While most university students and professors watched the Democratic National Convention unfold from Newark last week, three professors witnessed it live.
Communication and political science professor Lindsay Hoffman, communication professor Tracey Holden, political science professor David Wilson and communication professor and director of the Center for Political Communication Ralph Begleiter attended the DNC.
Holden said she had a “phenomenally rich experience” at the convention, which provided an up-close view of the subject she teaches.
“Dr. Hoffman and I both study politics and communications, but to be on the inside of the process, seeing some of the inner workings of the convention and particularly hearing the speeches, was very different than studying it or analyzing it,” Holden said.
Hoffman said she witnessed a large number of protestors at the DNC, particularly on Tuesday, which she did not notice at the RNC.
“There were several that had blocked numerous intersections, in addition to the large amount of streets blocked off for the convention,” Hoffman said. “We didn’t see a huge presence of protesters at the RNC convention, or at least in media coverage of that event.”
Political science professor Jason Mycoff said the immediacy with which both parties responded to the other’s conventions is a relatively new feature in national conventions.
“There’s an interesting development in this election cycle, and that is that the other candidate, the one who did not have the convention, is actively campaigning and actively responding to the convention,” Mycoff said. “[Obama and Biden] had surrogates responding to the Republican convention, and the same thing [went on] during the Democratic convention.”
The DNC responded immediately to controversy over the party platform Wednesday, when three voice votes were taken to add previously removed mentions of God and of Jerusalem as Israel’s capital back into the platform.
Political science professor Joseph Pika, who was unable to attend the convention, did not consider the amendment votes to be a pitfall for Democrats, but rather a common practice for the president to more directly influence what goes into his party platform.
“Most people that I’ve seen say that those two changes, which the president insisted on, were ways for the president to have his views more directly reflected in the platform,” Pika said. “That’s a pretty accepted practice, that the presidential candidate representing the party should have the major say on controversial issues, things that are likely to be talked about and discussed during the campaign.”
Former President Bill Clinton’s speech Wednesday night was well received by students and faculty alike. Freshman Bennett Procter, a political science major, said Clinton’s active role in the convention was interesting to watch.
“I liked that Bill Clinton came and spoke,” Procter said. “He’s not running for anything, so he could criticize the Republican Party. I think it was a good tactic to have him speak.”
Pika said he thought Clinton was able to directly address criticisms raised in the Republican convention.
“Clinton, very squarely, very forthrightly, reviewed the major arguments and the arguments against President Obama, and responded to those in a very conscious, coherent way,” Pika said.
Prior to Thursday evening, Mycoff said he predicted that President Obama would draw many more viewers from the general public. He said voters get the most value out of hearing from the candidates themselves, rather than from advertisements or other media.
Mycoff said that, traditionally, candidates use the speeches as an opportunity to introduce themselves to the public.
“For an incumbent president it’s a little different,” he said. “The president uses that speech more often to remind voters about the personal history narrative, but also to explain where the presidency is going, to make a case for a second term.”
Graduate student Leann Moore said she thought Obama’s speech was effective and covered a wide variety of issues.
“I think he hit all the areas and didn’t dwell on anything too much,” Moore said. “I appreciated that he didn’t spend much time bashing Mitt Romney. He mentioned things about the abortion dispute but didn’t focus on it, because that’s not the major thing we should focus on in this election.”
Senior Maria Gallo said she thinks it will be difficult for Democrats to respond to one crucial argument that was a talking point of the Republican convention.
“I think all Romney really has to do is say, as he has been saying, ‘Are we better off now than we were four years ago?’” Gallo said. “It’s hard to say we are better off, and that in itself is an argument against Obama.”
Hoffman said the conventions do not receive very much coverage in the news, making it less likely that people are unconsciously exposed to the information. This will have little to no effect on the outcome, she said. According to Hoffman, the purpose of the conventions is not to sway the election.
“That is not to say that the convention has no effect at all,” she said. “It helps to streamline messaging and excite supporters to encourage others to vote.”
Sophomore Caroline Murphy, secretary of the UD College Democrats, said the convention appealed to both Democrats and undecided voters.
“I thought the convention was a very good way for Barack Obama to energize both the base and independents,” Murphy said.
Although the conventions are over and Obama and Romney made their case for the presidency, some students said they are still unsure about who to vote for on Nov. 6.
Freshman Pat Correale said he will consider his options until Election Day.
“I think Romney has a better stance on fixing the economy, but I think Obama has a better stance on social issues,” Correale said. “Romney’s healthcare positions aren’t exactly in popular demand. I still haven’t figured out who I’m gonna vote for yet. I keep going back and forth.”
No comments:
Post a Comment