An Analysis Of 2016 U.S.presidential Debates

The Functional Theory of Political Campaign Discourse(Benoit,2007)explains that in political campaigns candidates seek to appear preferable to other candidates in order to win elections.Three functions of messages promote the impression that a candidate is preferable to his or her opponents: acclaims,attacks and defenses.The Functional Theory also posits that political candidates can discuss two topics as they exchange words to persuade voters of their desirability to other candidates: policy and character.Furthermore,policy is divided into past deeds,future plans and general goals,while character is divided into personal qualities,leadership ability and ideals.Debates are a very important campaign message form in democratic governments.Furthermore,presidential debates provide a unique opportunity for the electorate to see the candidates not only tackle issues but show their habits of mind and temperament.Since the 1976 presidential election,televised debates have been a regular fixture of the process of electing a U.S.president.The 2016 general election presidential debates were the most viewed in U.S.history.No other communication forums offer a comparable audience.The presidential debates can make a significant difference for the two candidates.This study applies the Functional Theory of Political Campaign Discourse as designed by Benoit(2007)to content analyze the first televised presidential debates from the 2016 U.S.general election.The focus of this analysis lies in the study of campaign messages produced by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton.The purpose of this study is to provide a broad understanding of the differences between the two candidates and their approach to political campaign discourse.Results indicate that in the debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton utterances of attacks and acclaims exceed utterances of defense,which conforms to Benoit‘s prediction political that candidates will use attacks more frequently then defenses.However,Trump attacked more than he acclaimed and he attacked more frequently than his opponent.Clinton acclaimed more than she attacked.This contrast was particularly acute when the candidates discussed leadership ability.The two candidates also discussed policy more than character.These findings contribute to the body of knowledge we have about political campaign discourse.In respect of theoretical framework,this study applies Benoit‘s Functional Theory to analyze political campaign discourse,in particular,presidential debates;in respect of research methodology,this study provided data collection and data analysis to conduct the functional analysis of 2016 U.S.presidential debates;in respect of the subject investigated,this study provides researchers of the English language and political science a less known perspective on studying U.S.political campaign discourse.