Trump vs. Harris: How rhetorical framing could decide the 2024 election, By Toju Ogbe

As Americans head to the polls to elect their next president, the world is reminded of the far-reaching implications of this election outcome. From the Russo-Ukraine war to conflicts in the Middle East and the geopolitics of Africa and Asia, the election outcome will shape events far beyond the shores of the US.

With most polls suggesting razor-thin margins between Trump and Harris, this election is turning out to be one of the most closely contested elections in American history. Undecided or hesitant voters have become critical in breaking the tie between closely matched support bases on both sides come 5th November 2024. The race to the White House is driven by an intense war of words, where rhetorical framing is the key weapon being deployed by both sides to shape opinions and influence voting decisions. Here are my thoughts on how Trump and Harris are employing rhetorical framing to tip the scale in this neck-to-neck race.

Issue salience and selection

Both candidates assigned prominence to issues that they believe will resonate with their audiences. Kamala Harris emphasised the significance of economic support for the middle class and working families, framing her vision for reform as an “opportunity economy” that serves ordinary Americans. She also focused on themes of unity and inclusivity, pledging “to be a president for all Americans,” and stating that regardless of differences, Americans “all have the same dreams and aspirations.” Additionally, Harris’ campaign rhetoric always essentialises her commitment to protecting reproductive rights, and the need to “chart a course for the future and not go backward to the past.”

On the other hand, Trump prioritised illegal immigration, crime, and economic decline rhetorically framing the situation as one of severe crisis. He often employed emotive rhetoric to project fear of “criminal immigrants” stressing that “millions of people pouring into our country from prisons and jails, from mental institutions and insane asylums” were taking jobs meant for Americans. By framing immigration and crime as national crises, Trump aims to rile up his base and discontented voters against the political establishment.

Identity and Personal Framing

Both Trump and Harris rely heavily on identity framing to connect with voters.  Kamala Harris often frames herself as an advocate for middle-class and working families. Referencing her childhood during her live debate with Trump, she said, “I was raised as a middle-class kid. And I am actually the only person on this stage who has a plan that is about lifting up the middle class and working people of America.”

Throughout her campaign, she has consistently amplified her experience as a prosecutor and her capacity to unify America in contrast to Trump’s leadership. She said: “Americans see in each other a neighbour…they don’t want a leader who is constantly trying to have Americans point their fingers at each other.”

On the other hand, Donald Trump positions himself as a strong leader fighting against the political establishment to protect American borders and restore its greatness on the global stage. During his debate against Harris, he touted his strong relationship with world leaders to underscore his influence on the global stage. Trump boasted, “He (Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban) said the most respected, most feared person is Donald Trump. We had no problems when Trump was president… China was afraid of him. North Korea was afraid of him.” Trump often refer to his political opponents as ‘weak.’ By framing himself as a strong leader, Trump seeks to amplify the contrast between his image and the characterisation of weak leadership he ascribed to Harris on fundamental issues like immigration, crime, and the economy.

Oppositional Framing

Trump and Harris regularly employ oppositional framing to diminish the credibility of the opponent. Harris frames framed Trump as a failed, divisive, and self-serving leader unfit to lead America. She stressed that ”Trump will not talk about people’s needs, dreams, and desires” and that America deserves a leader who “puts them first” positioning herself as such a leader. Harris also consistently framed Trump as dangerous to American democracy, referencing the January 6^th Capitol riots as Trump’s attempt to upend the will of the American people. Furthermore, she repeatedly referred to Trump as a liar, warning their debate audience from the start of the debate to expect “a bunch of lies” from Trump, in a pre-emptive tactic to undermine his credibility. In the last few weeks leading to the election, Harris’ campaign has ramped up rhetoric that frames Trump as mentally unstable.

Trump’s framing of Harris is equally pejorative, often using rhetoric that frames her as weak and incompetent on the economy, crime, immigration, and foreign policy. He has also characterised Harris as unintelligent, mentally unfit, a radical leftist, and a Marxist, who would confiscate guns, stop fracking, and allow “transgender operations on illegal aliens.” By framing Harris this way, Trump reinforces the portrayal of Harris as a radical leftist who has lost touch with American values.

Rhetorical Appeals

Both Trump and Harris often employ a range of emotional, logical, and credibility-based appeals. Harris uses vivid imagery to emphasise concerns about women impacted by restrictions on reproductive rights. She rhetorically painted an image of “pregnant women…bleeding out in a car in the parking lot” to connect with the emotions and struggles of American women and underscore her commitment to their plights. She also uses fear rhetoric to describe a potential Trump presidency for the second time.

Trump, on the other hand, employs fear and a sense of urgency to drive emotional appeal. He frequently uses hyperbole and repetition to amplify issues and frame them as major crises. For example,  he regularly claims that “millions of criminals, and terrorists are pouring into America and destroying the country.” By invoking fear and a sense of urgency, he seeks to play on people’s anxieties about national security.

In terms of logical appeal, Harris’ rhetoric regularly seeks to drive persuasion by presenting logical arguments. She cited Goldman Sachs’ endorsement of her economic plan to suggest that her policies are supported by independent expert evaluation. She also employed logical appeal to discredit Trump’s economic plan, arguing that reputable entities like Goldman Sachs’, Wharton School, and 16 Nobel Laureates all declared that Trump’s plan would worsen the US economy.

Trump, in contrast, appeals to logic whenever he declares that he “created one of the greatest economies in the history of America” and that he would do it even better again if given a second chance.

Applying credibility-based appeal, Harris repeatedly emphasised her credentials as a prosecutor to demonstrate her capacity to fight crime and maintain the rule of law. Similarly, Trump appealed to credibility by consistently highlighting his achievements as a strong leader on the global stage, touting his ability to negotiate and stop what he alleged to be a rip-off from China, Europe, and NATO.

Conclusion

Overall, this US election looks set to be decided by swing or undecided voters, the majority of whom will not conduct granular scrutiny of each candidate’s policies. Instead, they will respond to key soundbites and rhetorical framing that collectively shape their view of the candidates and consequently, their voting decision. While some argue that campaign rhetoric has limited influence on core voter bases, the rhetorical framing of arguments and counter-arguments that resonate with swing voters will ultimately tilt the scales towards Democrats or Republicans.

Toju Ogbe is a strategic communications consultant and an academic whose research focuses on rhetorical leadership.