Despite research showing their importance, vice-presidential debates receive significantly less scholarly attention than presidential or primary debates. Building upon previous research into candidate image and politeness argumentation in U.S. political debates, this study examined the argumentative style of the 2024 vice-presidential debate, compared it to the 2024 presidential debates, and explored vice-presidential argumentation trends from the 2012 to 2024 campaigns. Results showed differences between vice-presidential and presidential candidates’ argumentative image making strategies, strategic differences between Republican and Democratic vice-presidential candidates’ usage of politeness claims, and differences between incumbent and challenger’s usage of politeness claims. Results also found candidates’ usage of face-supportive messages increasing post-debate favorability ratings while usage of direct face threats predicted increases in candidates’ unfavorability ratings. Furthermore, face threats based on topics of policy were found to have positive effects on candidates’ images while face threats based on ridicule and disagreement over factual data had negative effects. Taken together, the results indicated that, contrary to conventional wisdom, vice-presidential debates were less aggressive than presidential debates; however, vice-presidential candidates still appeared to have more argumentative leeway than presidential candidates, enabling them to offer more civil and deliberative arguments compared to their presidential counterparts. These findings contribute to our understanding of vice-presidential debate discourse, U.S. perceptions of political leadership, and the strategic nature of vice-presidential argumentation within the context of increasing political polarization and rising incivility in American political discourse.
Robert S. Hinck (Wed,) studied this question.