Persuasion Strategies in the 2020 Campaign Discourse on Facebook:

A Content Analysis of Donald J. Trump’s and Joe Biden’s Presidential Campaign Ads
 2

Abstract

This study adopts a content analysis to compare the persuasive strategies of Facebook

campaign ads placed by Trump and Biden for the 2020 Presidential Election. After analyzing a

total of 917 randomly selected Facebook ads posted during three months prior to the Election,

this study found that Trump adopted more attacking ads, less acclaiming ads, and more ads with

videos and filters, made more references to the candidate's character, and used more emotional

appeals than Biden.

Keywords: Content Analysis, Persuasive Strategies, Social Media Ads, Functional Theory of

Political Campaign Communication, 2020 Presidential Election

 1

In almost every election found in the United States, campaigning is an essential part of

our democracy and political process, which gives the electorate an opportunity to look into the

candidates’ policies, their political stances, and the proposed political agenda for their term

(Nwachukwu, 2020). Political campaigns may take different formats and involve various kinds

of activities. This project chooses to study one critical component commonly found in political

campaigns via media – campaign advertising. Campaign advertisements or otherwise known as

political advertising are defined as “information or materials, other than nonpaid social media

messages, that are mailed, e-mailed, posted, distributed, published, displayed, delivered,

broadcasted or placed in a communication medium and that are for the purpose of influencing an

election” (National Conference of State Legislatures, 2020). They serve the functions of

visualizing and dramatizing political candidates, parties, or ideas, spreading the ideals of

candidates, and providing messages of supporting candidates and attacking the opponents (Kaid,

2012). Over the time, the primary delivery methods of political campaign advertising have

evolved from print brochures and posters in early days, to soundbites and commercials through

radio and television broadcasting, and now to various kinds of online and interactive media, such

as websites and social media (Kaid, 2012).

The 2020 Presidential Election is by far the most expensive election in history

(Goldmacher, 2020). It also sets the new record for social media ad spending, with $107 million

from Donald J. Trump’s campaign and $94 million from Joe Biden’s campaign on their

respective Facebook ads since January 2019 (Leigh, 2020). Despite the increased use of social

media for political campaign purposes, communication strategies adopted by presidential

candidates in social media ads are yet to be further studied (Porsmita, 2016). By choosing
 2

Facebook as the context, this study compares how Donald J. Trump and Joe Biden adopted

different communication strategies in their campaign ads for the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election.

Facebook and Political Campaigns

As one of the most popular social media, Facebook has been used by over 79% of U.S.

adults (Kreiss & McGregor, 2017) and serves as the news source for 45% of Americans (Shearer

& Gottfried, 2017). Given its wide reach, Facebook has increasingly become the focus of

political campaigns and been deemed crucial to winning an election as well as creating a

presence for politicians online (Levy et al., 2020). According to Wu (2019), the majority of both

Democratic and Republican candidates had a presence on Facebook, with 72% of whom

regularly updated their Facebook pages about policy as well as personal anecdotes. In addition,

Facebook has been found to have a significant impact on citizens’ attitudes and behavior via

political posting (Wu, 2019).

Political advertising on social media has been part of presidential candidates’ campaign

strategies during the past several election cycles (Swant, 2020). In these campaigns, Facebook

has been playing important roles in facilitating political participation and encouraging

connections between voters and candidates (Bode et al., 2014). For example, since the primaries

of the 2008 presidential election, almost all frontrunners have used Facebook pages showcasing

their candidacy (Porsmita, 2016). Facebook has also been used to Donald J. Trump’s advantage

and deemed as one of the critical factors contributing to his victory in the 2016 Presidential

Election (Brym et al., 2019).

Due to the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, the candidates of the 2020 Presidential

Election were not able to do as many in-person events as in the previous election cycles. As a

result, social media, particularly Facebook, has played an even bigger role than ever before.
 3

Since the announcement of their candidacies, Donald J. Trump and Joe Biden have paid for over

300,000 and 58,000 ads respectively on Facebook (Facebook Ad Library, 2020), which far

exceeds the number of ads placed through other media channels. In other words, Facebook has

served as a targeted platform for both candidates to reach voters and deliver persuasive

messages. It is therefore selected as the context of this study.

Facebook provides different media modalities for ad creation and placement. A political

campaign ad can therefore be in the format of text-, image-, and video-only, or text + image, or

text + video. When comparing the Facebook campaign ads from Trump and Biden, it is

interesting to examine if and how they deliver persuasive messages through different types of

media modalities afforded by Facebook. Therefore, we propose the following research question.

RQ1. How did Trump and Biden adopt different media modalities in their 2020 Facebook

campaign ads?

Aside from media modalities, another technical feature examined in this study is the use

of filter in Facebook ads. The use of filters in political campaigns is a recent development that

originated on social media.  Filters and the process of image filtering were first seen via social

media on Instagram (Ferwerda & Tkalcic, 2018). Initially used as a feature supported by this

photo sharing app, users are able to edit their photos by altering certain aspects of the photo to

express personal style (Ferwerda & Tkalcic, 2018). With the rise of tools such as photoshop,

distorting and manipulating images is a fairly common task in terms of photojournalism

(Ricchiardi, 2007). By altering the photos, such as changing the coloring or graining, users were

able to differentiate their images and emphasize certain aspects of the picture. Studies have

shown that image manipulation, including the use of filter via social media, could have an impact

on audience (Kleemans et al., 2018). Researchers have found that the misuse of technology to
 4

distort or change images can shake the credibility within photojournalism (Ricchiardi, 2007).

Within social media and photo journalism, there have been more discussions on the ethical

framework that goes into sensationalizing an image and how that will impact the reader

(O’Brian, 1993). Recently, filters and photo distortion have bridged from social media self-

expression into political campaigning, filter is increasingly discussed and used (Kleemans et al.,

2018). The concept of filter has been loosely defined in research about political campaign.

Following Noggle and Kaid (2000), this study defines filter as a notable distortion or change to a

photo or a video. Noggle and Kaid (2000) have also expressed concerns on how visual distortion

and alternation are allowed in political campaigns. Such kind of distortion is said to impact

election by enhancing the evaluation and vote likelihood of the sponsoring candidate while

compromising the evaluations and vote likelihood of the opponent (Noggle & Kaid, 2000). With

filters shifting from just a form of personal social media editing to a tool used in political

campaigns, we proposed the following research question.

RQ2. How did Trump and Biden differ regarding the use of filters in their 2020 Facebook

campaign ads?

In looking at the functional features of media (i.e., use of modality and filter), it is

important to examine the other factors that make up a Facebook campaign ad. One of these

aspects is message characteristics, such as the function and topic of campaign ads. We study

these characteristics through the lens of the Functional Theory of Political Campaign

Communication (Benoit, 2019; Benoit et al., 2000).

Functions of Political Campaign Discourse

Election is a choice between competing candidates (Benoit et al., 2000), with voting as a

“comparative act” (Beniot, 2019, p.8). The primary purpose of political campaign ads is to
 5

distinguish a candidate from the opponent(s). To achieve this aim, campaign ads may adopt

different message strategies to persuade voters (Benoit, 1999). Following the Functional Theory

of Political Campaign Communication, political campaigns may create preferability of a

candidate through three primary functions: acclaim (i.e., presenting positive statement(s) about

oneself), attack (i.e., criticizing the opponent), and defense (i.e., refuting the attacks from the

opponent) (Beniot et al., 2016; Benoit et al., 2000). Depending on the candidate and the goals of

image building, campaign ads may vary in the specific type of function to use and the degree of

usage, meaning whether they choose to run more ads that praise the candidate, defend the

candidate, or attack the opponent.

Earlier research on this theory has predicted that acclaims are like to be more common

than attacks and defenses in campaign discourse due to concerns about backlash from attacks and

defenses (Benoit, 2014), which was later confirmed by a meta-analysis of relevant research on

the Functional Theory of Political Campaign Discourse (Benoit, 2017). Incumbency is said to be

a variable that could influence the primary functions of campaign discourse (Dover, 2006), such

that incumbents are likely to acclaim more and attack less than challengers (Benoit, 2017). This

is due to the benefits incumbents possess when running for reelection, such as greater

recognition, ability to raise campaign funds, and ability to begin campaigning early. Thus,

incumbents are thought to have an easier time campaigning for reelection than their opponents

(Benoit, 2017). According to Benoit, unless an incumbent is deeply unpopular, challengers must

give voters a reason to vote out the incumbent and attacks are usually the basis for that argument

s (Benoit, 2017). Thus, that is why challengers are often attacking more and acclaiming less in

order to prove that point. However, more recent research has discovered that incumbency alone

is not enough to predict the adoption of discourse function. Instead, the candidates who were
 6

losing in the polls were found more likely to run ads attacking other candidates instead of

praising themselves (Benoit, 2019). Guided by the Functional Theory, this study aims to answer

the following question about the campaign discourse function of Trump’s and Biden’s Facebook

ads.

RQ3. How did Trump’s and Biden’s Facebook ads differ regarding the primary campaign

discourse functions (i.e., acclaim, attack, and defense)?

Topic of Political Campaign Discourse

In order to deliver specific functional discourse, different persuasive strategies could be

used to further differentiate between candidates. Benoit (2017) also argues that the topic of

political campaign discourse needs to be studied along with functions. The two topics commonly

found in election discourse are policy and character (Benoit et al., 2016; Sohal & Kaur, 2018).

The topic of policy within election discourse often bridges between mentioning “a

candidates’ past deeds, future plans, and general goals in offices” (Jaeger, 2010, p. 33). Past deed

references outcomes or effects of action taken by a candidate. Topics in policy can include the

budget surplus, social security, taxation, and the size of government (Beniot, 2003). The

Functional Theory predicts that references to policy will be more frequent than references to

character in presidential campaign discourse (Jaeger, 2010, 33). Although the Functional Theory

does not provide specific reasoning as to why that is the case, researchers theorize that it goes

hand in hand with the preferability tenet, which states that voting is a comparison act and voters

will choose one candidate over the other. Opinion poll data from election cycles since 1976

reveals that more voters indicate policy, rather than character, is the most important determinant

of their vote for president (Benoit, 200). Therefore, campaigns are more likely to focus on

policy.
 7

The topic of character in election discourse often focuses specifically on the candidates as

individual, referencing their personal qualities, leadership ability, and ideals (Airne & Benoit,

2005). Personal qualities are seen as descriptions of a candidate's personality traits, such as

dependability or honesty, while leadership ability addresses the candidate's supposed

management of a country. Ideals focus on the candidate's principle to be aimed at within the

country (Jaeger, 2010). Though the mention of character is also commonly found in political

campaign ads, Benoit found that candidates whose attacks discourse focus on policy emphasize

policy more and character less, and are more likely to win the election than their opponents

(Benoit, 2004 ). When examining the topics of Trump’s and Biden’s Facebook campaign ads, we

propose the following research question:

RQ4. How did Trump’s and Biden’s Facebook ads differ regarding the mention of a)

policy and b) character?

Persuasive Appeals

Aside from functions and topics, another communication strategy we examine in this

study is persuasive appeal. Vesnic-Alujevic and Bauwel (2014) referred to persuasive appeal as a

component that intentionally seeks to influence voters. According to texts dating back to

Aristotle, persuasion appeal can fall under logos, pathos, and communicator characteristics, also

referred to as ethos (English, 2011). Logos, also named logical appeal, focuses on persuading

through the use of reasoning, which includes critical cognition, analytical skills, good memory,

and purposeful behavior; pathos, also referred to as emotional appeal, persuades by invoking an

impassioned or moving reaction from the audience; finally, ethos, also called as source appeal or

credibility appeal, convinces the audience by the character (such as importance of credibility) of

a message source (Mshvenieradze, 2013). For ethos, politicians use experts and the source-
 8

credibility appeals often in an effort to influence the degree to which the audience finds the

message credible (English, 2011). For logos, politicians often use the presentation of statistics or

a news story based on information in an advertisement attacking an opponent’s record within

campaign ads (English, 2011). For pathos, politicians often use emotional appeals, such as

humor appeals, to help audiences take political information relevant to their campaign (English,

2011). When comparing how Trump and Biden persuaded Facebook users through their ads, we

also take the different persuasive appeals into consideration.

RQ5. How did Trump and Biden use different persuasive appeals (i.e., logos, pathos, and

ethos) in their Facebook campaign ads?

Methods

Coding Scheme

The unit of observation in this study is each Facebook campaign ad posted by both

candidates during three months before the Election Day. After deciding the sample, a codebook

was developed to include the following coding categories.

Type of media modality used. A typical Facebook ad could be in several possible forms:

text only, video only, image only, text + video, and text + image. In order to capture different

types of media modality, this study coded whether the ad used text (1 = yes, 0 = no), image (1 =

yes, 0 = no), and video (1 = yes, 0 = no). For example, when an ad adopted the form of text +

video, we coded it as 1 for text and 1 for video.

Use of filters. The ads with images or videos were coded whether they applied filters to

alter shades, tones, texture, and color in a noticeable manner, or add any special effect with the

purpose of changing the appearance of an image or a video (1 = yes, 0 = no). An example of this

could be a color shift in the photo, such as altering the photo from color to black and white. It is
 9

important to note that the filter has to be applied for a significant amount of time or a significant

amount of space, meaning it must take a significant role in altering the photo or the video.

Primary discourse function. Following Benoit (2019, 2020), we coded the primary

discourse function of each ad by three categories identifying primary functions in a political

campaign discourse: acclaim, attack, and defense. The attack function focuses on criticizing the

opponent, while the acclaim function focuses on portraying oneself in a favorable light, with the

defense function focusing on refuting the attacks from the opponent. When an ad uses more than

one function in the discourse, we coded the primary function based on the most dominant theme

of the ad (1= attack, 2 = acclaim, 3 = defense).

Reference to policy. In addition to primary discourse function, we also coded the topics of

the campaign ads (Benoit et al., 2016; Sohal & Kaur, 2018). The first element we looked at was

the reference to policy. In this study, if an ad mentioned any action (past, current, or future)

adopted or proposed by government, a particular political party, or a candidate, it was coded as

“1 = yes”, regardless of which candidate’s policy the ad referred to. Otherwise, it was coded as

“0 = no”. For example, the reference to policy could be using the words “policy, issue, law,

regulation” or referring to a specific issue/policy topic (e.g., abortion, health care, labor

regulation, international relationship, etc.) in the campaign ads.

Reference to character. Another topic of the campaign ads coded in this study was

reference to a candidate's character. For each ad, we coded whether it mentioned anything about

the characteristics, traits, abilities, or attributes of the candidates (Benoit et al., 2016), such as

personal qualities, leadership ability, ideals, etc. Some examples of personal qualities included

references to diligence, perseverance, sense of humor, honesty, dependability, being family-

oriented, etc. Some leadership ability examples included the use of words like “leader”,
 10

“leadership”, “run the country”, etc. Some examples of ideals included the mention of the

standard of perfection, the principle to be aimed at, something somebody is pursuing, etc. When

any of these elements was mentioned in the ad, it was assigned “1 = yes”. Otherwise, the ad was

coded “0 = no”.

Use of persuasive appeal. In terms of persuasive appeals, each ad was coded for whether

it used logos, ethos, and/or pathos. When an ad included persuasion with reasoning, such as

using facts, figures, statistics, case studies, scientific evidence, etc. to justify arguments, it was

coded as “1 = yes” for using logos (i.e., logical appeal). Otherwise, it was coded as “0 = no” for

using logos. When an ad included elements that persuade by creating an emotional response,

such as through an impassioned plea or a convincing story with sensory details, it was coded as

“1 = yes” for using pathos (i.e., emotional appeal). Otherwise, it was coded as “0 = no” for using

pathos. For ethos (i.e., source appeal), the ad was coded whether it included any elements that

persuade an audience via the authority or credibility of the persuader who was disclosed as a

notable or expert figure in the field, a popular celebrity, a figure representative of a particular

group or political party, etc. (1 = yes, 0 = no).

Coding Procedure and Inter-coder Reliability

To code each ad, the student and the faculty mentor first went through several training

and pilot-coding to finalize the operationalization of the coding categories and developed

sufficient examples to guide coding, as well as multiple rounds of revisions to fine tune the

coding schemes. After establishing the coding schemes, the student and the faculty mentor then

went through two rounds of pilot coding to establish inter-coder reliability for all items. We first

randomly selected 10% of the sampled ads, coded them, and made some changes to the existing

coding schemes. Then we randomly selected another 15% of the sampled ads and coded them
 11

based on the revised codebook to establish inter-coder reliability. The Krippendorff’s alpha for

all of the coding categories ranged between .83 and 1.0, revealing high degrees of inter-coder

reliability. After establishing the inter-coder reliability, the student independently finished the

coding of the rest sampled ads.

Results

Type of Media Modality Used

  With regard to the type of media modality used, Trump never adopted any text-only

Facebook ads during the three-month period whereas Biden placed some. During this period,

Biden placed more ads with images than Trump, X2(1, N = 917) = 4.39, p < .05 (Figure 1),

whereas Trump placed more ads with videos than Biden, X2 (1, N = 917) = 4.39, p < .05 (Figure

2). These differences were mainly attributable to the candidates’ respective choices of image vs.

videos in September and October.  

Specifically, in September, Biden placed more ads with images than Trump, X2 (1, N =

299) = 4.68, p < .05. In October, Trump’s ads also used significantly fewer images than Biden’s,

X2 (1, N = 310) = 8.92, p < .01. It was the opposite situation for the use of videos. In both

September, X2 (1, N = 299) = 4.68, p < .05 and October, X2 (1, N = 310) = 8.92, p < .01, there

were more ads with videos from Trump than from Biden. There was no significant difference

between the two candidates in terms of using images or videos in August.      

Use of Filter 

Trump’s ads used filters more frequently than Biden’s during the three-month period, X2

(1, N = 917) = 13.34, p < .01. This difference is particularly attributable to the more frequent use

of filters by Trump in the months of August, X2 (1, N = 308) = 11.16, p < .01, and October, X2 (1,
 12

N = 310) = 15.09, p < .01 (Figure 3). There was no significant difference between the two

candidates for the ads placed in September.

Primary Discourse Function

Overall, Trump placed more attacking ads whereas Biden adopted more acclaiming ads

on Facebook across this three-month period, X2(1, N = 917) = 51.55, p < .01(Figure 4). After a

closer examination by month, the same pattern was found for the ads placed in August, X2(1, N =

308) = 43.51, p < .01., and October, X2 (1, N = 310) = 28.40, p < .01, but not for the ads placed in

September. In both August and October, Trump placed more attacking ads than Biden, whereas

Biden placed more acclaiming ads than Trump. It is interesting that neither candidate adopted

defense function in their Facebook campaign ads at all during the examined three-month period. 

Reference to Policy 

During the entire period of the three months, there was no significant difference between

the two candidates regarding the mention of policy in the ads. However, when delving into the

specific month prior to the election, Trump made more references to policy in his ads then Biden,

X2 (1, N = 310) = 6.35, p < .05, in October (Figure 5). There was no significant difference

between the two candidates in terms of mentioning policy either in August or September 2020.

Reference to Candidate’s Character 

Overall, Trump had more references to the characters of either candidate more frequently

than Biden in Facebook campaign ads, X2(1, N = 917) =22.89, p < .01 (Figure 6). After having a

close examination of ads by month, the same pattern was found in their August ads, X2 (1, N =

308) =14.94, p < .01, and October ads, X2 (1, N = 310) =28.16, p < .01, but not the ads placed in

September. In both August and October, Trump made more references to characters of either

candidate than Biden. Some prevalent themes observed in Trump’s attack ads were "Sleepy Joe'',
 13

"Weak Leadership", “Corrupt Politician”. Biden’s ads did not include that many references to

character, although he did use things like “Irrational Trump'' in his attack ad. 

Use of Persuasive Appeals 

Although both candidates did not use logos (i.e., logical appeal) that much, the analysis

result showed that Biden’s ads used this appeal more frequently than Trump’s over the entire

three months, X2(1, N = 917) = 6.37 p < .05 (Figure 7). The same pattern was discovered in

August, X2(1, N =308) = 6.68, p < .05, and September, X2(1, N = 299) = 4.32 p < .05, whereas in

October, there was no significant difference between the two candidates regarding the use of

logos.

Biden used pathos (i.e., emotional appeals) less frequently in his ads placed during the

entirely three-month period than Trump, X2 (1, N = 917) = 31.65, p < .01 (Figure 8). This pattern

was consistently demonstrated in the months of August, X2 (1, N = 308) = 37.57, p < .01, and

October, X2 (1, N = 310) = 12.82, p < .01. But the difference between the two was not significant

in September. Some examples of the emotional appeals used in their Facebook campaign ads

include “We need you in this election”; “Our nation depends on you”; “We cannot lose our

nation's ideals''; etc.

In terms of source appeals (i.e., ethos), there was no significant difference between the

two candidates either for the three months as a whole or by individual month.

Discussion

Through a content analysis, this study compares how Trump and Biden adopted different

persuasion strategies in their Facebook campaign ads for the 2020 Presidential Election. The

findings of this project inform us how the two candidates made strategic choices of media

features and message features to persuade voters on Facebook. Overall, Trump placed more ads
 14

with videos, filters, attacks, references to candidate’s characters, and emotional appeals than

Biden, whereas Biden placed more ads with images, acclaims, and logical appeals than Trump

during the examined three-month period. 

Unlike some early findings of the incumbent's reliance on acclaims rather than attacks in

political campaigns (Benoit et al., 2000; Benoit & Harthcock, 1999), the incumbent in this

election, Donald J. Trump adopted attacks a lot more than the challenger, Joe Biden, in Facebook

ads. Trump's choice of this campaign style could have been influenced by his overall personal

branding as a politician – a person who is incredibly outspoken and not conforming to societal

standards of what a president should say and not say (Abhad-Santos, 2021). Another possible

explanation for the more aggressive attacks from Trump could be associated with the poll losses.

Throughout his presidency, Trump had an average polling of 41 percent approval rate, which is

about 7 points lower than his predecessor (Jones, 2021). With the low polls, Trump could have

intentionally chosen the more aggressive attacks as a direct response to combat them.   

Consistent with the Functional Theory (Benoit, 2014), this study found that defense was

the least used function in both candidates’ Facebook campaign ads. In fact, neither candidate

adopted this function at all during the examined three-month period. One possible explanation

for this choice is that neither candidate considered the opponent’s statements even worth

responding to. In this highly emotion-charged election (as indicated by the findings related to the

use of pathos), both sides and their supporters were polarized about their perspectives and were

not going to concede their points. Convincing the opposing side thus became very difficult.

Instead of spending time and resources to defend themselves, which could also lead to backfires,

both candidates focused on rallying their supporters on getting out to the ballots. 
 15

It is worth noting that there was no significant difference between the two candidates for

the mention of policy in their Facebook campaign ads. In fact, neither candidate discussed policy

more than each other’s characters across the three months. This might be largely due to the deep-

seated political divide the nation is experiencing. Many of the issues faced by both candidates are

controversial. Espousing a particular position on any of these controversies could simultaneously

attract and repel votes with different beliefs and values. Both candidates might only hope for

persuading enough voters to win the election and avoid emphasizing policies.

Using edited imageries in political campaign is nothing new. However, applying filters to

images and videos on social media is still a more recent development. As our election cycles

progress, there will likely be a growing reliance on social media with even more frequent use of

filters in images and videos. If unregulated, filters could significantly impact the integrity of our

elections. As some scholars have already raised concerns about use of filters on social media,

this emerging practice deserves more attention for future research on visual presentations in

political campaigns. One possible idea is to compare how filters are used to present political

candidates in positive versus negative light. 

  There are several limitations with the current study. First, future studies should consider

expanding the sampling period to explore how the candidates’ campaign ad strategies evolved

over time. Given that there were quite some major social and political events co-occurred along

with the ongoing campaigns of both candidates, it will be interesting to see how these concurrent

events influence the candidates’ social media ad strategies respectively. In this study, we only

coded the topics covered in the ads by the general categories of policy and character. Future

research could fine tune the coding by adding more detailed subcategories under each of them,

such as past, current, and future policies, and characters as reflected through leadership, personal
 16

qualities, ideals, etc. In addition to coding the type of media modality used in the ad, future

research may conduct further examination on the specific visual elements used in ads. 

References

Abad-Santos, A. (2021, January 22). The future of Donald Trump’s brand. Vox.

https://www.vox.com/the-goods/22243022/donald-trump-lawsuits-future-brand

Airne, D., & Benoit, W. L. (2005). Political television advertising in campaign 2000.

Communication Quarterly, 53(4), 473-492.

Benoit, W. L. (2003). Topic of presidential campaign discourse and election outcome. Western

Journal of Communication, 67(1), 97-112.

Benoit, W. L. (2004). Election outcome and topic of political campaign attacks. Southern

Journal of Communication, 69(4), 348-355.

Benoit, W. L. (2014). A functional analysis of 2008 and 2012 presidential nomination

acceptance addresses. Speaker and Gavel, 51, 50-59.

Benoit W. L. (2017). Meta-analysis of research on the functional theory of political campaign

discourse. Speaker and Gavel, 54(1), 7-50.

Benoit, W. L. (2019). A functional analysis of visual and verbal symbols in presidential

campaign posters, 1828–2012. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 49, 4-22.

Benoit, W. L., Blaney, J. R., & Pier, P. M. (2000). Acclaiming, attacking, and defending: A

functional analysis of U.S. nominating convention keynote speeches. Political

Communication, 17(1), 61–84.

Benoit, W. L., Glantz, M., & Rill, L. (2016). Campaigning on the Internet: 2008 Presidential

general election candidate webpages. KOME-An International Journal of Pure

Communication Inquiry, 4(2), 46-58.

 17

Benoit, W. L., & Harthcock, A. (1999). Functions of the great debates: Acclaims, attacks, and

defenses in the 1960 presidential debates. Communication Monographs, 66(4), 341–357.

Bode, L., Vraga, E. K., Borah, P., & Shah, D. V. (2014). A new space for political behavior:

Political social networking and its democratic consequences. Journal of Computer-

Media, 19(3), 414–429.

Brym, R., Slavina, A., Todosijevic, M., Cowan, D. (2018). Social movement horizontality in the

internet age? A critique of Castells in light of the Trump victory. Canadian Review of

Sociology, 55(4), 624-634.

Demirdöğen, Ü. D. (2010). The roots of research in (political) persuasion: Ethos, pathos, logos

and the Yale studies of persuasive communications. International Journal of Social

Inquiry, 3(1), 189-201.

Dover, E. D. (2006). Images, issues, and attacks: Television advertising by incumbents and

challengers in presidential elections. Rowman & Littlefield.

English, K., Sweetser, K. D., & Ancu, M. (2011). YouTube-ification of political talk: An

examination of persuasion appeals in viral video. American Behavioral Scientist, 55(6),

733-748.

Facebook Ad Library. (2020). Advertising data by date range: Spending by advertiser May 7,

2018-December 2, 2020. Facebook Ad Library Report.

https://www.facebook.com/ads/library/report/?country=US&source=archive-landing-

page&campaign_tracker_active_toggle=bar_graph

Ferwerda, B., & Tkalcic, M. (2018). You are what you post: What the content of Instagram

pictures tells about users’ personality. Paper presented at the 23rd International on
 18

Intelligent User Interfaces, March 7-11, Tokyo, Japan. http://urn.kb.se/resolve?

urn=urn:nbn:se:hj:diva-38866

Goldmacher, S. (2020, October 28). The 2020 Campaign is the most expensive ever (by a lot.

The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/10/28/us/politics/2020-race-

money.html

Jaeger, P. T., Paquette, S., & Simmons, S. N. (2010). Information policy in national political

campaigns: A comparison of the 2008 campaigns for President of the United States and

Prime Minister of Canada. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 7(1), 67-82.

Jones, J. (2021, January 18). Last Trump job approval 34%; average is record-low 41%. Gallup.

https://news.gallup.com/poll/328637/last-trump-job-approval-average-record-low.aspx

Kaid, L. (2012). Political advertising as political marketing: A retro-forward perspective.

Journal of Political Marketing, 11(1-2), 29-53.

Kreiss, D., & McGregor, S. C. (2017). Technology firms shape political communication: The

work of Microsoft, Facebook, Twitter, and Google with campaigns during the 2016 U.S.

presidential cycle. Political Communication, 35, 155–177.

Kleemans, M., Daalmans, S., Carbaat, I., Anschütz, D. (2018). Picture perfect: The direct

effect of manipulated Instagram photos on body image in adolescent girls. Media

Psychology, 21(1), 93–110.

Leigh, D. (2020, October 29). Presidential campaigns set new records for social media ad

spending. ABC7 Los Angeles. https://abc7.com/presidential-race-campaign-spending-

trump-political-ads-biden/7452228/
 19

Levy, A., Rodriguez, S., Graham, M. (2020, October 8). Why political campaigns are flooding

Facebook with ad dollars. CNBC. https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/08/trump-biden-pacs-

spend-big-on-facebook-as-election-nears.html

Mshvenieradze, T. (2013). Logos, ethos and pathos in political discourse. Theory &

Practice in Language Studies, 3(11), 1939-1945.

National Conference of State Legislatures. (2020, August 31). Digital political ads.

https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/digital-political-ads.aspx

Noggle, G., & Kaid, L. L. (2000). The effects of visual images in political ads: Experimental

testing of distortions and visual literacy. Social Science Quarterly, 81(4), 913–927.

Nwachukwu, E. (2020). Political public relations agenda-building: A content analysis of the US

2016 presidential campaign speeches, tweets and news stories (Doctoral dissertation).

https://aquila.usm.edu/dissertations/1749/

O'Brien, S. (1993). Eye on Soweto: A study of factors in news photo use. Journal of

Mass Media Ethics, 8(2), 69-87.

Porsmita, B. (2016). Political Facebook use: Campaign strategies used in 2008 and 2012

presidential elections. Journal of Information Technology & Politics, 13(4), 326-338.

Ricchiardi, S. (2007). Distorted picture. American Journalism Review, 29(4), 36-43.

Shearer, E., & Gottfried, J. (2017, September 7). News used across social media platforms in

2017. Pew Research Center - Journalism & Media.

https://www.journalism.org/2017/09/07/news-use-across-social-media-platforms-2017/

Sohal, S., & Kaur, H. (2018). A content analysis of YouTube political advertisements: Evidence

from Indian parliamentary elections. Journal of Creative Communications, 13(2), 133-

156.
 20

Swant, M. (2020, November 2). What Joe Biden’s and Donald Trump’s Facebook ads reveal

about their campaign strategies. Forbes.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/martyswant/2020/11/02/what-joe-bidens-and-donald-

trumps-facebook-ads-reveal-about-their-campaign-strategies/

Vendemia, M. A., & DeAndrea, D. C. (2018). The effects of viewing thin, sexualized

selfies on Instagram: Investigating the role of image source and awareness of photo

editing practices. Body Image, 27, 118-127.

Vesnic-Alujevic, L., & Bauwel, S. V. (2014). YouTube: A political advertising tool? A case

study of the use of YouTube in the campaign for the European Parliament elections 2009.

Journal of Political Marketing, 13(3), 195–212.

Wu, J. (2009). Facebook politics: An exploratory study of American youth’s political

engagement during the 2008 presidential election. American Communication Journal,

11(1). http://ac-journal.org/journal/2009/Spring/Articles/110108%20Facebook

%20Politics.pdf
 21

Figure 1. Use of Image in the Ad by Candidate and Month of Placement

120
111 109
102
98
100 95

79
80 76

60 55 57
53
44
38
40

20

0
Biden Trump Biden Trump Biden Trump
August September October

Without Image With Image

Figure 2. Use of Video in the Ad by Candidate and Month of Placement

120 111 109
102
98
100 95

79 76
80

60 55 57
53
44
38
40

20

0
Biden Trump Biden Trump Biden Trump
August September October

Without Video With Video

 22

Figure 3. Use of Filter by Candidate and Month of Placement

160

140 136
127
120 109 108
103 100
100

80

60 52
47 47
43
40
26
19
20

0
Biden Trump Biden Trump Biden Trump
August September October

Without Filter With Filter

Figure 4. Number of Ads with Primary Discourse Functions by Candidate and Month of
Placement

140
130 130
120

100 101 101

80 87
78 77
68
60
50
40 46

20 23 25

0
Biden Trump Biden Trump Biden Trump
August September October

Attack Acclaim
 23

Figure 5. Reference to Policy by Candidate in October 2020

140
121
120
101
100
80
60 54

40 34

20
0
Biden Trump
Refence to Policy

No Yes

Figure 6. Reference to Candidate’s Character by Candidate and Month of Placement

140
129

120 110
114
101 99
100
87
80
68

60 54
48
42 41
40
24
20

0
Biden Trump Biden Trump Biden Trump
August September October

Reference to Character: No Reference to Character: Yes

 24

Figure 7. Use of Logical Appeals (Logos) by Candidate and Month of Placement

160 149
143
140 135
128 125 127
120
100
80
60
40 30 30
18 19
20 9
6
0
Biden Trump Biden Trump Biden Trump
August September October

Without Logical Appeal With Logical Appeal

Figure 8. Use of Emotional Appeals (Pathos) by Candidate and Month of Placement

160 152

140 129 131

124
120 113
104
100
80
60 51
40
40
23 23 24
20
3
0
Biden Trump Biden Trump Biden Trump
August September October

Without Emotional Appeal With Emotional Appeal