Manipulation In Presidential Elections

First Lady Michelle Obama has always been one known for her inspiring speeches and her commitment to women’s rights. In Manchester, New Hampshire, she is seen once again standing up for women and for this country by opening the public’s eyes to disrespect Donald Trump has shown for us. Throughout the entire speech the three rhetorical appeals of pathos, ethos, and logos, are all used effectively and powerfully to get her message across. She mainly targets the audience of empowered women but she also addresses the effect that voting for Donald Trump will have for men and women. Through the rhetorical appeals and the tone, she sets for her audience, Michelle Obama campaigns for the presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.

With the presidential election coming to a close, the campaigns of Hilary Clinton and Donald Trump are doing their best to attract voters now more than ever. The question is, who will be more successful? When analyzed in detail the Hilary Clinton campaign is appealing to their targeted audience in a way that makes her campaign more successful.

In this address Clinton uses a combination of all three to try to convince people of her being the right candidate for the job. Clinton’s rhetoric depends largely on the fact of her being relatable in comparison to the millionaire Trump who makes up the much envied American and criticized elite.

Firstly, she uses an unemotional tone to promote her credibility as a woman politician. Instead of using flowery language and going into a fit of hysteria, which the audience expected from a woman speaker, she used concise vocabulary and kept a level head. She speaks “briefly and simply” to also show the urgency of this crisis facing the nation. In addition, she states, “I don’t want to see the Republican Party ride to political victory on the Four Horsemen of Calumny—Fear, Ignorance, Bigotry, and Smear.” This shows the audience that she wants a Republican victory, but without using tactics of the Democrats. Margaret Chase Smith remains poised, proving this is not a fit of hysteria, which gains credibility from the American public.

Similar to how Queen Emma was portrayed, current female politicians are often also portrayed as cold, indifferent women unsuited for office. During the 2016 US Presidential Elections, candidate Hillary Clinton faced immense, sexist criticism from media, society, and President Trump himself. Clinton had been labeled a “nasty woman”, “untrustworthy”, and a “criminal” throughout her campaign. Many female politicians face similar sentiments and remarks. In fact, according to Terri Vescio, a psychology professor at Penn State University, “The more female politicians are seen as striving for power, the less

“Judgement” demonstrates what Jib Fowles describes in his article “Advertising’s Fifteen Basic Appeals” as the need to aggress. He unveils burdens of life result in rebellious inclinations. Fowles explains while societally suppressed, concealed emotions are prone to rearing their head in volatile bursts. This aggressive potential energy is an attractive vulnerability for promoters (22). While Obama, in expression, and Wright, in flagrant testimony, display aggression, the nature of this display is intended to invoke a similar and opposite aggression on behalf of patriotism and traditional values, with the target being the candidate’s suitability for the presidency. The dramatic exaggeration and extension of Wright’s declarations to Obama’s ideals further demonstrates a scare tactic that uses fear of prejudice to inspire

When asked whether he learned anything as an actor that's been useful to his presidency, Ronald Reagan replied, “ There have been times in this office when I’ve wondered how you can do the job if you hadn’t been an actor.” Politicians must employ methods of artifice and present themselves as an idealistic image of themselves in order to win elections.

Many of Hillary Clinton’s campaign advertisements bash her opponent, Donald Trump, arguing that he is not the President that parents will want for their daughters. However, neither is Hillary Clinton. While on the surface it looks incredible for women’s rights that a woman is running for the Presidency, Hillary Clinton is the wrong woman. She claims in many of her speeches that she will be a positive role model for young girls, proof that girls can do anything that they set their mind to. However support of Hillary Clinton, simply because she is breaking the tradition of a male candidate, is spreading the message to young women that voting for her because of her gender is more important

In the upcoming presidential debate our two main candidates fight for a spot to be president, but in order to take down the opponent it is necessary to find and reveal any contributions that could ruin the race for one candidate. This was what the political ad called “Trustworthy” by AmericaRisingPAC is trying to convey. This ad focuses on every major lie or contradiction that Hillary Clinton has mentioned or done throughout the course of her campaign. Trustworthy’s main point is to prove to their audience that Hillary is not trustworthy, and because of that her popularity in the election is dropping. Though the ad seem somewhat dramatic and bias, it does have very solid evidence take can really appeal to the emotions and sense of judgement. Every piece used is either a quote from Hillary Clinton herself, or a new clip of the current state that the world is in. AmericaRisingPAC uses her own words against her in a form that makes you doubt her credibility. Even the structure of the ad is done in a way that supports the message and the evidence at the same time. This ad makes sure that you are able to follow the point, every time they use more evidence it is first introduced and then deleted metaphorically like her personal emails. Credible quotes, contradicting news evidence, and compelling layout all work together to provide the basis for the anti-Hillary ad ‘Trustworthy’. This leaves little room for the public to label the political ad as

Women continue to take a stand against Donald Trump’s negative comments aiming towards them. Right after Trump called Hillary Clinton a “nasty woman” while she was answering the question of funding social security, there were women who decided that instead of being offended they went along with his quote with humor to show their independence (Kelly par. 2). Ladies are taking back his insult by calling themselves nasty women to support Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. As the night of the final debate progressed, Cara Kelly mentions that “Twitter erupted” when women promoted the insult with hashtags, tee-shirts, and even a developed website that “redirects to a Hillary Clinton donations page” (Kelly par. 4). This article then refers back

During the 2016 Presidential campaign between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, there were many campaign advertisements from both sides that strongly resonated with voters. Clinton’s role model ad, for example, sent a powerful message by illustrating Trump’s substandard behavior as a presidential candidate. On the other hand, Trump’s “Hillary Clinton won 't Change Washington” ad demonstrated Clinton’s ineffectiveness as a leader as well as being part of the problem and not the solution. For example, one of the reasons that Trump was able to win the 2016 presidency was to increase voter turnout from the white working class male by connecting Clinton to the Washington elites. As a result, this paper will be examining the effects and implications that both of these campaign ads had towards the electorate in terms of how each candidate’s message played a role in the outcome of the 2016 Presidential election.

When Americans vote their choice for President, one would assume that these votes would be tabulated and the majority vote would win. But this is not the case at all. The Presidency is ultimately decided by the Electoral College, what William McClenaghan calls “one of the least understood parts of the American political process”(340). McClenaghan also defines the Electoral College as “the body that makes the formal selection of the nation’s President, from what the Framers intended into a `rubber stamp’ for the popular vote in presidential elections”(67). The original Electoral College did not succeed for very long, however; it only worked for as long as George Washington was President

Currently, the Presidency of the United States is coming close to the final and whoever gets elected president is an accomplished liar. Both of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are using the political skills to argue because their major party candidates for president have to appear to be fully qualified to occupy the Oval Office. After watching of these videos of both Hillary and Trump’s speech, in my opinion, I analyze three types of informal fallacies from their speeches such as argument against the person, hasty generalization, and appeal to people; especially, appeal to vanity.

In the midst of the 2016 election, First Lady of the United States, Michelle Obama gave a speech in New Hampshire regarding the candidates. Donald Trump was facing Hillary Clinton; and in support, “Michelle Obama presented a Speech On Donald Trump’s Alleged Treatment Of Women.” As stated in the title, Trump had recently made rude remarks regarding women, and Michelle Obama was using this as a learning lesson for anyone looking to vote for Trump. She made it a point to vote for Hillary by not only stating why not to vote for Trump, but also listing her many accomplishments throughout her lifetime. Michelle Obama was able to create an effective and persuasive speech by strongly stating Trump’s wrongdoings, passionately listing Clinton’s achievements, and frightening us of the possible future for our children.

There has been controversy over whether or not the United States’ elections are rigged; this theory came up again when Donald Trump claimed that John Podesta, a chairman on Hillary Clinton’s campaign, rigged the polls as a voter suppression technique on October 24, 2016 (Qiu). This isn’t the first time the elections authenticity has been questioned; when we think “rigged,” it is normally referring to accusations of direct voter fraud or in which the results were procedurally contested, extensively protested, or recognized as fraudulent by a reliable international organization (Wikipedia Contributors). In fact, in the past the polls have been rigged. There have been multiple cases in the United States where the presidential election was under scrutiny dating back to 1793 all the way up to 2004 (Wikipedia Contributors). Despite Trump’s claim and the couple incident where it has happened, it is pretty impossible to actually “rig” an election with voter fraud. But, this does not mean that an election has never been rigged; they are rigged to an extent but not how Trump claimed.