As the most-watched U.S. political events, televised presidential debates are primetime opportunities for candidates to market themselves to voters. We employ political marketing theory and the concept of candidate brands to measure the cognitive and attitudinal outcomes of viewing one of the 2024 general election presidential debates. Using survey data collected during each of the three debates—Biden/Trump in June, Harris/Trump in September, and Walz/Vance in October—we measure the associative thoughts voters had about candidates, their directional valence, and their effects on attitudes toward candidates. We compare candidate brand outcomes across debates, candidate performance, and partisan voters, situating our findings within the historic and unprecedented nature of the 2024 debates as well as the literature on partisan social identity and debate viewing. The vice-presidential candidates gained the most positive brand favorability, while incumbent president Joe Biden had the worst brand outcomes, even while accounting for partisan in-group support. Our study contributes to the conversations on the 2024 presidential election along with scholarship on presidential debates and political marketing.
AakerD. A. (1996). Building strong brands. London: Simon & Schuster UK Ltd.
2.
AndersonJ. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 261–295.
3.
BenoitW. L.HansenG. J.VerserR. M. (2003). A meta-analysis of the effects of viewing U.S. presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 70(4), 335–350. http://doi.org/10.1080/0363775032000179133
4.
BlaisA.PerrellaA. M. L. (2008). Systemic effects of televised candidates’ debates. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(4), 451–464. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161208323548
BramlettJ. C. (2021). Battles for branding: A political marketing approach to studying televised candidate debates. Communication Quarterly, 69(3), 280–300. https://doi.org/10.1080.01463373.2021.1944889
7.
BramlettJ. C.WarnerB. R.McKinneyM. S. (2022). Trump’s disruptive debate: Analyzing the candidate branding costs. In BystromD. G.BanwartM. C.McKinneyM. S.WarnerB. R. (Eds.), Democracy disrupted: Communication in the volatile 2020 presidential election. ABC-CLIO.
CwalinaW.FalkowskiA. (2015). Political branding: Political candidates positioning based on inter-object associative affinity index. Journal of Political Marketing, 14(1–2), https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2014.990842
10.
CwalinaW.FalkowskiA.NewmanB. I. (2011). Political marketing: Theoretical and strategic foundations. M.E. Sharpe.
11.
DruckmanJ. N. (2003). The power of television images: The first Kennedy-Nixon debate revisited. The Journal of Politics, 65(2), 559–571. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2508.t01-1-00015
12.
FridkinK. L.KenneyP. J.GershonS. A.Serignese WoodallG. (2008). Spinning debates: The impact of the news media’s coverage of the final 2004 presidential debate. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(1), 29–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/1940161207312677
13.
GillilandD.WarnerB. R.VillamilA.JenningsF. J. (2023). Intergroup bias in political decision making. Communication Studies, 74(5), 428–446. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2023.2222282
JarmanJ. W. (2016). Motivated reasoning and viewer’s reactions to the first 2012 presidential debate. Speaker & Gavel, 53, 83–101.
21.
JenningsF. J. (2019). An uninformed electorate: Identity-motivated elaboration, partisan cues, and learning. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 47(5), 527–547. https://doi.org/10.1080/00909882.2019.1679385
22.
JenningsF. J.BramlettJ. C.McKinneyM. S.HardyM. M. (2020). Tweeting along partisan lines: Identity-motivated elaboration and presidential debates. Social Media + Society, 6(4), 1–12. http://doi.org/10.1177/2056305120965518
23.
JenningsF. J.BramlettJ. C.TurnerK.FigueroaB. (2024). How partisan social identity shapes evaluations of candidate brand elements on campaign websites. Communication Quarterly, 72(1), 79–98. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463373.2023.2291195
24.
JenningsF. J.BramlettJ. C.VillanuevaI. I.FigueroaB.CarterB.BuchananS.BradyR. M.HillF. (2025). Comparing how brand and product appeals influence consumer attitudes, preferences and visual processing. Corporate Communications: An International Journal. https://doi.org/10.1108/CCIJ-09-2024-0164
25.
JenningsF. J.BramlettJ. C.WarnerB. R. (2019). Comedic cognition: The impact of elaboration on political comedy effects. Western Journal of Communication, 83(3), 365–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/10570314.2018.1541476
26.
KellerK. L. (1993). Conceptualizing, measuring, managing customer-based brand equity. Journal of Marketing, 57(1), 1–22.
KimG.-E.WarnerB. R.KearneyC.ParkJ.KearneyM. W. (2021). Social watching the 2020 presidential and vice-presidential debates: The effect of ideological homogeneity and partisan identity strength. Argumentation and Advocacy, 57(3–4), 253–266. https://doi.org/10.1080/10511431.2021.1955446
29.
KimY. M.GarrettK. (2012). On-line and memory-based: Revisiting the relationship between candidate evaluation processing models. Political Behavior, 34(2), 345–368. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-011-9158-9
30.
KotlerP. (1975). Overview of political candidate marketing. Advances in Consumer Research, 2, 761–770.
31.
KrausS.SmithR. (1962). Images and issues. In KrausS. (Ed.), The great debates: Background, perspective, effects (pp. 289–312). Indiana University Press.
32.
LodgeM.TaberC. S. (2013). The rationalizing voter. Cambridge University Press.
MasonL. (2018). Uncivil agreement. University of Chicago Press.
35.
McKinneyM. S.DudashE. A.HodgkinsonG. (2003). Viewer reactions to the 2000 presidential debates: Learning issues and image information. In KaidL. LTedescoJ. C.BystromD. G.McKinneyM. S. (Eds.) The millennium election: Communication in the 2000 campaign (pp. 43–58). Rowman & Littlefield.
36.
McKinneyM. S.WarnerB. R. (2013). Do presidential debates matter? Examining a decade of campaign debate effects. Argumentation & Advocacy, 49(4), 238–258.
37.
MillerP. R.ConoverP. J. (2015). Red and blue states of mind: Partisan hostility and voting in the United States. Political Research Quarterly, 68(2), 225–239. https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912915577208
38.
MullinixK. J. (2015). Presidential debates, partisan motivations, and political interest. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 45(2), 270–288. https://doi.org/10.1111/psq.12187
39.
MunroG. D.DittoP. H.LockhartL. K.FagerlinA.GreadyM.PetersonE. (2002). Biased assimilation of sociopolitical arguments: Evaluating the 1996 U.S. presidential debate. Basic & Applied Social Psychology, 24, 15–26.
NimmoD. (1975). Images and voters’ decision-making processes. Advances in Consumer Research, 2, 771–782.
44.
NimmoD. D.SavageR. L. (1976). Candidates and their images: Concepts, methods, and findings. Goodyear.
45.
ParkJ.WarnerB. R.McKinneyM. S.KearneyC.KearneyM. W.KimG.-E. (2025). Partisan identity and affective polarization in presidential debates. American Behavioral Scientist, 69(8), 1012–1029. https://doi.org/10.1177/00027642211046551
46.
PettyR. E.CacioppoJ. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915–1926.
47.
RounerD.PerloffR. M. (1988). Selective perception of outcome of first 1984 presidential debate. Journalism Quarterly, 65(1), 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/107769908806500119
48.
ScammellM. (2014). Consumer democracy. Cambridge University Press.
49.
SchroederA. (2008). Presidential debates: Forty years of high risk TV. (2nd ed). Columbia University Press.
50.
SchrottP. R.LanoueD. J. (2013). The power and limitations of televised presidential debates: Assessing the real impact of candidate performance on public opinion and vote choice. Electoral Studies, 32, 684–692. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2013.03.006
51.
SearsD. O.ChaffeeS. H. (1979). The uses and effects of the 1976 debates: An overview of empirical studies. In KrausS. (Ed.), The great debates: Carter vs. Ford 1976 (pp. 223–261). Indiana University Press.
52.
ShamaA. (1976). The marketing of political candidates. Journal of the Academy of Marketing Science, 4(4), 764–777.
SigelmanL.SigelmanC. K. (1984). Judgements of the Carter-Reagan debate: The eyes of beholders. Public Opinion Quarterly, 48, 624–628. https://doi.org/10.1086/268863
55.
SpeedR.ButlerP.CollinsN. (2015). Human branding in political marketing: Applying contemporary branding thought to political parties and their leaders. Journal of Political Marketing, 14(1–2), 129–151. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377857.2014.990833
TajfelH. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.
58.
TannenbaumP.GreenbergB.SilvermanF. (1962). Candidate images. In KrausS. (Ed.), The great debates: Background, perspective, effects (pp. 271–288). Indiana University Press.
59.
WarnerB. R.BramlettJ. C.HoeunS.ManikD. I.BoltonJ. P. (2018). Presidential primary debates compared: Timing of debate and size of candidate field as moderators of debate effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 54(1–2), 122–138. https://doi.org/10.1080/00028533.2018.1446868
60.
WarnerB. R.CarlinD. B.WinfreyK.SchnoebelenJ.TrosanovskiM. (2011). Will the “real” candidates for president and vice president please stand up? 2008 pre- and post-debate viewer perceptions of candidate image. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 232–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764210392160
61.
WarnerB. R.HoeunS.BramlettJ. C.GalarzaR.ManikD. I.HaseG. E.EngenR. (2019). The effects of debate viewing on candidate image perceptions in the 2016 televised presidential general election debates. In HinckE. A. (Ed.), Presidential debates in a changing media environment (Vol. 1, pp. 292–318). Praeger.
62.
WarnerB. R.McKinneyM. S. (2013). To unite and divide: The polarizing effect of presidential debates. Communication Studies, 64(5), 508–527. https://doi.org/10.1080/10510974.2013.832341
63.
WarnerB. R.McKinneyM. S.BramlettJ. C.JenningsF. J.FunkM. E. (2020). Reconsidering partisanship as a constraint on the persuasive effects of debates. Communication Monographs, 87(2), 137–157. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2019.1641731
64.
ZhuJ.-H.MilavskyJ. R.BiswasR. (1994). Do televised debates affect image perception more than issue knowledge? A study of the first 1992 presidential debate. Human Communication Research, 20, 302–333.
