This is a rich data set, and one that merits continued analysis. We would like to proffer some initial reactions to the data, and hope that others take up the analysis of this data.
- Policy questions had a definitive advantage in the rankings. The top 7 videos all focus on specific policy questions (”Do you support gay marriage?” and “How would you get beyond empty promises on Darfur?”). Questions that focused more on general orientations towards policy, values, or personality tended to fare less well (”Who was your favorite teacher?,” “Does that hurt ya’ll’s feelings,?” and “Have you talked with your children about sex education?”). Admittedly, this might be a result of the bias of the students towards policy questions, since their respective institutes were sharply focusing on these issues.
- Iraq questions scored high. Three of the top eight questions centered on the ongoing conflict in Iraq, perhaps confirming the centrality of that particular issue in the Democratic primary.
- Audio-visual production values were not particularly significant. While many YouTube videos feature slick production elements, the variations among the videos shown in the debates were not significant enough to create a marked difference between the videos. In other words, a talking snowman doesn’t automatically trump a talking head.
- Neither foreign policy nor domestic policy questions had a clear edge. 7 of the top 12 questions were foreign policy-related, and 5 of the top 12 were domestic issues (3 of the 5 were considered social policy re: gay rights and race.)
- Questions that “box” a candidate in (based on the “demanding” criteria) were more interesting to participants. The top tier of questions tended to push students by referencing ongoing political debates and then prompt a candidate response, rather than asking “What do you think…” or “What would you do…” without much of a setup. While there were some exceptions here, “demanding” and “interesting” had a significant correlation.
Some non-data driven observations:
- How would viewers respond to a question asked by a non-US citizen? The internet is the first truly global medium, and there were many submissions from international observers of American politics. It would be incredibly interesting to see whether or not non-US nationals would increase or decrease the “interesting” ranking. If it is true that “demanding” questions are good indicators of “interesting” questions, then question quality is what viewers are most interested in. Consequently, excluding questions raised by international participants solely on the basis of nationality might dampen the interest level and quality of political dialogue overall. (Full disclosure: The BFTF has a mix of US and international students submitting videos to the Democratic and Republican debates.)
- The personality of the question-askers seemed to strongly influence rankings. One obvious strength of this format was that citizens could document problems in unique ways that skirt the more formalized question-asking of political journalists and reporters who usually question candidates during debates. The videos provide glimpses into citizen lives that “put a face on” various perceived social, economic, and political problems. An additional criteria of “credibility” might reveal some interesting results in follow-on research.
Data analysis by Damien Pfister, Ron Von Burg, and Kurt Zemlicka.