A Functional Analysis of the Persuasive Strategies Used by Trump and Clinton in the United States 2016 Presidential Debates

Abstract

This study presents a functional analysis of the persuasive strategies utilized by Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the three U.S. 2016 presidential debates (henceforth PDs). These PDs, which take place every four years, are the furthermost critical political rhetoric that gives rise to the voting of the following President. Such PDs cover an argument of various subjects between the candidates. Many scholars have studied the U.S. PDs, but there has not been a study that focuses primarily on the persuasive strategies (i.e. acclaim, attack, and defense) as a functional analysis in these debates. The persuasive strategies used by Trump and Clinton were excerpted from the U.S. 2016 PDs and analyzed using Benoit’s (2007) functional theory. The findings of analyzing the two presidential candidates' speeches in the U.S. 2016 PDs state that 53.1% of the persuasive strategies were utilized by Trump in opposite to 46.9% were utilized by Clinton.