Acclaiming, attacking, and defending in presidential nominating acceptance addresses, 1960-1996

Political campaign discourse is instrumental, designed to persuade voters to perceive the candidate as preferable to the opponent. To appear preferable, candidates may acclaim (engage in self-praise) to make themselves appear better, they may attack the opposition to make opponents seem worse, or they may defend against attacks from the opposition to restore lost desirability. We analyze these three basic functions in presidential nomination acceptance addresses from 1960-1996. Nominees primarily produce acclaiming (72%) and attacking (27%). Defenses were relatively rare (1% of the discourse). Democrats acclaim more than Republicans, while Republicans attack more than Democrats. Challengers attack more than incumbents, while incumbents acclaim more than challengers. Recent nominees (1980-1996) are more likely than earlier speakers (1960-1976) to direct utterances toward the candidates instead of the parties, signaling the decline in the importance of political parties and the rise of candidate-centered politics. Nominees also discussed policy more than character in their acclaims and attacks.