No description available.

This thesis investigates the discourse patterns of Donald Trump, Marco Rubio, and Jeb Bush during the Republican primary campaign from August 2015 through January 2016. The goal of this study is to identify differences among the candidates’ discourse patterns, particularly those distinct to the discourse style of Donald Trump, on the basis of a newly compiled corpus from their respective debates and speeches. This corpus analysis reveals differences in terms of readability and lexical choice that distinguish the speech style of Donald Trump from Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio and identifies metaphors utilized by Donald Trump. Drawing heavily from the research of Charles Fillmore and George Lakoff, this study also illustrates the importance of metaphors and frames within political discourse, and the corpus analysis of Republican candidates during the 2016 election provides clear evidence that candidates use frames and metaphors to create a unique profile. / Includes bibliography. / Thesis (M.A.)--Florida Atlantic University, 2016. / FAU Electronic Theses and Dissertations Collection

In Chicago on July 28th, 1960, Richard M. Nixon, vice-president of the United States was nominated as Republican candidate for president. This took place two weeks after the Democrats in Los Angeles chose John F. Kennedy, United States senator from Massachusetts as their candidate. The nominations of these two men marked the beginning of an historic race for office - the 1960 presidential campaign. Beginning with Mr. Kennedy’s nomination in July and continuing until election day, the campaign lasted for over sixteen weeks. This was a campaign of firsts. It was the first time two men so young had run for president. The election of either would have put America’s youngest elected president into office. It was the first time either candidate had visited fifty states in the union during a campaign. In the field of communication, this campaign marked the beginning of an era. For the first time in history, the two presidential candidates faced each other in nationwide television debate. On November 8th, the voters of America went to the polls and elected John F. Kennedy, the Democratic candidate, president of the United States. The New York Times in an article which showed the popular vote margin to be 112,801 states that “it was the closest Presidential race in 76 years”. The electoral college gave Mr. Kennedy a lead of 81 electoral votes over Mr. Nixon. Speech-making played a vital role in the campaign from the beginning to the end. This study is directed specifically toward the speeches of the Republican candidate, Richard M. Nixon.

Indiana University-Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI) / The Iraq War and the War on Terror were pivotal issues in the presidential race for the White House in 2004. Competing frames about the meaning of September 11, 2001, terrorism, and American power were constructed by the rival candidates and established a limited debate that marginalized alternative interpretations of war and peace. It is likely that the dilemma over U.S. forces in Iraq and the War on Terror will continue to be a major issue in the upcoming 2008 Presidential Election. Therefore, the campaign speeches of the presidential candidates, President George W. Bush and Senator John Kerry, during the 2004 Election regarding terrorism were important to understanding the themes that initiated public debate in the U.S. about the conflict in Iraq and the War on Terror. In this document analysis, these candidates’ public addresses illustrated how the role of the U.S. power to combat terrorism shaped a particular perspective about the post-9/11 world. Ideas that challenged “official” debate about war and national security were excluded from mainstream media coverage of the campaign. In order to examine the narrow debate over terrorism and how alternative “ways of seeing” war have been and continue to be marginalized, this study compared how the candidates framed the war in contrast to anti-war voices. Cindy Sheehan, who is an emergent leader in the peace and social justice movement, and more “official” voices of dissent like Representative Dennis Kucinich, have criticized “official” framing of the war. Dissenting perspectives about the Iraq War and the War on Terror invite a different understanding about U.S. hegemony, terrorism, and the consequences of the War on Terror for foreign and domestic policies. The impact of the war upon domestic policy and national crises, such as the widely televised and heavily criticized federal response to Hurricane Katrina Summer 2005, were examined to explore how domestic crises undermine “official” framing of the Iraq War and the War on Terror and empower alternative understandings of war and peace.