"Typical Politician, All Talk, No Action": Rhetorical Analysis of Donald Trump’s Populist Style in the 2016 and 2020 United States Presidential Debates
Savolainen, Joonas (2025)
2025
Politiikan tutkimuksen maisteriohjelma - Master's Programme in Politics
Johtamisen ja talouden tiedekunta - Faculty of Management and Business
This publication is copyrighted. You may download, display and print it for Your own personal use. Commercial use is prohibited.
Hyväksymispäivämäärä
2025-02-13
Julkaisun pysyvä osoite on
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202502122160
https://urn.fi/URN:NBN:fi:tuni-202502122160
Tiivistelmä
This master’s thesis analyzes Donald Trump’s populist style in the 2016 and 2020 United States presidential debates. It focuses on understanding how Trump’s rhetoric manifests anti-elite sentiment, employs “bad manners”, dramatizes crises through performance, utilizes different argumentation techniques, and explores how Trump’s populist style evolves between the 2016 and 2020 presidential debates, highlighting how his rhetorical strategies adapted as he transitioned from populist outsider challenger to incumbent president. The primary research material for this thesis includes the first two debate instances from 2016 between Trump and Hillary Clinton, and two debate instances from 2020 between Trump and Joe Biden. This thesis is driven by the aim of deepening our understanding of Trump’s debate strategy and its broader implications for populist political communication.
The theoretical framework of this thesis combines Benjamin Moffitt’s concept of populist style with Chaïm Perelman’s theory of argumentation. Populist style is conceptualized as a performative political style comprising anti-elite discourse, the use of “bad manners”, and dramatization and performance of crises. Perelman’s framework serves as the methodological approach to categorize Trump’s rhetorical techniques into quasi-logical arguments, arguments based on the structure of reality, and the relations establishing the structure of reality. This dual framework is applied through rhetorical analysis of the debate transcripts from 2016 and 2020, which allows for a qualitative evaluation of Trump’s debate strategies.
The findings of this thesis reveal that Trump consistently employs anti-elite rhetoric during these debates, depicting his political opponents as corrupt establishment politicians who are disillusioned with the needs and aspirations of “the people” in America. Trump utilizes “bad manners” to strategically disrupt conventional debate norms, appeal to his voter base, and particularly delegitimize his opponents through ad hominem argumentation. Different crises and threats are dramatized and performed through exaggerated claims of societal breakdown and institutional failures, further positioning Trump as a political outsider candidate who can correct perceived past failures of the political establishment. Argumentation techniques that Trump uses prominently include causal links and argumentation through examples. Both of these forms of argumentation are ultimately linked to crisis dramatization in an effort to create a sense of urgency that demands quick and decisive action. The use of metaphor is especially connected to Trump’s use of “bad manners” in delegitimizing his debate opponents through personal attacks. Ultimately, these elements evolve between the 2016 and 2020 presidential debates, reflecting subtle shifts in Trump’s political positioning from populist outsider challenger to incumbent president.
The theoretical framework of this thesis combines Benjamin Moffitt’s concept of populist style with Chaïm Perelman’s theory of argumentation. Populist style is conceptualized as a performative political style comprising anti-elite discourse, the use of “bad manners”, and dramatization and performance of crises. Perelman’s framework serves as the methodological approach to categorize Trump’s rhetorical techniques into quasi-logical arguments, arguments based on the structure of reality, and the relations establishing the structure of reality. This dual framework is applied through rhetorical analysis of the debate transcripts from 2016 and 2020, which allows for a qualitative evaluation of Trump’s debate strategies.
The findings of this thesis reveal that Trump consistently employs anti-elite rhetoric during these debates, depicting his political opponents as corrupt establishment politicians who are disillusioned with the needs and aspirations of “the people” in America. Trump utilizes “bad manners” to strategically disrupt conventional debate norms, appeal to his voter base, and particularly delegitimize his opponents through ad hominem argumentation. Different crises and threats are dramatized and performed through exaggerated claims of societal breakdown and institutional failures, further positioning Trump as a political outsider candidate who can correct perceived past failures of the political establishment. Argumentation techniques that Trump uses prominently include causal links and argumentation through examples. Both of these forms of argumentation are ultimately linked to crisis dramatization in an effort to create a sense of urgency that demands quick and decisive action. The use of metaphor is especially connected to Trump’s use of “bad manners” in delegitimizing his debate opponents through personal attacks. Ultimately, these elements evolve between the 2016 and 2020 presidential debates, reflecting subtle shifts in Trump’s political positioning from populist outsider challenger to incumbent president.