The Crisis Comes Once a Year

2021 ◽  
pp. 249-266
Author(s):  
David S. Turetsky

Elections arrive on a schedule, which often determines when a crisis will arise. The author has worked to protect voters and their voting rights across decades and jurisdictions and shares examples, principles and best practices. The central story is about activities around a Virginia presidential primary election in which the conduct and decisions of certain election officials in one county led to hundreds of voters casting ballots on scrap paper that were not counted and an even larger number of voters who were unable to vote due to mismanagement of the polls, mainly in areas with larger minority populations than other precincts. This chapter explores specific lessons for crisis lawyering on Election Day, including preparation and anticipation, organization and planning, leadership, judgment, passion, and practicality.

Author(s):  
Christoph Schubert

Abstract Presidential primary debates in the USA are commonly concluded by brief closing statements, in which the competitors outline the central messages of their election campaigns. These statements constitute a subgenre characterized by a set of recurring rhetorical moves, which are defined as functional units geared towards the respective communicative objective, in this case political persuasion. Located at the interface of rhetorical move analysis and political discourse studies, this paper demonstrates that moves and embedded steps in closing statements fulfill the persuasive function of legitimizing the respective candidate as the most preferable presidential successor. The study is based on the transcripts of 98 closing statements, which were extracted from eight Democratic and eleven Republican primary debates held between August 2015 and April 2016. Typical moves, such as projecting the speaker’s future political agenda or diagnosing the current situation in America, are presented with the help of illustrative examples, frequencies of occurrence, and a sample analysis of a complete closing statement.


2011 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-19 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gary L. Hanson ◽  
Paul M. Haridakis ◽  
Rekha Sharma

2016 ◽  
Vol 49 (04) ◽  
pp. 876-879
Author(s):  
Karen M. Kedrowski ◽  
Katarina Duich Moyon

ABSTRACTWinthrop University capitalized upon South Carolina’s early presidential primary to bring 10 US Presidential candidates to campus between August 2015 and February 2016. These events are part of Winthrop University’s intentional commitment to civic engagement. This essay describes and analyzes how Winthrop University developed a campus-wide protocol for hosting visits by public officials and candidates. It also provides best practices that campuses may emulate in future election cycles.


Author(s):  
Christoph Schubert

Abstract Since presidential primary debates in US election campaigns serve the function of identifying the most promising nominee for the subsequent presidency, they constitute a highly adversarial multilogue. Debaters do not only exchange factual arguments but also use diverse forms of impoliteness geared towards damaging the public image of political opponents and persuading audiences to vote accordingly. Combining political discourse analysis with pragmatic approaches to impoliteness, this paper examines the ways in which verbal aggression in debates inflicts damage on the addressee’s positive and negative face. On the basis of five Democratic and five Republican debates from 2016, it is shown that impolite utterances fulfil the four central strategic functions of (a) delegitimization, (b) coercion, (c) entertainment, and (d) (self-)defence, all of which support the macro-function of political persuasion through the construction of personal preferability.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document