Advertisement

Place Names as Strategic Political Communication: Analysis of Geographic Language in US Presidential Debates, 1976–2012

  • Matthew D. BalentineEmail author
  • Gerald R. Webster
Reference work entry

Abstract

Televised debates between presidential candidates are expected every 4 years by the U.S. electorate. While it is arguable whether such events are truly debates, millions of potential voters watch them and they can make a significant difference in the outcome of close elections. Further, it is well established that debates play an important role in the democratic process by educating potential voters about their choice of candidates. The purpose of this chapter is to analyze the use of geographic language by presidential candidates during debates. We argue that geographic place names may be deployed as a form of strategic political discourse that communicates a specifically cultivated message about candidates to audiences. For example, candidates may use more foreign place references to emphasize their foreign relations experience, particularly incumbents running for a second term. On the other hand, candidates with limited foreign relations experience may utilize domestic references to tout their knowledge of domestic policy. Another important use of domestic place references is related to the manipulation of perception among selected portions of the electorate. Because of the U.S. Electoral College, swing states are strategically important for winning office. By referencing locations in swing states, candidates try to communicate that they empathize with citizen desires in these strategically important places.

Keywords

Presidential debates Place names Political geography Strategic political communication 

References

  1. Alderman, D. H. (2008). Place, naming and the interpretation of cultural landscapes. In B. J. Graham & P. Howard (Eds.), The Ashgate research companion to heritage and identity. Burlington, VT: Ashgate http://public.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=438418.Google Scholar
  2. Bakir, V. (2016). Torture, Intelligence and Sousveillance in the War on Terror: Agenda-Building Struggles. https://nls.ldls.org.uk/welcome.html?ark:/81055/vdc_100029369418.0x000001.
  3. Balentine, M., Frazier, J., & Webster, G. (2014). Geographic place name use in the 2012 presidential debates. In J. Clark Archer, F. Davidson, E. H. Fouberg, K. C. Martis, R. L. Morrill, F. M. Shelley, R. H. Watrel, & G. R. Webster (Eds.), Atlas of the 2012 elections (pp. 63–66). Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  4. Benoit, W. L. (2007). Communication in political campaigns. New York: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  5. Benoit, W. L., & Airne, D. (2005). A functional analysis of American vice presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41(4), 225–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Benoit, W. L., & Hansen, G. J. (2001). Presidential debate questions and the public agenda. Communication Quarterly, 49(2), 130–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berg, L. D., & Vuolteenaho, J. (Eds.). (2009). Critical Toponymies: The contested politics of place naming. Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  8. Cohen, S. B., & Kliot, N. (1992). Place-names in Israel’s ideological struggle over the administered territories. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 82(4), 653–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Commission on Presidential Debates. (2016). Accessed 14 Aug 2016. http://www.debates.org/.
  10. Dionne Jr, E. J. (2016, April 19). Ted Cruz and the Revenge of New York Values. The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/wp/2016/04/19/ted-cruz-and-the-revenge-of-new-york-values/.
  11. Fridkin, K. L., Kenney, P. J., Gershon, S. A., & Woodall, G. S. (2008). Spinning debates: The impact of the news media’s coverage of the final 2004 presidential debate. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(1), 29–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Goodey, B. R. (1969). Messages in space: Some observations on geography and communications. North Dakota Quarterly, 37(2), 34–49.Google Scholar
  13. Hellweg, S. A., Pfau, M., & Brydon, S. R. (1992). Televised presidential debates: Advocacy in contemporary America. New York: Praeger.Google Scholar
  14. Holbrook, T. M. (1999). Political learning from presidential debates. Political Behavior, 21(1), 67–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jamieson, K. H., & Birdsell, D. S. (1990). Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. New York: Oxford University Press http://site.ebrary.com/lib/alltitles/docDetail.action?docID=10087132.Google Scholar
  16. Kendall, K. E. (1997). Presidential debates through media eyes. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(8), 1193–1207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lakoff, George. (2008). The political mind: A cognitive Scientist’s guide to your brain and its politics (Reprint ed.). New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  18. Lilleker, D. (2006). Key concepts in political communication. London/Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  19. Manheim, J. B. (1991). All of the people, all the time: Strategic communication and American politics. Armonk: M.E. Sharpe.Google Scholar
  20. McCammon, S. (2016). Will Cruz’s Distaste For ‘New York Values’ Hurt Him With New York Voters? NPR.org. Accessed 29 July 2016. http://www.npr.org/2016/04/07/473328280/will-cruzs-distaste-for-new-york-values-hurt-him-with-new-york-voters.
  21. McKinney, M. (2008). Debates. In L. L. Kaid & C. Holtz-Bacha (Eds.), Encyclopedia of political communication (Vol. 2, pp. 160–165). Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  22. McKinney, M. S., & Carlin, D. (2004). Political campaign debates. In L. L. Kaid (Ed.), Handbook of political communication research (pp. 203–234). Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  23. McKinney, M., & Chattopadhyay, S. (2007). Political engagement through debates: Young citizens’ reactions to the 2004 presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 50(9), 1093–1111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Morris, E., & Johnson, J. M. (2011). Strategic maneuvering in the 2008 presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(3), 284–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. O’Loughlin, J., & Grant, R. (1990). The political geography of presidential speeches, 1946-87. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 80(4), 504–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Payne, J. G., Golden, J. L., Marlier, J., & Ratzan, S. C. (1989). Perceptions of the 1988 presidential and vice-presidential debates. The American Behavioral Scientist, 32(4), 425–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Pfau, M. (2002). The subtle nature of presidential debate influence. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38(4), 251–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. “Presidential Debates – C-SPAN Video Library”. (2016). Accessed 14 Aug 2016. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/topic/PresidentialDebates.
  29. Saenz, A. (2016, February 2). Cruz Credits Attack on Trump’s ‘NY Values’ in Iowa Win. ABC News. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/ted-cruz-credits-attack-donald-trumps-york-values/story?id=36658796.
  30. Sheets, P., Domke, D. S., Wells, C., Lingle, C. J., Ballantyne, A., Al-Sumait, F., & Cordingley, K. (2011). America, America: National identity, presidential debates, and national mood. Mass Communication and Society, 14(6), 765–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Sutherland, C. L., & Webster, G. R. (1994). The geography of the 1992 U.S. presidential debates. The Geographical Bulletin, 36(2), 83–93.Google Scholar
  32. Varnum, A. (2016). ‘Hope’ Springs Eternal...Or at Least for This Election Year. International Documentary Association. Accessed 10 Apr 2016. http://www.documentary.org/magazine/hope-springs-eternalor-least-election-year.
  33. Webster, G. R. (2008). A review of: ‘Putting voters in their place: Geography and elections in great Britain. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 98(4), 951–952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of GeographyUniversity of North CarolinaGreensboroUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyUniversity of WyomingLaramieUSA

Personalised recommendations