Skip to main content

Why were the Kennedy-Nixon debates so significant?

The Kennedy-Nixon debates were very significant. Up until this time, there had never been a presidential debate on live television. For the first time, people were able to see the faces, reactions, appearances, and mannerisms of the candidates, as well as hearing their answers to the questions that they were asked.


In the first debate, when people saw John F. Kennedy, they saw a young, energetic man who was dressed very well. When they saw Richard Nixon, they saw a man who appeared to need a shave and who looked tired. His pale suit faded into the background. John Kennedy looked directly into the camera when answering questions, giving the public the belief that he was talking directly to them. Richard Nixon looked away from the camera as if he was talking directly to John Kennedy. The public felt he wasn’t speaking to them. This first debate influenced some voters to support John Kennedy. While Nixon did better in the other debates, some people made up their mind based on the first debate. When people were asked who won this first debate, those who only heard it on the radio said that Nixon had won. Those who saw it on television said that Kennedy had won. Since the election was very close, it is possible to say that the debates helped John Kennedy win the election.


The debates were also important because it signaled the importance of television when people are running for office. Debates are now common for many elected offices, not just for the presidency. Television is also used to spread a candidate’s message and to attack a candidate’s opponent. These debates showed how important image and style were for candidates running for office. The substance of what a candidate had to say or what the candidate believed was no longer enough. If a candidate lacks style and doesn’t project a positive image, the candidate will have a harder time winning an election based on substance alone.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

A man has a garden measuring 84 meters by 56 meters. He divides it into the minimum number of square plots. What is the length of the square plots?

We wish to divide this man's garden into the minimum number of square plots possible. A square has all four sides with the same length.Our garden is a rectangle, so the answer is clearly not 1 square plot. If we choose the wrong length for our squares, we may end up with missing holes or we may not be able to fit our squares inside the garden. So we have 84 meters in one direction and 56 meters in the other direction. When we start dividing the garden in square plots, we are "filling" those lengths in their respective directions. At each direction, there must be an integer number of squares (otherwise, we get holes or we leave the garden), so that all the square plots fill up the garden nicely. Thus, our job here is to find the greatest common divisor of 84 and 56. For this, we prime factor both of them: `56 = 2*2*2*7` `84 = 2*2*3*7` We can see that the prime factors and multiplicities in common are `2*2*7 = 28` . This is the desired length of the square plots. If you wi...
Post a Comment
Read more

What warning does Chuchundra issue to Rikki?

Chuchundra, the sniveling, fearful muskrat who creeps around walls because he is too terrified to go into the center of a room, meets Rikki in the middle of the night. He insults Rikki by begging him not to kill him. He then insults him by suggesting that Nag might mistake Chuchundra for Rikki. He says, "Those who kill snakes get killed by snakes."  He issues this warning to Rikki not to help keep Rikki safe but as a way of explaining why Rikki's presence gives him, Chuchundra, more reason to fear.  Chuchundra starts to tell Rikki what Chua the rat told him--but breaks it off when he realizes he might be overheard by Nag. He says, "Nag is everywhere, Rikki-Tikki." Rikki threatens to bite Chuchundra to get him to talk. Even then, Chuchundra won't overtly reveal any information. But he does say, "Can't you hear, Rikki-Tikki?" This is enough of a clue for the clever mongoose. He listens carefully and can just make out the "faintest scratch-s...
Post a Comment
Read more