The 2024 U.S. presidential election: political discourse and communication of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump
Main Article Content
Abstract
Introduction: This article analyzes the political discourses of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump during the only televised debate for the 2024 presidential elections. Methodology: The methodology adopts a qualitative approach, involving a thorough review of the transcripts of both candidates' speeches during the debate. For the discourse analysis, George Lakoff's cognitive science theory is used, which proposes differentiated models for progressives and conservatives (the Nurturant Parent model and the Strict Father model, respectively). Results: The results examine the rhetoric, patterns, and issues –focusing on economics and immigration, also mentioning the debate's "golden minute"– in relation to Lakoff's models. Kamala Harris impacts her electorate by appealing, above all, to her cognitive frame through the Nurturant Parent model, whereas Donald Trump reinforces his cognitive frame while repeatedly alluding to his opponent’s frame and model. Conclusions: Harris emphasizes the Nurturant Parent model in her proposals and in his criticisms of her opponent. Trump reinforces the Strict Father model but also criticises the Nurturant Parent model. The winner of the debate according to the mainstream national and international media outlets was Harris. However, Trump won the presidential election.
Downloads
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
The Journal of Communication of SEECI recognizes and promotes copyright rights, as well as the need to disseminate knowledge in an accessible and equitable manner. Our journal operates under a Creative Commons License CC BY-NC 4.0, which allows authors and users to:
- Share and Adapt: Copy, redistribute, and adapt the material published in the journal in any medium or format.
- Attribution: Properly acknowledge authorship and provide a link to the license, indicating if any changes have been made.
- Non-Commercial: Do not use the material for commercial purposes without the express permission of the authors and the journal.
- Authors retain copyright and may enter into non-exclusive agreements for self-archiving, deposit, or distribution of the publisher's version published in this journal, including institutional, national, or international repositories, and personal websites.
References
ABC News (11 de septiembre de 2024). Watch the full ABC News presidential debate. https://acortar.link/nx7QHr
Dader García, J. L. (2024). Te odio, te quiero: La degradación sentimentaloide de la comunicación política contemporánea (y un muestrario de evidencias). adComunica, 28, 169-198. https://doi.org/10.6035/adcomunica.7895 DOI: https://doi.org/10.6035/adcomunica.7895
Diep, P. P. U. (2024). Check the checks: A comparison of fact-checking practices between newspapers and independent organizations during 2020 U.S. election presidential debates. News Research Journal, 46(1), 71-95. https://doi.org/10.1177/07395329241298965 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/07395329241298965
Del Fresno García, M. (2019). Desórdenes informativos: sobreexpuestos e infrainformados en la era de la posverdad. El profesional de la información, 28(3). https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.may.02 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3145/epi.2019.may.02
Golway, T. (2004). There We Go Again. American Heritage, 55(4), 29-33.
Hayes, N. y Poole, R. (2022). A diachronic corpus-assisted semantic domain analysis of US presidential debates. Corpora, 17(3), 449-469. https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2022.0266 DOI: https://doi.org/10.3366/cor.2022.0266
Hendershot, H. (27 de junio de 2024). TV Debates Have Never Been About Sound Bites Over Substance. TIME. https://time.com/6992707/tv-presidential-debates-substance/
Holz, J., Akin, H. y Jamieson, K. H. (2016). Presidential Debates: What’s Behind the Numbers? [White Paper]. The Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. https://acortar.link/5Rim5P
Jamieson, K. H. (2015). The discipline’s debate contributions: Then, Now, and next. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 101(1). https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2015.994905 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00335630.2015.994905
Jamieson, K. H. (2024). The Case for General Election Presidential Debates and Debate Reform. Journal of Media Ethics, 39(4), 298-301. https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2024.2316028 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/23736992.2024.2316028
Juárez-Gámiz, J., Holtz-Bacha, C. y Schroeder, A. (Eds.). (2020). Routledge International Handbook on Electoral Debates. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429331824 DOI: https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429331824
Lakoff, G. (2016). Política moral. Cómo piensan progresistas y conservadores. Capitán Swing Libros, S. L.
Lakoff, G. (2017). No pienses en un elefante. Lenguaje y debate político. Ediciones Península.
McKinney, M. S. y Carlin, D. B. (Eds.). (1994). The 1992 presidential debates in focus. Praeger.
Mutz, D. C. (2006). Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy. Cambridge University Press. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511617201
Padilla Castillo, G. (2014). La espectacularización del debate electoral: Estudio del caso en estados unidos. Vivat Academia, 128, 107-123. https://doi.org/10.15178/va.2015.132.162-180 DOI: https://doi.org/10.15178/va.2014.128.107-123
Skoko, B. (2005). Role of TV Debates in Presidential Campaigns: Croatia’s Case of 2005. Politička Misao: Croatian Political Science Review, 42(5), 97-117. https://hrcak.srce.hr/en/20753
Sullivan, K. (12 de septiembre de 2024). Trump says he won’t participate in another presidential debate. CNN Politics. https://acortar.link/psALEg
The American Presidency Project. (s.f.). Presidential Candidates Debates (1960-2024). https://acortar.link/ERWcQR