ABSTRACT
Using Politeness Theory as the theoretical lens, we explore how Hillary Rodham Clinton overcame a tough primary race against Bernie Sanders while Donald J. Trump emerged unexpectedly from a large field of experienced and highly qualified candidates to win the Republican nomination for president. We examine the degree of aggression and support of candidates’ image in the messages exchanged in the primary debates along the lines of disagreement over character, policy, use of data, and campaign tactics. The results suggest that Republican candidates in their primary debates relied more on aggressive discourse strategies to appeal to partisan voters than Democrats; Democratic candidates were more supportive of one another while debating their differences than Republicans in the primary debates. The trend across two presidential election cycles suggests that primary debates are featuring more aggression, at least for Republicans, and it also appears that voters may be responding favorably to the strategy, at least in the most recent presidential campaign.
KEYWORDS:
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Shelly S. Hinck
Shelly Schaefer Hinck is Professor in the Department of Communication and Dramatic Arts, Central Michigan University.
Edward A. Hinck
Edward Hinck is Professor in the Department of Communication and Dramatic Arts, Central Michigan University.
William O. Dailey
William Dailey is Professor in the Department of Communication and Dramatic Arts, Central Michigan University.
Robert S. Hinck
Robert S. Hinck is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Communication Studies at Monmouth College.
Elizabeth Hansen
Elizabeth Hansen is a recent graduate of Central Michigan University.
Bradley Madsen
Bradley Madsen is a current undergraduate at Central Michigan University.