Analyzing Warrants and Worldviews in the Rhetoric of Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton: Burke and Argumentation in the 2016 Presidential Election

Combining a dramatistic analysis with the Toulmin model productively contributes to a rhetorical understanding of the 2016 presidential election and locates Burke as an integral component of political communication criticism. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton\u27s rhetoric differed not only on policy arguments, but also on their rhetorical vision for America. Trump\u27s campaign arguments privileged the agent and thus invoked identification with an idealist worldview, while Clinton\u27s rhetoric privileged agency and thus invoked identification with a pragmatic one. Warrants and worldviews are interconnected parts of campaign rhetoric that contribute to both persuasion and identification

The State of the Parties 2018 (Eight Edition)

The State of the Parties 2018 brings together leading scholars of parties, elections, and interest groups to provide an indispensable overview of American political parties today. The 2016 presidential election was extraordinary, especially the unexpected nomination and election of Donald Trump to the White House. What role did political parties play in these events? How did the party organizations fare? What are the implications for the future? Scholars and practitioners from throughout the United States explore the current state of American party organizations, constituencies and resources at the national, state and local level.https://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/state_of_the_parties8/1000/thumbnail.jp

Communication and the Body Politic: Hillary Clinton’s 2016 Presidential Campaign in Philadelphia’s Latino Community

This dissertation contains a qualitative case study of how Hillary Clinton, the Democratic candidate, and her staff, created communication systems to contact Latinos during the 2016 presidential campaign and how these systems operated in Northeast Philadelphia. Three research questions guided these observations: How was political communication produced, disseminated, and decoded through interpersonal, mass, and digital communication by the Democratic candidate, her Latino communication staff, and Northeast Philadelphia Latino residents during the 2016 presidential campaign? What were the functions, norms, and values that structured the political communication systems among the Democratic candidate, her Latino communication staff, and Northeast Philadelphia Latino residents? What were the power relations that informed the interactions between the Democratic candidate, her Latino communication staff, and Northeast Philadelphia Latino residents in the political communication system? The dissertation employs the Political Communication Systems Model, a toolkit to observe and theorize on political communication. Under the grounded theory umbrella, two methods were used to collect data. First, Clinton's mediated campaign communication was monitored. Second, I worked as a volunteer in a field operations office that Clinton opened in Philadelphia and performed a participant observation. Clinton built a political communication machine to produce a campaign that used a hybrid media system. She hired a large staff to design and execute an air war (i.e., radio and TV ads and journalistic coverage), a digital campaign (i.e., distribution of information through websites, blogs, social media, newsletters and text messages), and a ground game (i.e., canvassing, phone banking, and online messaging). The Latino campaign was designed to promote liberal values such as globalism, cosmopolitanism, multiculturalism, and diversity, values that shaped her economic and political proposals. The ground game had three main objectives in Northeast Philadelphia: register new voters, create strategies to persuade undecided voters to support Hillary Clinton, and organize the "Get Out the Vote" (GOTV), which consists of convincing people to get out their houses, go to the polling station, and vote. A substantial part of the dissertation focuses on describing and analyzing the ground game in Northeast Philadelphia and offers two significant findings. First, political communication systems need material infrastructures operate. Clinton built a material infrastructure to communicate with residents. This infrastructure was made, primarily, of human bodies that were able to move around the territory and use other communicative technologies smartphones, tablets, and computers. Second, human bodies were also used as symbolic devices. Clinton recruited staffers and volunteers whose bodies embodied values such as diversity, multiculturalism, cosmopolitanism, and globalism. The biographies and trajectories of these individuals projected these values, because they were persons from different parts of Latin America, with diverse cultural and educational backgrounds, and with different experiences of being a U.S. citizen or resident. Finally, the dissertation offers two main contributions. On the one hand, the dissertation expands the Political Communication Systems Model and suggests that the human body is the primary material unit in political communication infrastructures. On the other, this work illustrates how qualitative research can be employed for researching political communication in general, and presidential campaigns in particular.Consejo Nacional de Ciencia y TecnologíaSecretaría de Educación Públic

Oral rhetoric and digital media : the Twitter campaign of the 2016 American presidential election

The idea that social and other online media are key platforms for political rhetoric is hardly novel at this point. Few will deny the influence that Twitter had on the 2016 American Presidential Election as a means of engaging and communication with a wider audience. This paper questions what it means to be successful practitioner of online rhetoric, ultimately arguing that persuading a digital audience heavily involves knowing how to evoke their humanity in ways that been consistent since classical observations of rhetoric as an art and practice. Therefore, this paper explores the audio-visual qualities of Twitter which allowed Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Bernie Sanders to use Twitter as a means of projecting an authentic human persona, particularly by emulating an oral mode of delivery through written social media posts. Simply put, their audiences should have been able to “hear” them through online posts, despite the fact that the primary means of engagement of Twitter is text. Ultimately, this paper argues that this sense of oral delivery is essential to our understanding of the 2016 election, as well as our conceptions of contemporary rhetoric. Twitter, as a digital space, has created a platform where we can conceptualise digital orators.peer-reviewe

Pragmatic Annotation of Manipulation in Political Discourse: The Case of Trump-Clinton Presidential Debate

Within a pragmatic analysis framework, this research investigates manipulation in the political discourse of the 2016 American Presidential Debate by pragmatically annotating and visualising the text in the CATMA tool. The manipulation types that are used to decide about the tag set and its guidelines are in light of Baron’s (2003) and Asya’s (2013) categorization of manipulation. The chosen manipulative language tool in the selected manipulative context to be observed are the direct and indirect manipulative speech acts of Ivanova (1981) and Brusenskaya (2005), which are based on Austin’s typology of speech act theory. This study concerns itself, first, with the notion of manipulation, manipulative speech acts, and selected manipulation types, and then manifests the practical annotation of manipulation to analyse the top-layer hypothesis, that political debates are manipulative and there are certain manipulative criteria to be observed, and finally, the selected manipulative features are supposed to play an obvious role at the pragmatic level in these debates. This research confirms, manifests, and analyses the existence of manipulative evidence in the selected presidential debates

The Role of Popular Media in 2016 US Presidential Election Memes

The 2016 US presidential election was marked by the extensive role that social media played in the construction of the candidates as well as by the growth of a number of forms of digital political rhetoric, including memes. The subgenre of popular culture-based political memes that draw on well-known entertainment media, particularly those with large fandoms like the Star Wars and Harry Potter franchises, reveal inequities in gender representation in entertainment media that are replicated when these media become source material for memes. Memes based on popular culture that are designed to celebrate female candidates are disadvantaged by having a more limited popular culture lexicon than do memes featuring male candidates. This imbalance is compounded by the ways negative stereotypes of women already present in popular culture can be deployed in these memes, often in ways that align with news frames that work to police female politicians. Examining the popular culture materials deployed in memes and the way in which they replicate existing representational inequities can improve our understanding of the relationship among memes, popular media, and gender stereotypes

Hedges and boosters in presidential debate

Skripsi ini merupakan penelitian tentang hedges and boosters. Hedges and boostersadalah strategi komunikasi untuk mengurangi atau meningkatkan kekuatan pernyataan. Penelitian ini bertujuan untuk menyelidiki tipe dan fungsi yang dilakukan oleh kandidat presiden, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump selama debat kedua hingga debat ketiga didebat presiden. Di penelitian ini, peneliti menganalisa tipe hedges berdasarkan klarifikasi Salager Meyer (1997) dan fungsi hedges berdasarkan Rabab’ah dan Ruman (2015). Selanjutnya, peneliti mennerapkan Hinkel (2005) tentang tipe boosters dan fungsinya. Penelitian ini menggunakan metode deskriptif-kualitatif. Peneliti mengumpulkan data dengan mentranskripsikan Debat Presiden Trump-Hillary kedua ke ketiga ke dalam teks transkripsi. Setelah mengumpulkan data, peneliti menyoroti pidato yang termasuk kategori hedgesdan boosters, dan pengkodean data. Kemudian, peneliti menafsirkan fungsi hedges and boosters. Hasil dari penelitian ini, peneliti menemukan Trump-Hillary melakukan enam tipe hedgesoleh Meyer (1997):Modal auxilliary verbs, Modal lexical verbs, Adjectival, adverbial and nominal phrases, Approximators of degree, frequency, quantity and time, Introductory phrases, and If clauses.Jenis hedges Compound/complextidak ditemukan dalam data. Tetapi tipe hedgesModal auxilliary verbspaling banyak digunakan dalam Debat Presiden. Sementara itu, kedua kandidat menggunakan semua tipeboosters oleh Hinkel (2005) yaitu Universal and negative pronoun, Amplifiers, dan Emphatics. Selain itu, semua fungsi hedgesdan boosters ditemukan dalam debat. Fungsi hedgesyang banyak digunakan dalam debat adalah Mitigating claims by showing some kind of uncertainty. Dan fungsi boosters yang banyak dilakukan dalam debat adalah As amplifier. Dengan menyelidikihedges dan boosters, peneliti berada di tempat untuk mengekspresikan topeng politisi linguistik sehingga mereka dapat mengekspresikan pesan politik "aktual" yang disampaikan oleh politisi kepada publik. Selain itu, orang mungkin memperhatikan pesan yang sebenarnya disampaikan oleh calon presiden

Manifesting Personal Brands in Politics: Strategic Manoeuvring by Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the Third US Presidential Debate of 2016

In this thesis I investigate how the political brands of the two presidential candidates of the 2016 US presidential election, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, were manifested in their argumentation during the third and final presidential debate of 2016. The method used for the analysis is the extended theory of pragma-dialectics, which includes the notion of strategic manoeuvring. The theory allows the evaluation of how the candidates balanced the simultaneous objectives of adhering to the rules of argumentation while manoeuvring the discussion to a direction that was in their favour. The analysis focuses on a 15-minute segment of the debate, the topic of which was fitness to be the president of the United States. The analysis indicates that both candidates strategically manoeuvred the discussion toward topics that were beneficial for their brand or detrimental to the opponent’s brand. The most notable differences between Clinton’s and Trump’s argumentative strategies were related to the core characteristics of their brands: Clinton was a politically experienced insider, while Trump was a newcomer to politics and promoted the image of an uncorrupt outsider who “says it like it is.” Clinton highlighted her brand by demonstrating her well-preparedness with a full and coordinated argumentative strategy and premeditated argumentation structures. Trump, on the other hand, maintained his brand as a man of the people by arguing much more like an uneducated non-politician would. The most notable features of Trump’s argumentation were the copious violations of the rules of argumentation, which indicate that his desire to “win” the argument overruled his desire to argue reasonably. The findings of this study demonstrate that not complying with the rules of a critical discussion may be beneficial for the speaker’s brand when their brand as well as the expectations of the audience allow it. However, when a person who is branded as someone who “says it like it is” and uses fallacious argumentation, the danger of the introduction of more radical ideas presents itself. Thus, critical thinking and awareness of the copious strategies used in political branding are becoming increasingly important

iPulse: November 2016

Issues: November 1, 2016 November 4, 2016 November 7, 2016 November 9, 2016 November 11, 2016 November 14, 2016 November 16, 2016 November 18, 2016 November 28, 2016 November 30, 2016https://spiral.lynn.edu/studentnews/1217/thumbnail.jp

The Trump Travel Ban: Rhetoric vs Reality

President Trump\u27s Muslim ban set the nation afire with debate. Opponents to the ban were motivated by the President\u27s underlying motivations. Three iterations of the travel ban were struck down by lower courts. Before the Supreme Court, however, the travel ban was upheld. First, the plain language of § 1182(f) granted broad discretion to the President. Second, it did not violate the prohibition of discrimination against selected categories in § 1152(a)(1)(A). Finally, it failed to violate the Establishment Clause because it is facially legitimate, satisfying rational basis review. The Court found no facial evidence demonstrating discriminatory bias