Thread by @Nat_Strobl_eng

OK, let's look at the Trump statement from last night I'm about to share so we can go over it together. What is Trump doing here rhetorically? What is he doing here? And why? He uses a few tricks here. Let's look at this together and decipher them. #NatsAnalysis #NatsAnalyse

It's about this statement from the White House tonight. Some channels didn't show the whole statement because it is of course a sheer attempt to intervene in the counting process.

It starts with the greeting. He does not greet the media, but addresses the Americans directly. As if it was a State of the Union speech. He also sets the framework here - he gives an update. He does not discuss it, but provides the facts.

1st frame: "the integrity of the election" So the lawfulness& correctness of the election. Here he is doing smth that always runs through his rhetoric:turning the argument around. It is not he but the others who risk the integrity of the election, for him it is about correctness

This move is so good for him because he attacks & is victim at the same time. Just being on the defensive contradicts your own self-image. But being on the offensive & being a victim at the same time is what distinguishes this type of rhetoric: A fight as an underdog.

2nd frame: legal vs illegal votes. This is a confusing tactic. Suddenly there are different categories of votes. Before it was about "every vote", now it is about "(il)legal" votes. The point here is clearly to say that not every vote counts, only certain ones.

But in this dichotomy nobody wants to be on the "illegal" side, so it sounds logical that only the "legal" ones count, what else? But he creates the category "illegal" just by talking about it and wants to fill it with his framing.

Next, he does what he did in his previous statements: He lists the states that have been won and portrays that as a hard-to-believe victory against all odds. Indiana, Florida, Texas, Iowa, Ohio. This is important for his analogy later.

From here on it gets really exciting, bc from here on he does something called mimicry: He imitates discourses, in this case progressive ones, and turns them into the exact opposite. So this makes it rhetorically seem like he is overtaking Biden on the left (he doesn't).

3rd frame: Interference/Suppression. 4th frame: Big Tech/Big Money/Big Media. Do you notice anything? These are left, democratic, progressive frames. Who is in favour of people not being able to vote freely? Who is in favour of big bucks influencing elections? Exactly.

He's spinning the story that big companies and the capital and the media and polling companies worked together to prevent it. Wrong/bad polls become an instrument of voter suppression.

This is perfidious because not only is it not true, but the opposite is true. Voter suppression happens against the marginalized and not against Trump voters. More about this spin here in German (you can read the automatic translation)

https://twitter.com/pablodiabolo/status/1324651242283503616?s=20

Frame 4, the big money frame, again works with these clear images that Trump paints: Wall Street on the one hand - farmers, workers, police officers on the other. Here he is linguistically framing a left position that has nothing to do with reality

He expands on this by highlighting the many women who have won seats for the Republicans. So he frames the Republicans as a party of women, workers, farmers and low-rank police officers against the Big Money Wall Street Democrats.

Regardless of the factual reality, this is a rhetorical attack that he borrowed from the left. He gives himself a left-wing image here and imitates discourses that democrats should actually be leading. Why does he think this will work?

Because it connects to a disenchantment with politics, where it is about "those up there" and "those in Washington" against "us here". Where he pretends to be an outsider, not part of the elite and one of "us". While Biden is part of the elite. That's why people vote for him.

(The wrong thing you can do is to negate the frame in general, so to say that Big Money doesn't matter and Wall Street has no interest in President Biden. It is important to emphasize how untrustworthy Trump is. Just as a side remark.)

5th frame: We have won a lot, there is a red wave, we have clear victories. That is just wrong. Here he simply tries to use the aforementioned states as an analogy to all others. Because we won there, it has to be the same elsewhere.

The murmur it is based on: If we have won Texas so clearly (against all odds and against Big Money), why is that not the case in Michigan? Something is wrong. He creates (false) analogies and connections.

Again briefly on frame 4, on Big Money vs "normal people". He stands up and says "we are the party of inclusion" and counts on the votes of Black Americans and Latinos. It rhetorically uses the democrats' own base against them.

Someone who won the last election with the phantasmagoria of building the wall is now standing up and presenting himself as someone who is building a diverse, plural coalition from below. As if he were Bernie Sanders and not Donald Trump. That's bold and wrong, but he does it.

No more words about MAGA or thugs or riots, that no longer appears in the story, but a story ofa list of marginalized people for whom he allegedly fights against a corrupt system. He manages the switch quickly and seamlessly and does not insist on one or the other.

Frame 3- the Interference/Suppression-frame is aimed at survey institutes. He talks about random number and speaks of "them" as if there weren't any different institutes/methods etc. It is obvious: he gradually chips away at the credibility of institutions.

He's also done that with the media and with political institutions. Always "them" who are against him. Who have come together to take action against him with the worst of intentions. Close to the belief in conspiracies. But clear dichotomy - they vs me - you.

This chipping away at institutions also includes the authorities and people who count the ballots. Here he is purposely mentioning exaggerated and absurd situations, such as observers having to stand outside the building to observe inside.

That is of course not true, but it is a strong image that you immediately see & emotionalize. How are they not allowed to watch? What is it that's being kept secret? How are they supposed to watch from outside? This is answered calmly, factually here.

https://twitter.com/JHillje/status/1324608898452566019?s=20

6th frame: litigation. Litigation is PR during a court case. By defaming factual corrections or democratic principles (count every vote) as litigation, he removes them from the level of truthfulness. It is now a he said-she said situation.

He really does repeat the litigation very often. This creates the pretence that the other side is only interested in PR& that this is a court case. As if they were accused in court & now have to wriggle out of it by using PR. Always attack, always on the offensive. This is Trump

And always back to frame 3: Suppression/Interference. He spreads rumours or whispers something about "a lot happened" and that it looks very suspicious. But he can't mention anything specific. He just spreads doubts about the political system itself.

Again and again the story that he was so far ahead in different states and suddenly (insinuated: manipulated) he loses these states because of the postal vote. As if he hadn't called on his fans to vote at the polling station (and Biden to vote by post).

And as if Republicans had not deliberately created exactly this situation and had the postal votes count started late (sometimes they are more votes than polling votes because of the pandemic). Of course results change through this, it's logical and not manipulated.

He then talks about how many people lie at his feet and how much encouragement and love he has experienced. A little bit politics 1x1, but also underlining the position “Me against the corrupt system for you”.

Also a classic: He takes accusations against him and just turns it around. It's not he who tries to manipulate and steal the choice, no, it's the others. This creates uncertainty and is supposed to be confusing - is everyone trying to steal the vote now? Who knows?

Because of doubt, this way he will take the others down with him if he loses. Even if Biden is sworn in, there might be something wrong. Sowing doubts, persistently shoving away democracy and its institutions.

Again and again he talks about unprovable individual stories, claims and exaggerations (card boards, binoculars). And immediately the hint of violence - here, too, reversal. Those who "prevent" observation are to blame for the violence of the ("wrongly") excluded.

Trump also linguistically follows on from his first statement (the one with the sandwich that I described above): The voting cards that come at 4am. He predicted it and that's exactly what happened. A consistent, clear, strong picture. (a lie)

And of course, they were all for Biden. And Trump is just asking questions, it's weird. Sows doubt. He's even trying to get the media back in: you yourself wrote about the corrupt Democrats, see they are exactly as you said.

At the an attack again: Democrats should say that they only want to count the "legal" votes. I already mentioned above that this is a dangerous and incorrect framing. But here the strategy shows again: attack and victim at the same time.

tl; dr: Trump turns around the allegations against himself and transfers them to the Democrats. He uses left-wing narratives in mimicry and presents himself as a fighter for the marginalized. He creates rumours, exaggerates and chips away at democratic institutions.

Phew, thanks for reading and listening, that was a long analysis. But it shows us in 20 minutes how this type of political rhetoric and thus this type of ideology and strategy work: every attack is fended off with a counter-attack. At the same time, one is a victim.

Here is the original thread in German. I do these kind of things regularly in German of you are interested.

https://twitter.com/natascha_strobl/status/1324653454804082690