This study content analyzed interest group and candidate tweets from the 2020 American presidential election to determine what issues and substantive attributes were most salient on interest group and candidate agendas during the "hot phase" of the campaign. Cross-lagged correlations were conducted during two time periods from Labor Day to Election Day 2020 to measure agenda building effects. These tests were conducted for Democratic nominee and eventual President Joe R. Biden, and Republican nominee and former President Donald J. Trump. These tests were also conducted for two issue-based interest groups: Everytown for Gun Safety and the National Rifle Association. Findings indicate that Biden influenced Trump's campaign agenda, but Trump did not influence Biden's. The interest groups showed reciprocal influence with each other. Given the unprecedented nature of the 2020 election, the candidates were largely talking about the same issues. However, substantive attributes reveal the candidates' true issue agenda. This study offers methodological innovation by utilizing NVivo for content analysis. / Master of Arts / This study examined tweets from 2020 presidential candidates Donald J. Trump and Joseph R. Biden, as well as the National Rifle Association, a gun rights advocacy organization, and Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control advocacy organization. These tweets were examined from September 7 to November 3, 2020, from Labor Day until Election Day. For the presidential candidates, it was found that although candidates were talking the same general campaign issues, they were using different substantive attributes when speaking of them. The findings also revealed that Biden was successful at influencing Trump's Twitter focus during the examined time period. Tweets from advocacy organizations were tested for presence of gun-related issues. The advocacy organizations spoke about the same issues as the other, but neither group was successful at influencing what the other said. This study highlights the importance of digital political public relations.

The President performs many roles, but one role of increasing importance over time is that of Chief Manager of the Economy. In the era of the modern presidency, there has been a growing institutionalization of the executive branch’s management of the economy. Presidents approach economic management differently depending upon their personalities, management style, and their time within both the crisis and the administration. Three case studies will be used to explore the differences and similarities in presidential actions during times of economic crisis: these case studies will examine the presidencies of Franklin D. Roosevelt, Richard M. Nixon, and William J. Clinton. The different methods and policy actions taken by these presidents are described as change oriented economic policy, electoral gain economic policy, and preemptive economic policy. This research will examine these methods to determine: 1.) How did each president approach economic policy? 2.) Were their approaches similar to a domestic policy or foreign policy? and 3.) What factors influence these approaches?

This dissertation is interested in how people talk about character in a variety of public spheres. Specifically, it explores the tangled relationship between authenticity and ethos, or what is taken as the distinction between intrinsic and constructed character. While this dissertation does not presume to settle the question of authenticity’s actuality, it does discuss the ways authenticity cues in rhetorical acts continue to influence how “sincere character” in those acts is understood, even as audiences exhibit shrewdness in recognizing that character is a purposeful manifestation of the rhetor. The fundamental phenomenon this dissertation seeks to describe is how people, with better and worse success, negotiate the dissonance between valuing character as authentic and as presentation and representation. Character in this view is a much richer and more paradoxical concept than many discussions of the term admit. A too-diluted study of ethos limited strictly to pinpointing credibility in an argument makes it difficult to articulate why an exhibition of character sometimes works and sometimes flops. Ethos in its fullest complexity is, and is not, constructed by any single act; it is the consequence of narratives, both of those narratives, and also what we say about those narratives; it is something we know about a rhetor, at the same time that it comes from what the rhetor claims to know; it is, most important, an appeal to authenticity, even when we know ethos is discursively, kairotically, and socially constructed. This dissertation offers an expanded definition of ethos as rhetorical transactions that rhetors and audiences mutually negotiate in order to determine the extent to which all sides will have their rhetorical needs met, and the extent to which all sides can assent to the those needs. The dissertation, using the works of Wayne Booth, Kenneth Burke, and Chaïm Perelman as its primary theoretical structures, offers pedagogic implications for these mutual negotiations. / text

A creative exploration of the consequences of public speech in the era of freely accessible, social media, as the author, a former elections official, records and explores the consequences of public dissent in the case of President Barack Obama’s eligibility controversy. This non-fiction narrative culminates with the author’s analysis and observations on both his personal experiences and the state of public speech and political power in contemporary America.