You are on page 1of 17

Running head: FINAL PAPER

The Trump Card:


Rhetorical Strategies in the 2016 Presidential Election
Quinton S. Thomas
University of North Texas

FINAL PAPER

The Trump Card: Rhetorical Strategies in the 2016 Presidential Election


Introduction
Scholars (Bligh, Merolla, Schroedel, & Gonzalez, 2010; Bull & Miskinis, 2014; Cobb &
Kuklinski, 1997; Dilliplane, 2012; Ivie & Giner, 2009) have studied the rhetoric and persuasive
strategies of United States presidential candidates. However, few researchers (Johnson, 2012;
Kaye, 2013) have studied candidate rhetoric and persuasion in regards to social media websites,
such as Facebook or Twitter. The American citizenry is moving into a new era of political
discussion and information seeking. According to a Pew Research Survey, 66% of Americans
have used Twitter to participate in the political process in at least one way (2012). Twitter users
often encourage their followers to vote in upcoming elections or share information pertaining to
a candidate they support, showing that Twitter is becoming a part of American politics.
In recent studies, rhetoric scholars (Bull & Miskinis, 2014; Johnson, 2012) have studied
Barack Obamas and Mitt Romneys use of Twitter in the 2012 presidential election. Also, Kaye
(2013) found that Democratic candidates are more likely to use social media as a main
contributor to the campaign process while Republicans use these platforms more scarcely. In the
2008 presidential election, Barack Obama utilized social media more than did John McCain. A
researcher has also found a correlation between rhetoric that is easy to understand and campaign
success (Iii et al, 2012). No scholars, however, have researched the effect of social media
rhetoric on campaign success.
Each of the main candidates in the 2016 election have significant followings on social
media websites (Chalfrant, 2015). As of now, the two frontrunners, Donald Trump and Hillary
Clinton, utilize Twitter to spread campaign information, to ask for donations, and to thank voters
for continued support. The election of 2016 will be the first election in American history in

FINAL PAPER

which the internet plays a significant role on both sides. Few scholars (Bull & Miskinis, 2013)
have researched the use of Twitter in Republican campaigns, and no scholars have researched
Donald Trumps rhetorical strategies going into the election of 2016.
Literature Review
Political communication is a significant area of research for communication scholars.
The rise of social media and mobile communication paired with the general lack of research in
this area suggests a need for additional scholarship regarding how political campaigns have
changed in the technological age. Iii et al (2012) suggested that different types of utilization of
social media in a political setting can lead to different levels of electoral success. Therefore, the
time has come to examine a candidates social media presence versus her or his success in
garnering votes. I am interested in furthering the research done by previous scholars (Kaye,
2013) regarding Barack Obamas use of social media in the United States presidential election in
both 2008 and 2012. Rather than study the Democratic Party, however, I propose a study of the
Republican front-runner, Donald Trump. Trump, a businessman without any formal, political
experience, leads the Republican polls as of today (Phelan, 2015). Therefore, Trumps use of
social media makes for an interesting case study of how the Republican Party is answering the
social media presence of their Democratic counterparts. To complete this study, I will first
examine the general use of rhetorical strategies in the political realm by comparing social media
to traditional media sources. Second, I will study the positive and negative aspects of a social
media presence for politicians. And finally, I will compare and contrast Donald Trumps use of
the social media site, Twitter, in the election of 2016 versus that of Barack Obama in 2008 and
2012, adding a new, partisan element to the current research.

FINAL PAPER

Social media Versus Traditional Media


Since the United States was founded in the 18th century, there have been dozens of
presidential elections in which each candidates developed and utilized unique rhetorical
strategies in an attempt to reach mass appeal. Until recently, all rhetorical strategies have been
used with traditional media sources, such as newspaper, radio, television, and brochures.
Traditional media sources create the need for different types of rhetorical strategies than does
social media sources (Kaye, 2013). Jerit (2004) suggested that arguments using traditional media
sources evolve over the course of a campaign cycle in an almost Darwinian sense. If a rhetorical
strategy resonates with voters, the strategy will continue to be used throughout the election. If an
argument fails to gain the attention of voters, however, this argument will no longer be used.
This particular study focuses only on traditional media and there is no similar research of
argument evolution regarding new media.
Many scholars (Abrajano & Panagopoulos, 2011; Bull & Miskinis, 2014; Cobb &
Kuklinski, 1997; Huber & Arceneaux, 2007; Iii et al, 2012) have studied the different types of
traditional media and their effect on voter perception. Abrajano and Panagopoulos (2011)
researched the effect of different languages in political postcards on voter turnout in local
elections. These scholars found that voters who received an English-language postcard were
more likely to vote in the special election. Contrary to the authors hypothesis, however, the
Spanish-language postcards had a minimal effect on the Latino voter turnout. Other scholars
(Cobb & Kuklinski, 1997) suggested that, when using traditional media sources, voters are more
likely to be persuaded by rhetorical strategies aimed against a certain policy while arguments for
a certain policy saw minimal change in voter perception. Again, there is no similar research
weighing pro-arguments versus con-arguments on social media. Scholars (Huber & Arceneaux,

FINAL PAPER

2007).) have also examined the ability of campaign advertisements to change the opinion of and
incite action in voters in the 2000 United States presidential election. The authors studied
campaign commercials in particular to gain information on the actual effect of traditional media
on the voter outcome in elections. The authors concluded that campaign commercials have a
minimal effect on the actions of the votary, but commercials do strengthen the already existing
views the voters hold. Finally, scholars (Iii et al, 2012) studied the differences between complex
and simple rhetoric on voter perception in presidential elections. Consistent with their
hypothesis, the authors found that each candidate did indeed switch from complex rhetoric to
simple rhetoric as the election neared. The winners were more likely to impose a steeper drop in
rhetorical complexity closer to the time of the election. Based on these studies, scholars have
found that rhetorical strategies have many different effects on voters when used on traditional
media sources. However, new media, such as blogs, Facebook, Reddit, and Twitter, has a
smaller base of scholarship than does traditional media.
In the 21st century, social media is a popular tool utilized by politicians to gain support,
discuss issues, relegate controversies, and control voter perception. Some scholars (Johnson,
2012; Kaye, 2013; Kephart III & Rafferty, 2009) have studied the use of social media in the
presidential election of 2008 and 2012. Kaye (2013) studied which types of online media Barack
Obama and John McCain relied on in the 2008 presidential election. The author found that
Obama relied most heavily on more progressive types of online media, such as social media
websites. However, Obama also relied more heavily on blogs and YouTube than did McCain.
The author found that McCain relied heavily on online resources, such as online cable television
programming and news websites. Based on media dependence theory, the author also found that
reliance on a certain type of online media preceded candidate preference in the 2008 presidential

FINAL PAPER

election rather than vice versa. Another scholar (Johnson, 2012) studied Mitt Romneys use of
Twitter during the presidential election of 2012. The author found that, throughout the election
cycle, Romneys rhetorical strategies on Twitter evolved as his motivation for posting changed.
Before he won the Republican nomination, his tweets were more audience-oriented in an attempt
to sway undecided voters and gain support. After he won the Republican nomination, however,
Romney began tweeting more about the issues important to the electorate rather than tweeting
calls for support. As one can see, the research of social media is lacking in depth. My research
proposal would further Johnsons study by using a similar method to examine the tweets of
Donald Trump in the presidential election of 2016. TWO SPACES BETWEEN SENTENCES
Voter Perception and Social Media
We have already covered social media versus traditional media. Now we are going to
cover what effects voter perception in the 21st century. By understanding the history of
traditional media and social media sources in politics, one can better understand the different
rhetorical strategies used to affect voter perception. Voter perception is powerful. If a politician
does everything right but is still perceived negatively by her or his constituents, he or she will
have a much more difficult time finding success in any kind of election. On the other hand, if a
politician understands the incredible affect perception can have on campaign success, and he or
she uses this information strategically, he or she can possibly overcome political shortcomings
and still find success.
To understand voter perception and what goes into the opinions that voters hold, we must
first understand where individuals gain their political information. Borgida (2004) studied
political information gathering on early social media websites. The author found that, even
though the Internet is a relatively new medium, more and more people are finding their political

FINAL PAPER

information online rather than through traditional media sources, such as television
advertisements or political radio shows. The scholar found that the younger a person is, the more
likely she or he is to get information online rather than offline. The author also broke down these
findings in regards to generation. Those born before 1960 were much less likely to use social
media or any type of online media to gather political information.
In 2015, Wang, Lee, and Hua continued this study to show how social media and politics
had changed in the past decade. According to the authors, in 2015, even more people are gaining
their political information from social media. Many people have friends and friends of friends
who share political information. Also, many individuals follow politically driven social media
websites and Facebook pages. Twitter has also become one of the most popular online social
media sites to find information and form political opinions. As mentioned earlier, in todays
technological age, a social media presence is almost necessary for a politicians future campaign
success. Moreover, Kaye (2013) found that the ways in which individuals find political
information can change voter perception. Kaye argues that this could be the cause of the
dramatic differences in voter perception between generations.
Now that we understand where different people find her or his political information, we
can discuss how voter perception is formed and maintained by politicians in the social media era.
People are getting their information online much more than they used to which leads one to
question what effect this will have on rhetoric and political strategies as a whole. Iii et al (2012)
found that different levels of complexity in rhetorical arguments used by politicians can have
different effects on voter perception. Persuasive strategies have been used in United States
politics since the inception of the country, and rhetoric has evolved with the different
technologies that have become available to politicians. The authors of this study found that

FINAL PAPER

arguments that are too complex for voters to understand can actually have an adverse effect on
voter perception. If individuals see someone as too stilted and hard to understand, they will be
less likely to vote for them in an election. One the other hand, if a politician find a simple way to
explain a complex argument to a general audience, the audience members will be more likely to
perceive the politician positively. If a voter perceives a politician positively, he or she will be
more likely to vote for that politician in an election.
Many scholars (Bull & Miskinis, 2014; Mckenna & Bargh, 1998; Mckinney, Rill, &
Thorson, 2013) have found that there are several factors that influence voter perception, on and
offline. Mckenna and Bargh (1998) found that voter perception can change based on a persons
group affiliation. People are more likely to vote for a politician that is popular within a social or
religious group to which they belong. The opposite is also true. The authors of this study point
out that groupthink and tribalism are powerful influences on an individuals political beliefs.
Finally, Bull and Miskinis (2014) found different types of rhetorical strategies have been shown
to have different effects on voter perception. The scholars broke down political speeches into
different categories and measured audience reaction to these different rhetorical strategies. The
authors then examined the audience reactions and found that positive audience reactions were
linked to more success in the following election. If different forms of rhetoric have different
effects on voter perception and campaign success, there must exist a strategy of political
persuasion that will find the most success on social media platforms, such as Twitter.
Social media is an important tool young voters use to gain political information and
engage on a civic level. In 2013, Mckinney, Rill, and Thorson found that more and more young
voters are participating in election because of the increasing use of social media as a political
resource. The authors studied different traditional media sources, such as televised presidential

FINAL PAPER

debates, versus social media, such as Twitter and Facebook, in regards to persuasiveness on
young voters opinions. The authors examined what effect these different sources had on the
likelihood that young individuals would vote despite widespread political cynicism that has
become pervasive in the technological age. The authors found that traditional media sources can
have a polarizing effect on young voters. Some younger voters see these debates as exactly what
is wrong with politics as a whole, but some see these debates as a worthwhile practice. For the
authors of this study (Mckinney et al, 2013), this fact demonstrates that politics is subjective.
What works for some may not work for others. By studying political communication in regards
to social media, we can gain a better understanding of what rhetorical strategies work for
different groups of people. This study points out that young voter turnout is incredibly important
factor in a politicians success. Mckinney et al. (2013) states, This was actually the third
presidential election in a row in which the youth turnout rate has been around 50 percent, far
above the nadir of 37 percent in 1996. It looks as if young voters are back, and their generation is
big enough that they can now choose presidents. Young voters, who are the individuals using
social media to gather political information (Kaye, 2013), now have enough momentum and
manpower to influence something as important as the presidential election.
Politicians use social media differently to affect voter perception in a positive way.
Williams and Gulati (2012) found that a social media presence is important for politicians to be
able to control and maintain voter perception in the 21st century. The authors found, however,
that social media can have adverse effects on a political campaign as well. The authors used an
older politician as an example. If an older politician attempts to use social media to influence
voter perception, but does it in a way that is seen as negative by the younger voters, this can
actually have the opposite effect as intended. Kamarck (2002) found that politicians used early

FINAL PAPER

10

social media websites and blog sites to influence voter perception. The author found that early
adopters of social media were more likely to find campaign success because of the public nature
of the social media websites. Finally, Larsson (2015) found that each political party uses social
media in a different way to maintain and change voter perception. The author found that, in the
United States, the Democratic Party uses social media websites more than the Republican Party,
but the Republican Party has not been far behind in recent presidential elections. My study
would continue this thread of scholarship by examining how Donald Trump, a Republican
candidate, is utilizing his social media presence in the general election of 2016.
Republican Versus Democratic Use of Social Media
We already covered the affect different rhetorical strategies have on voter perception.
Now we are going to cover the partisan differences in social media usage in United States
politics. If one knows more about how each party use rhetoric to influence voter perception, one
would be able to better understand what makes a successful political campaign. Larsson (2015)
found that, outside the United States, in countries such as Canada and Switzerland, different
political parties use social media differently. Each political party employs different strategies of
persuasion and tries to sway voter opinion in different ways (Smith, 2009).
Though there is not an exact study like this one done in regards to the political landscape
in the United States, Kaye (2014) argued that Americans also use social media differently based
on political affiliation. The author of this study found that Democrats were among the early
adopters of social media in the early days of the Internet. The author used the Democratic
President Barack Obama as the main example of the positive side of social media in politics.
Obama is known as the first to use social media extensively in a United States Presidential
election. Obama was the first to have a significant following on popular social media websites,

FINAL PAPER

11

such as Twitter and Facebook. Many people include Obamas extensive network of social media
followers as a large part of the reason for his success in the general elections. Dilliplane (2012)
studied the rhetorical strategies used by Obama in both the 2008 and 2012 United States
Presidential election (Smith, 2011). Using many rhetorical strategies, Obama created and
maintained a positive voter perception. Obama used divisive issues, such as race and religion, to
create a following of dedicated individuals.
Though Republicans were later adopters of social media than were Democrats (Adler,
Gent, & Overmeyer, 1998), in the elections of 2008 and 2012, many Republican candidates
successfully utilized social media two garner votes and change opinions. Kaye (2013) found
that, in the election of 2008, many Republican candidates used social media websites to gain
votes. John McCain, however, relied more heavily on traditional media sources instead of
utilizing social media. Moreover, because McCain won the primary race without a significant
social media following, Kaye suggests that Republican voters were less likely to gather political
information online.
In the next election, however, the Republicans use of social media changed substantially
(Johnson, 2012). The Republican frontrunner, Mitt Romney, became the first popular
Republican candidate to use his social media presence as an important part of his overall
campaign. Romney, like Obama, created and maintained a large following of supportive voters
on Facebook as well as Twitter. Johnson argued that Romney still employed different, rhetorical
strategies than did his Democratic counterparts. The Republican Party of the United States has
yet to win a Presidential election in which social media played a significant role. However, as of
today, Donald Trump, the frontrunner of the Republican Party, is using Twitter, Facebook, and
other social media websites as tool to sway voter opinion and gain more votes.

FINAL PAPER

12

Few scholars (Kaye, 2013; Kephart III & Rafferty, 2009) have studied the use of Twitter
as a rhetorical tool in presidential campaigns. Those scholars that have researched online
rhetorical strategies have found that many millennials are now using social media as their main
means of staying politically involved. In 2012, a scholar (Dilliplane) found that Barack Obama
used his social media presence as a tool to inform and persuade the American votary. John
McCain, however, utilized social media much less. Scholars have also found a correlation
between certain rhetorical strategies and campaign success in general elections (Iii et al, 2012).
The election of 2016 will be the first election in American history in which the internet
plays a significant role on both sides. Few scholars (Johnson, 2012; Kaye, 2013) have
researched the use of Twitter in Republican campaigns, and no scholars have researched Donald
Trumps rhetorical strategies going into the election of 2016. Donald Trump, as a frontrunner, is
a perfect case study as a Republican candidate that utilizes Twitter in his campaign. To gain a
better understanding of how rhetoric on Twitter effects voter opinion in a general election, I
propose a study of Donald Trumps online rhetorical strategies and persuasive tactics on Twitter.
I will use the following research question to limit my study:
RQ1: What rhetorical strategies does Donald Trump use on the social media website,
Twitter, to inform and to persuade American voters in the 2016 United States presidential
election?
Rationale
Scholars ((Kaye, 2013; Kephart III & Rafferty, 2009) have shown that an online presence
is an important part of presidential elections in the 21st century. Researchers, however, have not
gained much evidence on what rhetorical strategies work best to inform and persuade voters
online. Moreover, because different types of rhetorical strategies have been shown to have

FINAL PAPER

13

different effects on campaign success (Iii et al, 2012), my study would give new insight into
online campaign rhetoric, successful strategies, and rhetoric as a whole.
Many unique questions have been brought up throughout the recent studies of online
campaign rhetoric. Researchers have yet to study the partisan differences in Twitter use as a
campaign tool. Based on this lack of evidence, researching Donald Trumps use of rhetorical
strategies on Twitter will extend previous studies while adding the element of partisanship into
the scholarship on the subject. After this study, future candidates in the presidential election will
be able to employ the best rhetorical strategies based on the opinions of the electorate. The more
we understand about campaign rhetoric and successful, persuasive strategies, the more we can
understand politics and human habits as a whole.

FINAL PAPER

14
References

Abrajano, M., & Panagopoulos, C. (2011). Does language matter? The impact of Spanish versus
English-language GOTV efforts on Latino turnout. American Politics Research, 39(4),
643-663. doi:10.1177/1532673x10397000
Adler, E., Gent, C., & Overmeyer, C. (1998). The home style homepage: Legislator use of the
world wide web for constituency contact. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 23(4), 585-595.
doi:10.2307/440242
Borgida, E. (2004). New media and politics: Some insights from social and political psychology.
American Behavioral Scientist, 48(4), 467-478. doi:10.1177/0002764204270282
Bull, P., & Miskinis, K. (2014). Whipping it up! An analysis of audience responses to political
rhetoric in speeches from the 2012 American presidential elections. Journal of Language
and Social Psychology, 34(5), 521-538. doi:10.1177/0261927X14564466
Chalfrant, M. (2015). #Hashtag2016: How Twitter is already impacting the presidential election.
Retrieved from http://elitedaily.com/news/politics/twitter-impact-on-presidentialelection/997243/
Cobb, M., & Kuklinski, J. (1997). Changing minds: Political arguments and political persuasion.
American Journal of Political Science, 41, 88-121. http://www.wisc.edu
Dilliplane, S. (2012). Race, rhetoric, and running for president: Unpacking the significance of
Barack Obamas A more perfect union speech. Rhetoric & Public Affairs, 15, 127-152.
doi:10.1353/rap.2012.0002
Gulati, G. J., & Williams, C. B. (2007). Closing gaps, moving hurdles: Candidate web site
communication in the 2006 campaigns for Congress. Social Science Computer Review,
25, 443465. doi:10.1177/0894439307305624

FINAL PAPER

15

Huber, G., & Arceneaux, K. (2007). Identifying the persuasive effects of presidential advertising.
American Journal of Political Science, 51(4), 957-977. doi:10.1177/0973258614545155
Iii, L., Gornick, L., Burfeind, C., Mandella, P., Kuenzli, A., Houck, S., & Fullerton, D. (2012).
Does complex or simple rhetoric win elections? An integrative complexity analysis of
U.S. presidential campaigns. Political Psychology, 33(5), 599-618. doi:10.1111/j.14679221.2012.00910.x
Ivie, R. L., & Giner, O. (2009). American exceptionalism in a democratic idiom: Transacting the
mythos of change in the 2008 presidential campaign. Communication Studies, 60, 359375. doi:10.1080/10510970903109961
Jerit, J. (2004). Survival of the fittest: Rhetoric during the course of an election campaign.
Political Psychology, 25(4), 563-575. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9221.2004.00387.x
Johnson, J. (2012). Twitter bites and Romney: Examining the rhetorical situation of the 2012
presidential election in 140 characters. Journal of Contemporary Rhetoric, 2, 54-64.
http://www.alabamacommunication.org
Kamarck, E. C. (2002). Political campaigning on the internet: Business as usual?: Democracy in
the information age (pp. 81103).Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
Kaye, B. K. (2013). I can choose clearly now: The influence of online source reliance on
candidate preference during the 2008 presidential election. Atlantic Journal of
Communication, 21(5), 294-311. doi:10.1080/15456870.2013.842572
Kephart III, J. M., & Rafferty, S. F. (2009). "Yes we can": Rhizomic rhetorical agency in hypermodern campaign ecologies. Argumentation & Advocacy, 46, 6-20.
http://www.americanforensics.org

FINAL PAPER

16

Larsson, A. (2015). Going viral? Comparing parties on social media during the 2014 Swedish
election. Convergence: The International Journal of Research into New Media
Technologies, 5, 1-16. doi:10.1177/1354856515577891
Mckenna, K., & Bargh, J. (1998). Coming out in the age of the Internet: Identity
"demarginalization" through virtual group participation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 75, 681-694. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.681
Mckinney, M., Rill, L., & Thorson, E. (2013). Civic engagement through presidential debates:
Young citizens' political attitudes in the 2012 election. American Behavioral Scientist,
58(6), 755-775. doi:10.1177/0002764213515223
Pew Research Center (2012, November 14). Politics fact sheet. Retrieved from
http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/politics-fact-sheet/
Phelan, J. (2015). Donald Trump leads in expectations, shows strength on attributes. Retrieved
from http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/donald-trump-leads-expectations-shows-strengthattributes-poll/story?id=34599211
Smith, A. (2009). The Internets role in campaign 2008. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and
American Life Project.
Smith, A. (2011). The internet and campaign 2010. Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American
Life Project.
Wang, C., Lee, M., & Hua, Z. (2015). A theory of social media dependence: Evidence from
microblog users. Decision Support Systems, 69, 40-49. Retrieved from
http://www.elsevier.com/locate/dss

FINAL PAPER
Williams, C., & Gulati, G. (2012). Social networks in political campaigns: Facebook and the
congressional elections of 2006 and 2008. New Media & Society, 15, 52-71.
doi:10.1177/1461444812457332

17

You might also like