The aim of the study was to examine the ways in which the presidential candidates Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were portrayed in articles regarding the first presidential debate of 2016. We also wanted to examine the differences and similarities between the framing of the two candidates as well as which frames varied between the newspapers from Sweden and the USA and which they had in common. We made a qualitative framing analysis of 14 articles from 14 different newspapers half of which were from Sweden and half from the USA. The result shows that Hillary Clinton is most often portrayed as an experienced and professional politician whereas Donald Trump is portrayed as her opposite in both regards. The framing of Trump shows him as an outsider from the business world, who has a history of controversial behavior in which he is accused of both racism and sexism. Both candidates are portrayed as highly disliked by the American people. They are also portrayed as dishonest as a consequence of their respective scandals where they are being accused of having hidden something from the public – Clinton in her use of a private e-mail server during her time as secretary of state – Trump due to his unreleased tax returns. The American and the Swedish articles frame the candidates similarly, although the American newspapers are more prone to the usage of harsh language in describing the candidates and their actions in the debate. The Swedish newspapers tend to use less emotive words in re-telling the debate.

Denna uppsats undersöker vilket innehåll USA:s president Donald Trump fyllde begreppen ”vi” och ”dom” med via sitt Twitterkonto under de sista tre veckorna av presidentvalrörelsen 2016. Analysen motiveras av att den kan ge en fingervisning om vilken politik Trump kommer att verka för som president. Forskningsfrågan för studien är: Med vilket innehåll fyller Donald Trump, genom sitt Twitterkonto, signifikanterna ”vi” och ”dom”? Uppsatsen ingår i forskningsfältet politisk kommunikation och utgår från ett teoretiskt ramverk som lägger stor vikt vid språkets funktion i konstruktionen av verkligheten. Som metod används diskursanalys, där betydelserna för ”vi” och ”dom” tolkas utifrån hur begreppen sammankopplas med andra betydelsebärande begrepp och den kontext som tweetarna är skrivna i. I uppsatsens analys framkommer det att Trump konstruerar en motsättning mellan ”vi” och ”dom” som baseras på religiös tillhörighet och ursprung, och där ”dom” som är muslimer eller har invandrat från Latinamerika utgör problemet. Utifrån den konstruerade problembilden kan politiska krav som att stoppa invandringen från muslimska länder och att deportera miljontals invandrade från Latinamerika, framstå som logiska lösningar. Lösningar som också har presenterats av Donald Trump. Denna typ av politiska förslag riskerar leda till att ytterligare öka främlingsfientligheten och de sociala spänningarna i USA. / This paper examines the content US President Donald Trump filled the terms "us" and "them" via his Twitter account during the last three weeks of the presidential election campaign in 2016. The analysis is motivated because it can give an indication of what kind of policy Trump will suggest as president. The research question for this study is: With what content does Donald Trump, through his Twitter account, fill the signifiers "us" and "them"? The essay is part of the research field of political communication and is based on a theoretical framework which places emphasis on the function language has as a tool for the construction of reality. Discourse analysis is used as method, which implicates that the meanings of "us" and "them" is interpreted on the basis of how the concepts are connected with other meaningful concepts and the context in which the tweets are produced. According to the analysis of this paper, Donald Trump constructs an opposition between "us" and "them" based on religious affiliation and origin, in which "them" – who are Muslim or immigrants from Latin America – are the problem. Based on this constructed conflict, the political demands to stop immigration from Muslim countries and deport millions of immigrants from Latin America, appears as logical solutions. Solutions that has also been presented by Donald Trump. This type of policy proposals could lead to a further strengthening of the social divisiveness and an increase of xenophobia in USA.

Donald Trump tog världen med storm när han deltog i det amerikanska presidentvalet och sedermera blev vald. Uppsatsen undersöker om Donald Trump kan placeras på en fascistisk skala baserat på hans uttalanden i sex tal; samt hur det kristna stödet, som Donald Trump erhöll i valet, kan förklaras. Sex tal analyseras med basen i kvalitativ textanalys och kategoriseras i fem kategorier för fascism.   Det kristna stödet kan förklaras genom gemensamma värderingar, Lakoffs Strict Father morality, i kombination med rädsla. Rädslan över vad som ska hända med AFS med Hillary Clinton som president är stor, är en tung faktor för konservativa kristna att rösta på Donald Trump. Studien kommer fram till att Donald Trump kan klassificeras som semi-fascist då han delvis uppfyller de kriterier som studien grundar sig på. / Donald Trump chocked the world when he decided to run for president of the United States of America, and won. This study examines if Donald Trump may be placed on a fascist scale based on his statements in six speeches; and how the Christian support, that he received, may be explained. The speeches have been analysed based on a qualitative text analysis and been categorized in to five categories of fascism.   The Christian support may be explained by common values; Lakoff’s Strict Father morality, in combination with fear. The fear for what may happen to the U.S. with Hillary Clinton as president has a big impact on why conservative Christians voted for Donald Trump. The conclusion of this study is that Donald Trump can be classified as a semi-fascist as he partly fulfils the fascist criteria this study presents.

The current president of the United States, Donald Trump, has been identified as the reason for a large shift in American foreign policy towards a doctrine closer to that of political realism. This claim has led us to examine if this transformation could be detected and described if we analyzed and compared Trump’s foreign policy doctrine with his predecessor, Barack Obama, through the lens Thomas Hobbes, whose ideas are at the core of the three modern schools of political realism. Accordingly, in this thesis, we deduce an analytical framework from the original corpus of Hobbes, where anarchy is divided into moral and empirical variables, identified as the primary factors for behavior in international settings. This is then applied inductively via a comparative qualitative content analysis to two primary documents, the National Security Strategies of 2010 containing the foreign policy doctrine of Obama, and the National Security Strategy of 2017 containing the doctrine of Trump. Our thesis shows a large shift in how the Presidents view the world in moral terms, or how they see it fit for the American executive to act on the international stage. And a relatively minor shift in empirical terms, or their perception of the foundational reality of the world system which they both consider to be of an anarchical nature closely connected to the theoretical model presented by our interpretation of Hobbes

In this study, a qualitative rhetorical analysis is done on U.S. president Donald Trump’s crisis communication on Hurricane Maria, which was an Atlantic hurricane that struck areas such as Puerto Rico and Dominica in the autumn of 2017. Given that the former is an unincorporated territory of the U.S., the need for effective relief measures by the Trump administration became of particular importance there. However, in the media, the actual response by the administration was widely criticised as being slow and inefficient by actors like the relief group Oxfam and the humanitarian organisation Refugees International. Therefore, this study critically evaluates Trump’s crisis communication strategies on the hurricane to assess their success. The material consists of statements by Trump in both traditional and social media through official remarks and tweets, which are analysed through the crisis communication theories of image repair theory and situational crisis communication theory. In doing so, of interest is also to examine whether any differences can be seen in the strategies used by Trump in these two kinds of media channels. To address the hurricane, the findings showed that Trump mainly used the crisis communication strategies of corrective action, bolstering, defeasibility and attack accuser from image repair theory and compensation, reminder, ingratiation, excuse and attack the accuser from situational crisis communication theory. Moreover, no distinctive differences were found in which strategies Trump used in the respective channels, even if the attacks on Twitter were often more aggressive. While both positive and negative evaluations could be made of how Trump used these strategies overall, the main conclusion of the study is that his crisis communication was largely ineffective due to the strategies sometimes being contradictory and inconsistent.

This essay aims to analyze how Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump communicated verbally and non-verbally during the second presidential debate of the 2016 US election. To do this the essay utilizes a method focused on analyzing actio. The essay also analyses main trends in the rhetoric’s of the candidates. To aid the findings from this analysis the essay takes support from theories such as Impression management, footing, face as well as different theories in representation, including stereotypes, gender in politics and the construction of otherness.   The results that the study reached where that very little critic could be raised towards Clinton's actio except for questioning how effective her choice to face the live audience instead of the tv audience was. That only a few major errors could be found in Clinton's actio & her rhetoric as well, was theorized to be due to the stark contrast of her errors against Trump's which many times where a lot worse. The study also found some similarities in how to candidates used similar rhetorical and, to some extent, actio techniques to compel their audience, thou stark differences could be found in the execution of said techniques. Further the study could not point to any definite female or male use of body language, but theorized that this is due to the nature of a political debate and how Clinton might have adapted to the male dominated world of politics. Finally, in the end discussion a speculation was raised that whoever the audience perceived as a “winner” of the debate came down largely to pre-perceived notions of each candidate at least when it came to body language and rhetoric.

Donald Trump, välkänd affärsman, programledare och numera USA:s 45:e president. Hur lyckades egentligen en man som inte varit i en politisk position tidigare övertyga ett helt land att han har vad som krävs för att styra det? Studien skall ta reda på vilka retoriska begrepp Trump använt sig av under sin valperiod och vilken effekt de har gett. Med en kvalitativ studie och retorisk analys undersöks Donald Trumps tal under the Republican National Convention, 2016. Den retoriska teorin anväands med hjälp av olika former såsom ethos, pathos, logos, ordfigurer och tankefigurer samt troper. En analys av hans användning av retorik och kommunikationsteorier görs för att få en så konkret bild som möjligt av hur Trump talade för att påverka sina väljare. Med hjälp av både videoformat och ett transkript av det valda talet dras slutsatsen att Trump varit en skicklig talare under det valda talet, då han fått med sig många människor till att stå på hans sida. Han för sig som en politiker bör och är tydlig med vad han vill förändra och vad som kommer ske när han blir president. Retoriken är en viktig del inom politiken och det gäller att använda den rätt för att nå ut till så många anhängare som möjligt. Trump har lärt sig av tidigare politiker hur viktigt retoriken är och nu ses han själv använda sig av den för att kunna vinna presidentvalet, trots att hans bakgrund saknar samma politiska erfarenhet som hans motståandare besitter. Trump har genom denna analys bevisats vara en duktig talare och kunnig inom det retoriska fältet. Han talar knappt en enda mening utan ett retoriskt begrepp och tidigt kan retorikens påverkan på hans röstare förstås. Han följer olika presidentiella strukturer och använder sig av de kommunikationsteorierna som presenteras. Trump vill vara en man för folket och lyckas övertyga med argument fyllda med ethos, pathos, logos samt ett bekvämt användande av figurer och troper. Hans framträdande är som en president bör vara. / Donald Trump, wellknown businessman, tv-host and nowadays the 45th president of The United States. How did a man without earlier political position convince a whole country that he had what it takes to rule it? This study will find out what rhetorical concepts Trump has used during his election and what effect it has given. With a qualitative study and a rhetorical analysis the speech made by Donald Trump during the Republican National Convention 2016 was examined. The rhetorical theory is used through different forms such as ethos, pathos, logos, word figures and thought figures as well as tropes. An analysis of his use if rhetoric and communication theories has been made to get an as clear picture as possible of how Trump affected his voters. By using both video format and a transcript of the chosen speech it can be concluded that Trump indeed was a skilled speaker during the chosen speech, which led to many people standing on his side. He acts like a politician should and is clear on what he wants to change and what will happen once he becomes president. Rhetoric is an important part of politics and should be used properly to reach out to as many supporters as possible. Trump has learned from earlier politicians how important rhetoric is and now he can be seen using it himself to win the presidental election, despite his lack of previous political activity and experience that his opponent possesses. Trump had through this analysis proven to be a great speaker and knowledgeble within the rhetorical field. He barely speaks a single sentence without any rhetorical concept and early on, the rhetorical impact on his voters can be understood. He follows different presidential structures and uses the communication theories which are presented. Trump wants to be a man for the people and succeeds to convince with arguments filled with ethos, pathos, logos as well as a comfortable usage of figures and tropes. His performance is as a presidents should be.

許多文獻已經研究過政治事件和外匯市場之間的關聯性。然而，較少研究聚焦在一個國家的政治事件是如何影響另外一個國家的匯率。因此，本文章主要在探討2016美國總統大選如何影響墨西哥幣兌美元的走勢。我們使用EGARCH 模型來衡量美國總統候選人的民調對匯率的平均或波動所造成的影響。實證結果發現美國總統大選會對墨西哥幣兌美元產生較大的波動，希拉蕊的民調增加也會造成墨西哥幣的升值。因此，本文檢驗政治活動會對外匯市場產生影響的假說，也進一步提出實證結果支持一國的匯率會受到他國政治因素牽動的看法。 / Many articles have shown the relationship between political events and currency markets. Nevertheless, few studies provide empirical evidence on how one country’s political elections have impact on movements of exchange rate in other country. In this paper, we attempt to provide some empirical results by analyzing the impact of the 2016 United States presidential election on Mexico’s currency market. We use EGARCH models to estimate the influence of recent U.S. presidential candidates have on the mean and the variance of the Mexican foreign exchange market. We find statistically significant evidence that U.S. presidential election is associated with higher volatility of Mexico’s currency market, and the increase in the chance for a Clinton to win has positive impact on mean return of the peso-dollar exchange rate. These findings offer important insights into the expected impact of the United States presidential elections on the Mexican peso and more generally, the relationship between political events and foreign exchange market.

The purpose of this thesis is to explore the use of conceptual metaphors in political speeches by Donald Trump and Nigel Farage. Conceptual metaphor theory is applied as the framework for the study. Metaphorical linguistic expressions are identified with help of the method Metaphor Identification Procedure (MIP). The conceptual metaphors giving rise to the metaphorical linguistic expressions are identified and categorized into different domains in the study. The analysis demonstrates that the use of metaphors is ubiquitous. The metaphors related to the salient domains of politics, nation, immigration, economy, and morality are discussed and further investigated in the analysis. The analysis shows that metaphors are employed in the construction of populist discourse and to evoke the emotion of fear by mainly drawing from embodied elements. A notable parallel between Trump and Farage is the use of the Moral Order metaphor which subsequently reveal their moral values.

This study aims to observe linguistic disparities in the distribution of the conversational dominance strategies interruptions, amount of talk, and questions in the first U.S. 2020 presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. Subsequently, these findings establish the evaluation of how the interactive phenomena relate to the masculinity conceptualizations of hegemonic masculinity and subordination. To examine the study objective, the methodology conducted was a discourse analysis of the debate transcript. Hence, the method intended to measure to which extent Biden and Trump employed interruptions, amount of talk, and questions during the debate. The outcome of the review established the discursive dominance framework used to discuss how the presidential candidates demonstrated adherence to diverse masculinities’ conceptualizations. The discourse analysis outcome revealed an asymmetrical distribution of the interactive phenomena across all variables measured in favor of Donald Trump. These results suggest that Trump’s discursive performance signaled adherence to hegemonic masculinity norms to a greater extent than Biden through employing more conversational dominance strategies during the debate. Consequently, Biden’s discursive performance indicated closer relations to masculine subordination than Trump’s performance.