| Theories about political campaign communication have been based primarily on an understanding of the two-party system. Consequently, the rhetoric of third party presidential candidates has been seen as ineffective or unimportant because it violates the norms of political discourse. I maintain that this leads to a critical misunderstanding and under-appreciation for third party campaign rhetoric, since scholars too often ignore the situational barriers and perceived strategic constraints that these candidates routinely encounter. In the first two chapters of this project, I identify the purposes of third party campaigns and argue that the rhetorical style of serious minor party candidates is fundamentally different than the style of traditional incumbents and challengers. Functioning as agitators for change, third party presidential candidates use a rhetorical style that is polarizing, populist, rich in markers of authenticity, and aimed at producing public spectacle. In three additional chapters, I argue that the constraints, purposes, and rhetorical style that make third party candidates distinct from their major party counterparts means that even the most significant rhetorical moments of their campaign---the announcement statement, nomination acceptance speech, and concession---will violate the traditional norms of each genre. These differences suggest the existence of norms that are unique to third party discourse. As such, variants for each genre as they pertain to minor party candidates are described in detail, and applied to several case studies. |
