The Vs. Recency Effect, Conformity, And Various Techniques Essay

In this essay, I will closely examine the role of ethos, pathos, and logos as they were utilized in the 1992 Presidential Debate video clip. Throughout Clinton and Bush’s debates, they used the three options of persuasion effectively and discretely; however, it is evident that out of the three ways of persuasion, the candidates used ‘pathos’ because of the content they were providing. It was apparent that Bill Clinton was more prepared to display forms of persuasion than George H.W. Bush was because Clinton had prior experience dealing with lower income people. In the upcoming paragraphs, I will explain and analyze how each candidate made use of the three forms of persuasion: logos, pathos, and ethos.

The entire editorial board at the New York times decided to cooperate on an op-ed piece covered on Donald Trump concerning his post election actions and decisions. The Op-Ed was titled “What President Trump Doesn’t Get About America” and was published on the New York Times on January 20, 2017. The rhetorical situation behind the piece is the after-effects of Mr. Trump's official inauguration which took place on the same date the Op-Ed was published. The author's purpose and intended audience is to inform and persuade the American people that America was and will be fine even with some of the so-called harsh executive decisions of Trump.

Both of the candidates, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump, have a strong propensity to persuade, so they know how to use social psychology to their own advantages in their quest to achieve the majority of American votes. Clinton referenced her commitment and consistency, as well as reciprocity by mentioning her connection to the middle class when she was growing up. Likewise, Trump cited his commitment and consistency, authority, and was able to instill in the audience a social proof whenever he referenced business throughout the debate. By using her position as Secretary of State, Clinton was also successful at using social proofing and authority when speaking to the audience. Central routes to persuasion are extensively connected to the principles of authority and social proofing, so both candidates used statistics effectively to sound

No campaign in the history of presidential runnings has ever been the same. Yes, past campaigns and presidential candidates have shown their similarities between each other, but none has had the same events occur. The major variable is time. Society has shown a history of changing ideals and appeals. Each year, slowly but surely, society’s view is shaping and shifting. The presidential candidates know this factor and have to change with society to gain their social appeal. Within this time shift, we can analyze past polls and outcomes of primaries that have shown to be somewhat misleading.

"There is a time in every man's education when he arrives at the conviction that envy is ignorance; that imitation is suicide; that he must take himself for better, for worse, as his portion.” As human beings, we always encounter the critical decision in our daily lives of whether to pursue individuality or conformity in various situations. Although I believe that individuality is certainly more powerful than conformity, I noticed that many ignore the necessity of harmony between individualism and conformity. If individuality is absolutely more powerful to the point that we should never accept conformity, then should we avoid conforming to the laws of our country and instead commit multiple crimes simply because we want to? On the other

Clinton was losing until she started crying to the audience, which caused her to win her win her first set of polls. Hillary was very masculine is the 2008 election, and she stayed true to herself, because she portrayed a lot of masculine traits in this year's election as well. Clinton changed her style from the 2008 election, in this election she lacked charisma. In the 2016 election, Clinton found that charisma, maybe it was because Donald Trump pushed her and left her no choice, or maybe it was because she really did find her voice in the 2008 election. In this year's election Trump left her no other choice than to prove she knew how to lead, and she set the bar high when it came to professionalism during these elections. Trump did not meet that bar of expectations, and his only proof of leadership was the fact that he had made himself millions of dollars. This article's research came from the 87 speeches Hillary Clinton gave during her 2008 campaign, and these speeches were downloaded and analyzed. They were objective when analyzing these speeches, and considering they had them recorded they are very reliable. This article helped me when researching Clinton’s debate styles and communication strategies. This help me compare and contrast her strategies with Trumps, and the strategies of the 2008 elections to see how the difference affected the voters. This also allowed

In the 2016 presidential election, we’ve come to see a significant amount of persuasion between the two political parties. In one side, democratic candidate Hillary Clinton stands, while in the other, republican candidate Donald Trump stands. There are several factors, both candidates address that makes them extremely persuasive. One of the largest factor being the change of behavior they pursue known as Conformity, that is because most people would rather conform than stand alone with their own opinions, it helps us feel correct by listening to someone who shares our same ideas as well as opinions. Both presidents use this tactic, by saying things we want to hear. Another important tactic is consistency. Clinton and Trump are consistent with

Article 1: New York Times “Donald Trump Is Elected President in Stunning Repudiation of the Establishment” ; Written by: Matt Elegendor  and Micharl  Barbaro.

In the article title “Individuality vs. Conformity: The Healthy Middle?” by an anonymous high school student it says that there are only two thing that a typical high school student wants to typically achieve in their short high school life (par. 1). One of these things is to fit in (par. 2). The second one is to be different (par. 3). How could you do this?. You could choose to be individual or just conform. However I really maintain the idea that what we should really do it's to stay in the middle so we won't forget who we really are and still be liked by different groups of people.

In the first presidential debate, between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, Clinton won the debate convincingly. She won the debate because she was able to answer the questions that were asked by the moderator, Lester Holt, in a polished manner. Clinton demonstrated that she was much more prepared than Trump by answering the questions with facts and details, as well as occasional pokes at Trump. Clinton's strengths were that she was more prepared and had done more research than Trump. This was obvious when she answered all the questions completely and in-depth unlike Trump. Clinton's weaknesses were that she may have over prepared for the debate. At times it seemed like she had rehearsed the answers instead of talking from her heart and this

Conformity, it’s something everyone deals with even if they do not realize it. Although, what happens when conformity takes control over everything? What if the world was stripped of individuality, no citizen has any rights to hold on to, while not being able to think for one’s self. That is an image what it would be like if everyone in the world were to conform to a restricting society. Just think of all of the advances in technology the human race has come up with in the last ten years alone. None of that would have been possible in a society where no one can go above another person's IQ level. This is the world the characters in Ayn Rand’s novella Anthem live in. The reasons that total conformity is dangerous is because individuality is not possible, no family history, and advancement would not be possible.

For the first debate, Hillary and Donald debated how they were going to bring more companies and jobs for citizens to America. For the second debate, they argued how each of them showed appropriate behavior towards the youth. In the last debate, they debated how each of them interpreted the constitution and relayed their views for the role the supreme court. Knowingly in the first and third debate, the viewers of the debate needed to know many political issues going on in todays current events. For instance, they talked about the countries unemployment rate and immigrant issue. In addition, in the second debate the citizens viewing the debate had to know an extended amount of background information involving public issues between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton in the press. The issues would include Donald Trumps sexual harassment and racism allegations and Hillary's lost of governmental property. Donald Trump displayed a demanding and somewhat entertaining attitude towards his viewers in his speeches of the the first debate, however he became defensive going into the second and third debate due to his negative reputation brought forward from the second debate. Hillary Clinton’s attitude remained influential and sometimes offensive throughout all her speeches of the

The fact that candidates of certain parties tend to present information in a certain way is not coincidence, but rather a combination of neuroscience and manipulation. Studying brain structures of liberals and conservatives has shown that, “fear-based, amygdala-based way, and liberal thinkers tend to think in more grays, and new information is more likely to change the outcome of their thoughts,” (Grothaus). Taking this into consideration, democrats and republicans using different tactics could either be interpreted as them presenting opinions in a manner they were predisposed to think in, or them recognizing the way their targeted party is likely to think, and taking advantage of it. Based off of the typical morality of presidential candidates, one is led more to believe the

The first form of nonverbal communication that plays a significant role in influencing the voting behavior is the physical appearance of candidates. The analytical study by Olivola and Todorov (2010) states that today’s politics have become so extremely intricate and incomprehensible that it is almost impossible for voters to genuinely agree to every aspect of the candidates’ views. For instance, it is highly conceivable for voters to agree on international and security issues with one candidate and agree on economic issues with the other candidate at the same time. Hence, the number of the voters who are unfamiliar with the intricacies of political issues and unmotivated to study candidates’ policy as a criterion for making their choice has increased (Olivola & Todorov, 2010). In addition, according to Olivola and Todorov (2010), the field of cognitive psychology indicates that people’s minds tend to simplify decision making process by relying on simple rules when they are confronted with too much information. As a result, instead of behaving as rational actors and voting reasonably as they are believed to do so, voters are hugely influenced by and unconsciously opt for irrelevant cues, which in this case, the candidates’ physical appearance.

The three different newspaper article providers that I chose are the New York Times, The Times of India, and The Guardian the United Kingdom edition. The article that I chose to compare between the three of them is about President Trump choosing his security advisors. I thought that it would be something that would spark many different opinions on a recent debate would be interesting to explore. The article itself is about President Trump choosing three of his new advisors for CIA Director which he appointed Mike Pompeo, for Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, and for National Security Advisor, Michael T. Flynn. It will be interesting to see what these newspapers have to say about their opinion of these men and how they portray them.