Incumbent versus Non-Incumbent Persuasive Speech: 2017 New York Mayoral Elections

Abstract

In November 2017, Democrat Bill de Blasio was re-elected as the major of New York City against Republican candidate Nicole Malliotakis and the independent challenger Bo Dietl. Although many circumstances should be considered, such as their different levels of popularity, or their policies among many others, speech constitutes a crucial element for the final result. Thus, persuasive functions shown by the candidates should be examined closely. This article analyzes the rhetoric and figurative language of the contenders in the key moment of their campaign, their final debate, held on November 1st. The discussion is framed in the linguistic theories of Political Discourse Analysis (van Dijk, 1997, 2011, Fairclough & Fairclough, 2013), rooted in Aristotle’s artistic proofs of rhetoric, through the examination of strategies following Charteris-Black’s overview (2011), Politeness Theory (Brown & Levinson, 1987) and the notion of Face (Goffman, 1956, 1967), polarization (van Dijk, 1993, Chilton, 2004), and euphemism and dysphemism (Allan & Burridge, 1991), with the aim to detect and compare incumbent versus non-incumbent strategies regarding political discourse.