Despite research showing their importance, vice-presidential debates receive significantly less scholarly attention than presidential or primary debates. Building upon previous research into candidate image and politeness argumentation in U.S. political debates, this study examined the argumentative style of the 2024 vice-presidential debate, compared it to the 2024 presidential debates, and explored vice-presidential argumentation trends from the 2012 to 2024 campaigns. Results showed differences between vice-presidential and presidential candidates’ argumentative image making strategies, strategic differences between Republican and Democratic vice-presidential candidates’ usage of politeness claims, and differences between incumbent and challenger’s usage of politeness claims. Results also found candidates’ usage of face-supportive messages increasing post-debate favorability ratings while usage of direct face threats predicted increases in candidates’ unfavorability ratings. Furthermore, face threats based on topics of policy were found to have positive effects on candidates’ images while face threats based on ridicule and disagreement over factual data had negative effects. Taken together, the results indicated that, contrary to conventional wisdom, vice-presidential debates were less aggressive than presidential debates; however, vice-presidential candidates still appeared to have more argumentative leeway than presidential candidates, enabling them to offer more civil and deliberative arguments compared to their presidential counterparts. These findings contribute to our understanding of vice-presidential debate discourse, U.S. perceptions of political leadership, and the strategic nature of vice-presidential argumentation within the context of increasing political polarization and rising incivility in American political discourse.
BeckC. (1996). “I’ve got some points I’d like to make here”: The achievement of social face through turn management during the 1992 vice presidential debate. Political Communication, 13, 165–180.
3.
BenoitW. L.AirneD. (2005). A functional analysis of American vice presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41(4), 225–236.
4.
BenoitW. L.HensonJ. R. (2009). A functional analysis of the 2008 Vice Presidential debate: Biden versus Palin. Argumentation and Advocacy, 46(1), 39–50.
5.
BenoitW. L.HolbertR. L. (2008). Empirical intersections in communication research: Replication, multiple quantitative methods, and bridging the quantitative-qualitative divide. Journal of Communication, 58, 615–628.
6.
BenoitW. L.BlaneyJ. R.PierP. M. (1998). Campaign ’96: A functional analysis of acclaiming, attacking, and defending discourse. Praeger.
7.
BøggildT.JensenC. (2024). When politicians behave badly: Political, democratic, and social consequences of political incivility. American Journal of Political Science, 69(3), 1064–1081.
8.
BostdorffD. M. (1991). Vice-presidential comedy and the traditional female role: An examination of the rhetorical characteristics of the vice presidency. Western Journal of Communication, 55(1), 1–27.
BrownP.LevinsonS. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage (Vol. 4). Cambridge University Press.
11.
BucyE. P.FoleyJ. M.LukitoJ.DoroshenkoL.ShahD. V.PevehouseJ. C.WellsC. (2020). Performing populism: Trump’s transgressive debate style and the dynamics of Twitter response. New Media & Society, 22(4), 634–658.
12.
CarlinD. B.BicakP. J. (1993). Toward a theory of vice presidential debate purposes: An analysis of the 1992 vice presidential debate. Argumentation and Advocacy, 30(2), 119–130.
13.
CarlinD. P. (1992). Presidential debates as focal points for campaign arguments. Political Communication, 9, 251–265.
DaileyW. O.HinckE. A.HinckS. S. (2005). Audience perceptions of politeness and advocacy skills in the 2000 and 2004 presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 41(4), 196–210.
16.
DaileyW. O.HinckS. S.HinckR. S.HinckE. A. (2017). Intensity of face threats in the 2008, 2012 and 2016 US presidential debates. In DentonR. E. (Ed.), Political campaign communication: Theory, method and practice (pp. 77–103). Lexington.
17.
DaileyW. O.HinckE. A.HinckS. S. (2008). Politeness in presidential debates: Shaping face in campaign debates from 1960-2004. Rowman and Littlefield.
DiasN.LelkesY. (2022). The nature of affective polarization: Disentangling policy disagreement from partisan identity. American Journal of Political Science, 66(3), 775–790.
GreenbergD. (2009). Torchlight parades for the television age: The presidential debates as political ritual. Daedalus, 138(2), 6–19.
26.
HartR. P.JarvisS. E. (1997). Political debate: Forms, styles, and media. American Behavioral Scientist, 40(8), 1095–1122.
27.
HatfieldJ. D.Weider-HatfieldD. (1978). The comparative utility of three types of behavioral units for interaction analysis. Communication Monographs, 45, 44–50.
28.
HellwegS. A.PfauM.BrydonS. R. (1992). Televised presidential debates: Advocacy in contemporary America. Praeger.
HinckE. A.HinckS. S. (2002). Politeness strategies in the 1992 vice presidential and presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 38(4), 234–251.
32.
HinckE. A. (1993). Enacting the presidency: Political argument, presidential debates and presidential character. Praeger.
33.
HinckR. S.HinckE. A.HinckS. S. (in press). Why debate? Assessing the 2024 republican primary debates in the wake of Trump’s return to power. Communication Studies.
34.
HinckR. S.HinckE. A.HinckS. S.DailyW. O. (2024). Gender, politeness, and the 2020 democratic presidential primary debates. Western Journal of Communication, 88(2), 328–351.
35.
HinckR. S.HinckE. A.HinckS. S.DaileyW. O.MeltonB. (2021a). The 2020 democratic presidential primary debates exploring politeness strategies for facing an aggressive incumbent. Argumentation and Advocacy, 57(3–4), 181–199.
36.
HinckS. S.HinckE. A.DaileyW. O.HinckR. S.HansenE.MadsenB. (2018). A tale of two parties: Comparing the intensity of face threats in the Democratic and Republican primary debates of 2012 and 2016. Argumentation and Advocacy, 54(1–2), 104–121.
37.
HinckS. S.DaileyW. O.HinckR. S.HinckE. A. (2013). Thou shalt not speak ill of any fellow Republicans? Politeness theory in the 2012 Republican primary debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 49(4), 259–274.
38.
HinckE. A.HinckS. S.HinckR. S.DaileyW. O. (2021b). Face threats in the 2020 presidential debates. In DentonR. E. (Ed.), Studies of the 2020 presidential campaign. Rowman & Littlefield.
39.
HolbrookT. M. (1994). The behavioral consequences of vice-presidential debates: Does the undercard have any punch?American Politics Quarterly, 22(4), 469–482.
JamiesonK. H.BirdsellD. S. (1988). Presidential debates: The challenge of creating an informed electorate. Oxford University Press.
42.
JamiesonK. H.TaussigD. (2017). Disruption, demonization, deliverance, and norm destruction: The rhetorical signature of Donald J. Trump. Political Science Quarterly, 132(4), 619–650.
43.
JamiesonK. H.VolinskyA.WeitzI.KenskiK. (2017). The political uses and abuses of civility and incivility. In KenskiK.JamiesonK. H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of political communication (pp. 205–217). Oxford University Press.
44.
KaidL. L. (2004). Measuring candidate images with semantic differentials. In HackerH. (Ed.), Presidential candidate images (pp. 231–236). Rowman and Littlefield.
45.
KayJ.BorchersT. A. (1994). “Children in a sandbox”: Reaction to the vice presidential debate. In CarlinD. B.McKinneyM. S. (Eds.), The 1992 presidential debates in focus (pp. 99–108). Praeger.
46.
KenskiK.FilerC. R.Conway-SilvaB. A. (2018). Lying, liars, and lies: Incivility in 2016 presidential candidate and campaign tweets during the invisible primary. American Behavioral Scientist, 62(3), 286–299.
KissasA. (2020). Performative and ideological populism: The case of charismatic leaders on Twitter. Discourse & Society, 31(3), 268–284.
49.
LiconA.BarrowB.JalonickM.PriceM.MillerZ. (2024, September11). Donald Trump faces his own debate fallout just months after benefiting from Joe Biden’s. Associated Press.
50.
LongC.MillerZ.SupervilleD. (2024, July21). Biden drops out of 2024 race after disastrous debate inflamed age concerns. VP Harris gets his nod. Associated Press.
McDonoughM. L. (2018). The evolution of demagoguery: An updated understanding of demagogic rhetoric as interactive and ongoing. Communication Quarterly, 66(2), 138–156.
53.
McKinneyM. S.CarlinD. B. (2004). Political campaign debates. In KaidL. L. (Ed.), Handbook of political campaign research (pp. 203–234). Erlbaum.
54.
McKinneyM. S.WarnerB. R. (2013). Do presidential debates matter? Examining a decade of campaign effects. Argumentation and Advocacy, 49, 238–258.
55.
McKinneyM. S.KaidL. L.RobertsonT. A. (2001). The front-runner, contenders, and also-rans: Effects of watching a 2000 Republican primary debate. American Behavioral Scientist, 44(12), 2232–2251.
56.
MontezD. J.BrubakerP. J. (2019). Making debate great again: U.S. presidential candidates’ use of aggressive communication for winning presidential debates. Argumentation and Advocacy, 55(4), 282–302.
RowlandR. C. (2018a). Implicit standards of public argument in presidential debates: What the 2016 debates reveal about public deliberation. Argumentation and Advocacy, 54(1–2), 76–94.
64.
RowlandR. C. (2018b). Donald Trump and the rejection of the norms of American politics and rhetoric. In WarnerB. R.BanwartM. C.McKinneyM. S.BystromD. G. (Eds.), An unprecedented election: Media, communication, and the electorate in the 2016 campaign (pp. 189–205). Bloomsbury Publishing.
65.
RowlandR. (2021). The 2020 presidential debates: Reasoned argument or political theater. Argumentation and Advocacy, 57(3–4), 218–235.
66.
SchlesingerA. M.Jr. (1974). On the presidential succession. Political Science Quarterly, 89(3), 475–505.
67.
SchneikerA. (2020). Populist leadership: The superhero Donald Trump as savior in times of crisis. Political Studies, 68(4), 857–874.
68.
SchroederA. (2008). Presidential debates: Fifty years of high-risk TV. Columbia University Press.
69.
ScottD. K.ChanslorM.DixonJ. (2021). U.S. presidential debates 1948-2020: An issue of formality and respect. Argumentation and Advocacy, 57(3–4), 157–180.
70.
SigelmanL.BuellE. H.Jr. (2003). You take the high road and I’ll take the low road? The interplay of attack strategies and tactics in presidential campaigns. The Journal of Politics, 65(2), 518–531.
UlbigS. G. (2010). The appeal of second bananas: The impact of vice presidential candidates on presidential vote choice, yesterday and today. American Politics Research, 38(2), 330–355.
74.
VothB. (2017). The presidential debates 2016. In DentonR. (Ed.), The 2016 US Presidential campaign. Political campaigning and communication. Palgrave Macmillan.
75.
WarnerB. R.BanwartM. C. (2016). A multifactor approach to candidate image. Communication Studies, 67(3), 259–279.
76.
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, 55(3), 232–252.
77.
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.
78.
WinfreyK. L. (2021). “I’m f—ing moving to Iowa”: Gender and candidate image in the 2020 Iowa Caucus. American Behavioral Scientist, 65(3), 558–573.
79.
WrasseJ. W.SchillD.KirkR. (2018). Meeting the commander-in-waiting: Undecided voters and the 2016 vice-presidential debate. Argumentation and Advocacy, 54(1–2), 139–158.
80.
ZakahiW. R. (2004). Presidential debates and candidate image formation: 1992, 1996, 2000. In HackerK. L. (Ed.), Presidential candidate images (pp. 151–175). Rowman and Littlefield.
