidate's future performance if returned to
However, unlike a keynote speaker, a vice office. Although challengers have records as
presidential candidate can assume the pres- holders of other offices, governors, for exam-
idency, which may constrain his or her will- ple, have scant foreign policy experience
ingness to "go negative." and Senators have only legislative, not exec-
Further, although Carlin and Bicak note utive, experience. The incumbent party's
that one of the five functions of vice presi- record in the White House is arguably stron-
dential candidates in debate is to defend ger evidence than the challenger's record in
their running mates, defense actually was other arenas. Interestingly, the incumbent's
less common in vice presidential than in record can be a resource for both candidates,
presidential debates (2% to 8%). This is par- but in different ways. Incumbents promote
ticularly noteworthy given that vice presi- their record in office to acclaim their own
dential candidates had more opportunities to successes, whereas challengers use the in-
defend than presidential candidates because cumbent's record to attack the latter's fail-
there were more attacks in vice presidential ures. This means not only that incumbents
than presidential debates (40% to 34%). It acclaim more and attack less than challeng-
appears that these campaigns wanted their ers but that they do so particularly concern-
vice presidential candidates to attack the op- ing past deeds (the incumbent's record in
position, and not so much defend against office).
such attacks. Interestingly, Mondale (1976), As noted previously, according to public
who accused Dole of being a "hatchet-man" opinion data (Benoit, 2003), policy is more
in the first vice presidential debate, attacked important than character in determining
somewhat more frequently than Dole (54% who voters prefer as president. It seems
to 50%). It is possible that Mondale was likely that vice presidential candidates are
referring to Dole's nasty tone rather than the aware of this preference because, as is the
frequency of his attacks, something which case for presidential candidates (Benoit,
functional analysis does not attempt to quan- 2005), vice presidential candidates debate
tify. policy more than character. Democrats em-
This study found that acclaims were the phasize policy even more (and character
most frequent function of vice presidential less) than Republicans. Benoit (2004) argues
debate utterances, followed by attacks and that Democrats are more likely to see gov-
then defenses. This is consistent with find- ernmental solutions to problems than Re-
ings on general election presidential debates publicans, which inclines Democrats to dis-
(as noted in the literature review) and in cuss policy more than their opponents.
presidential primary debates (Benoit et al., Winning vice presidential candidates dis-
2002). This distribution is reasonable be- cussed policy more, and character less, than
cause acclaims have no drawbacks, attacks losers. This finding is consistent with re-
risk provoking a backlash from voters who search on presidential campaign messages,
dislike mudslinging, and defenses have the including general election debates (Benoit,
three potential disadvantages noted above. 2003). Recall that more voters consider pol-
The vice presidential candidate of the in- icy (not character) to be the most important
cumbent party acclaimed more, and at- determinant of their vote for president. This
 233

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY BENOIT AND AIRNE

preference may advantage candidates who devalued vice presidential debates even
stress policy more than their opponents at though these debates have attracted an aver-
the polls. age of 42 million viewers (compared with 50
Nominees for the second spot on the million presidential debate viewers). Several
ticket stress past deeds and general goals; studies have found that watching these
they discuss future plans less frequently. In events has important effects (Holbrook,
fact, vice presidential candidates discuss fu- 1994; Payne, Golden, Marlier, & Ratzan,
ture plans less often than presidential candi- 1989; Wall, Golden, & James, 1988). This
dates, 8% to 20% Ci [df = 2] = 207.63, p < study has advanced our understanding of the
.0001, V= .17; recall that vice presidential nature of vice presidential campaign de-
candidates also discuss past deeds more than bates.
presidential candidates). It appears that a We now know that vice presidential de-
vice presidential candidate's task is to discuss bates resemble presidential debates in many
the record and not to dwell on the details of respects. Both are primarily positive; both
his or her running mate's specific policy pro- defend infrequently. Both emphasize policy
posals. more than character. Incumbent party can-
Vice presidential candidates emphasized didates in both acclaim more than challeng-
leadership ability and personal qualities ers, who in turn attack more than incum-
more than ideals. Compared with presiden- bents. The record of the incumbent party is
tial debates, vice presidential candidates dis- particularly salient, and candidates in both
cussed leadership ability more (46% to 26%) presidential and vice presidential debates
and ideals less (13% to 28%). These differ- use this record differently: Incumbents ac-
ences are significant Ci [df = 2] = 250.78, claim more, and attack less, than challengers
p < .0001). It is not surprising that these on the basis of past deeds. Democrats and
encounters, which are designed in part to winning candidates discuss policy more, and
assess whether a vice presidential candidate character less, than Republicans and losing
is qualified to be "a heartbeat away," empha- candidates. Candidates in both kinds of de-
size leadership ability more than do presi- bates tend to use general goals and ideals
dential debates. With greater emphasis on more to acclaim than to attack. The many
past deeds than on ideals, perhaps they are important similarities between presidential
meant to be more pragmatic as well. and vice presidential debates suggest that the
Finally, as with presidential candidates constraints of the situation strongly influence
(Benoit, 2005), vice presidential candidates the discourse of these important campaign
tend to acclaim more and attack less regard- events.
ing both general goals and ideals. Both kinds On the other hand, there are some differ-
of utterances are easier to embrace than re- ences as well. Candidates in both kinds of
ject. debates acclaimed at virtually the same rate
(57% in vice presidential, 58% in presiden-
tial), but vice presidential debaters devote
CONCLUSION
about four in ten statements to attacks, which
It is important for voters to learn about the is higher than presidential debaters (34%),
vice presidential nominees, and debates pro- but not as much higher as might be ex-
vide an extended opportunity to do so. Of pected. Oddly, vice presidential candidates
course, these candidates also talk about their defend much less than presidential candi-
running mates in the debates, providing in- dates (2% to 8%), despite the fact that vice
formation about both members of the ticket. presidential candidates had more opportuni-
Unfortunately, the scholarly literature has ties to defend than presidential candidates.
234

VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES SPRING 2005

Candidates for the second spot on the ticket Benoit, W. L. (2005). Political campaign communication: A
fUnctional approach. Manuscript submitted for publica-
also are less likely to discuss specific policy tion.
proposals than the nominees at the top of the Benoit, W. L., Blaney,J. R., & Pier, P. M. (1998). Cam-
paign '96: A fUnctional analysis of acclaiming, attacking,
ticket (8% in vice presidential debates, 20% and deftnding. New York: Praeger.
in presidential debates). Vice presidential Benoit, W. L., & Brazeal, L. M. (2002). A functional
analysis of the 1988 Bush-Dukakis presidential de-
debates discuss character more than presi- bates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38, 219-233.
dential debates. In particular, vice presiden- Benoit, W. L., Hansen, G.J., & Verser, R. M. (2003). A
m eta-analysis of the effects of viewing U .S. presiden-
tial candidates stress leadership ability much tial debates. Communication Monographs, 70, 335-350.
more than do presidential candidates (46% Benoit, W. L., McHale,J. P, Hansen, G.J., Pier, P. M., &
McGuire, J. P. (2003). Campaign 2000: A fonctional
to 26%), which is not surprising given that analysis ofpresidential campaign discourse. Lanham, MD:
one of the purposes of these debates is to Rowman & Littlefield.
Benoit, W. L., Pier, P. M., Brazeal, L. M., McHale,J. P.,
demonstrate the vice presidential candi- Klyukovksi, A., & Airne, D. (2002). The primary deci-
dates' fitness for office. So, the fact that vice sion: A fonctional analysis of debates in presidential prima-
ries. Westport, CT: Praeger.
presidents are not as prominent as presidents Benoit, W. L., Stein, K. A., McHale, J. P., Chatto-
results in some important differences. padhyay, S., Verser, R., Price, S. (2005). Bush versus
Kerry: A fonctional analysis of campaign 2004. Unpub-
The 2008 presidential campaign promises lished manuscript.
to be interesting. Vice President Cheney has Benoit, W. L., & Wells, W. T. (1996). Candidates in
conflict: Persuasive attack and deftnse in the 1992 presiden-
indicated that he does not plan to run for tial debates. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.
president at the end of his second term. If he Bitzer, L., & Rueter, T. (1980). Carter vs. Ford: The coun-
terfoil debates of1976. Madison: University of Wiscon-
does not change his mind, 2008 will witness sin Press.
the first truly open presidential campaign, Bishop, G. F., Meadow, R. G., & Jackson-Beeck, M.
(Eds.). (1978). The presidential debates: Media, electoral,
i.e., in which neither candidate is the sitting and policy perspectives. New York: Praeger.
president or vice president, since Eisen- Carlin, D. B., & Bicak, P.J. (1993). Toward a theory of
vice presidential debate purposes: An analysis of the
hower faced Stephenson in 1952. It will be 1992 vice presidential debate. Argumentation and Advo-
important to examine the nature of the vice cacy, 27, 119-130.
Carlin, D. P., & McKinney, M. S. (Eds.). (1994). The 1992
presidential debate in such an unusual cam- presidential debates in focus. Westport, CT: Praeger.
paign. Our understanding of vice presiden- Cheney, R (2004). The Cheney-Edwards Vice Presiden-
tial debate. Accessed September 2, 2005, from: http:/ I
tial debates also should be advanced by fur- www .debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html
ther research employing diverse other Clayman, S. E. (1995). Defining moments, presidential
debates, and the dynamics of quotability. journal of
approaches, such as metaphor (Henry, Communication, 45, 118 -146.
1988), language (Hart, 2000), and civic dia- Cohen,J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal
scales. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 20,
logue (Kaid, McKinney, & Tedesco, 2000). 37-46.
Coleman, S. (2000). Televised ekction debates: International
perspectives. New York: St. Martin's.
REFERENCES Commission on Presidential Debates. (2005). Debate
history. Accessed September I, 2005, from: http:/ I
www.debates.org/pages/history.html
Beatty, M.J. {2002). Do we know a vector from a scalar? Decker, W. D. (1994). The 1988 Quayle-Bentsen vice
Why measures of association (not their squares) are presidential debate. In R. V. Friedenberg (Ed.), Rhe-
appropriate indices of effect. Human Communication torical studies ofnational political debates, 1960-1992 (2"d
Research, 28, 60S- till. ed., pp. 162-IBS). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Beck, C. S. {1996). "I've got some points I'd like to make Devlin, L. P. (1994). The 1992 Gore-Quayle-Stockdale
here": The achievement of social face through turn vice presidential debate. In R. V. Friedenberg (Ed.),
management during the 1992 vice presidential debate. Rhetorical studies of national political debates, 1960-1992
Political Communication, 13, !6S-!80. (2"d ed., pp. 211-233). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Benoit, W. L. {1999). Seeing spots: A fUnctional analysis of Duchneskie, J., & Seplow, S. (2000, December IS).
presidential television advertisements from 1952-1996. Gore's vote lead totals 540,435. Philadelphia Inquirer, p.
New York: Praeger. Al.
Benoit, W. L. (2003). Presidential campaign discourse as Edwards,J. (2004). The Cheney-Edwards Vice Presiden-
a causal factor in election outcome. Westernjournal of tial debate. Accessed September 2, 200S, from: http:/ I
Communication, 67, 97-112. www.debates.org/,eages/trans2004b.html
Benoit, W. L. (2004). Political party affiliation and pres- Friedenberg, R. V. (Ed.). (1994). Rhetorical studies of na-
idential campaign discourse. Communication Quarterly, tional political debates, 1960-1992 (2"d ed.). Westport,
52, 81-97. CT: Praeger.
 235

ARGUMENTATION AND ADVOCACY BENOIT AND AIRNE

Friedenberg, RV. (Ed.). (1997). Rhetorical studies of na- Stewart, C. J. (1975). Voter perception of mud-slinging in
tional political debates-1996. Westport, CT: Praeger. political communication. Central States Speech journal,
Hart, R. P. (2000). Campaign talk: Why elections are good for 26, 279-286.
us. Prince ton, li!J: Prince ton University Press. Sullivan, P.A. (1989). The 1984 vice-presidential debate:
Hellweg, S. A., Pfau, M., & Brydon, S. R. (1992). Televised A case study of female and male framing in political
presidential debates: Advocacy in contemporary America. campaigns. Communication Qyarterly, 37, 329-343.
New York: Praeger. Swerdlow,J. L. (1984). Beyond debate: A paper on televised
Henry, D. (1988). The rhetorical dynamics of Mario presidential debates. New York: Twentieth Century
Cuomo's 1984 keynote address: Situation, speaker, Fund.
metaphor. Southern Speech Communication journal, 53, Swerdlow,J. L. (Ed.). (1987). Presidential debates 1988 and
105-120. beyond. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly
Hinck, E. A. (1993). Enacting the presidency: Political argu- Inc.
ment, presidential debates, and presidential character. West- Trent,]. S. (1994). The 1988 Bush-Ferraro vice presiden-
port, CT: Praeger. tial debate. In R. V. Friedenberg (Ed.), Rhetorical stud-
Holbrook, T. M. (1994). The behavioral consequences of ies of national political debates, 1960-1992 (2"d ed., pp.
vice-presidential debates: Does tbe undercard have 121-144). Westport, CT: Praeger.
any punch? American Politics Qyarterly, 22, 469-482. Wall, V., Golden,]. L., &James, H. (1988). Perceptions
Hill, G. (2004, October 5). The Cheney·Edwards Vice of the 1984 presidential debates and a select 1988
Presidential debate. Accessed September 2, 2005, presidential primary debate. Presidential Studies Qyar-
from: http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004b.html terly, 18, 541-563.
Jamieson, K. H., & Birdsell, D. S. (1988). Presidential Wells, W. T. (1999). An analysis of attacking, acclaiming,
debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. and defending strategies in the 1976-1984 presidential
New York: Oxford University Press. debates. (Doctoral Dissertation, University of Missouri,
Kaid, L. L., McKinney, M., & Tedesco,J. C. (2000). Civic Columbia, 1999). Dissertation Abstracts International,
dialogue in the 1996 presidential campaign: Candidate, 61, 2106.
media, and public voices. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Kay,J., & Borchers, T. A. (1994). "Children in a sand-
box": Reaction to the vice presidential debate. In APPENDIX
D. B. Carlin & M. S. McKinney (Eds.), T7ze 1992
presidential debates in focus (pp. 99-108). New York: Sample acclaims and attacks on forms of
Praeger.
Kraus, S. (Ed.). (1962). T7ze great debates. Bloomington:
policy and character are taken from the 2004
Indiana University Press. Cheney-Edwards vice presidential debate in
Kraus, S. (Ed.). (1977). The great debates: Carter versus Ford, Cleveland, Ohio (Cheney, 2004; Edwards,
1976. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Kraus, S. (2000). Televised presidential debates and public 2004).
policy (2"d ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Landis,J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of
observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, POUCY
159-174.
Lanoue, D.]., & Schrott, P. R. (1991). The joint press
conforence: T7ze history, impact, and prospects of American Past Deeds
presidential debates. Westport, CT: Praeger.
Louden, A. (2005). Political debates: Selected bibliography. Acclaim (Cheney): "We've captured or
Accessed February 24, 2005, from: http://www.wfu. killed thousands of AI Qaida in various
edu/%7Elouden/Political"i<>20Communication/Bibs/
DEBATES.html places around the world and especially in
Merritt, S. (1984). Negative political advertising: Some Afghanistan ... We've got 10 million voters
empirical findings. journal of Advertising, 13, 27-38.
Mondale, W. (1976). Vice Presidential debate. Accessed who have registered to vote [in Afghanistan],
September 2, 2005, from: http://www.debates.org/ nearly half of them women ... They have
pages/his_l976.htrnl
Payne, J. G., Golden, J. L., Marlier, J., & Ratzan, S. C. done wonders writing their own constitution
(1989). Perceptions of the 1988 presidential and vice- for the first time ever. Schools are open.
presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 32,
425-435. Young girls are going to school. Women are
Racine Group. (2002). White paper on televised political going to vote. Women are even eligible to
campaign debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38,
199-21!1. run for office. This is major, major progress."
Ragsdale, G. (1997). The 1996 Gore·Kemp vice presi- Attack (Edwards): "In the time that they
dential debate. In R. V. Friedenberg (Ed.), Rhetorical
studies of national political debates-1996 (pp. 31- 60). have been in office, in the last four years, 1.6
Westport, CT: Praeger. million private sector jobs have been lost, 2. 7
Sauter, K. (1994). The 1984 Mondale-Dole vice presi·
dential debate. In R. V. Friedenberg (Ed.), Rhetorical million manufacturing jobs have been lost.
studies of national political debates, 1960-1992 (2"d ed., And it's had real consequences in places like
pp. 45-68). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Schroeder, A. (2000). Presidential debates: Forty years of
Cleveland. Cleveland ... has the highest pov-
high-risk TV: New York: Columbia University Press. erty rate in the country. One out of almost two
236

VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES SPRING 2005

children in Cleveland are now living in pov- hood of Electrical Workers for six years. I've
erty. During the time that the vice president been laid off, been hospitalized without
and the president have been in office, 4 million health insurance. So I have some idea of the
more Americans have fallen into poverty. And problems that people encounter."
what the most striking and startling thing is, Attack (Edwards): "And you've gone
they are the first presidency in 70 years-and around the country suggesting that there is
I'm talking Democrats, Republican, presidents some connection [between Saddam Hussein
who led us through World War, through the and the attacks of 9111]. There is not. And in
Korean War, the Vietnam War, Cold War- fact the CIA is now about to report that the
every one of them created jobs until this pres- connection between Al Qaida and Saddam
ident." Hussein is tenuous at best. And, in fact, the
secretary of defense said yesterday that he
Future Plans knows of no hard evidence of the connec-
tion. We need to be straight with the Amer-
Acclaim (Edwards): "We need [to] speed
ican people."
up the training of the Iraqis, get more staff in
for doing that. We need to speed up the
Leadership Ability
reconstruction so the Iraqis see some tangi-
ble benefit." Acclaim (Cheney): "Well, I clearly believe
Attack (Edwards): "They also didn't have a that George W. Bush would be a better com-
plan to win the peace." mander in chief. He's already done it for
four years. And he's demonstrated, without
General Goals question, the conviction, the vision, the de-
termination to win this war against terror."
Acclaim (Edwards): "We want to get rid of
Attack (Cheney): "I'm saying specifically
tax cuts for companies sending jobs over-
that I don't believe [Kerry] has the qualities
seas. We want to balance this budget, get
we need in a commander in chief because I
back to fiscal responsibility. And we want to
don't think, based on his record, that he
invest in the creative, innovative jobs of the
would pursue the kind of aggressive policies
future."
that need to be pursued if we're going to
Attack (Edwards): "This vice president has
defeat these terrorists."
been an advocate for over a decade for lifting
sanctions against Iran, the largest state sponsor
Ideals
of terrorism on the planet. It's a mistake."
Acclaim (Cheney): "I believe today that
CHARACTER freedom does mean freedom for everybody.
People ought to be free to choose any ar-
Personal Qualities
rangement they want [including same-sex re-
Acclaim (Cheney): "I come from relatively lationships]."
modest circumstances. My grandfather Attack (Cheney): "I think the Kerry-Ed-
never even went to high school. I'm the first wards approach basically is to ... give gov-
in my family to graduate from college. I ernment more control over the lives of indi-
carried a ticket in the International Brother- vidual citizens."