Making debating great again: U.S. Presidential candidates’ use of aggressive communication for winning presidential debates

Abstract This study explores how presidential candidates leveraged social aggression within the 2015–2016 U.S. presidential primary and general election debates in an effort to characterize their opposition, get ahead of their opponents, and compete for votes. Using a content analysis, this research identifies trends in the use of social, verbal, and nonverbal aggression by presidential candidates over time (both early and late in the election cycle), across political parties (Democratic and Republican primaries) and in different parts of the campaign process (primary elections and general election). Data show that political front-runners were the greatest victims of aggression in the primary debates. Additionally, aggression increased over time within each debate segment analyzed, with the general election debates featuring more aggression than the primary debates.