@article{smith_2017, title={"I Alone" vs. "Stronger Together": Contrasting Visions in the 2016 Nomination Acceptance Addresses}, volume={61}, ISSN={["1552-3381"]}, DOI={10.1177/0002764217707623}, abstractNote={ Nomination acceptance addresses perform two major functions: They reconstitute the factions splintered by the primaries into a unified party and they frame the general election campaign as a clash between two narrative visions of America. In 2016, Donald Trump co-opted Republicans into his empire, conflated imagining and remembering to envision an American dystopia caused mainly by Clinton, claimed that he alone could fix things using unspecified mechanisms, and promised to provide an immediate American utopia. Clinton envisioned a cooperative nation with fewer recent successes than problems, explained that only together could we improve our prospects for a better future by working hard to enact unspecified policies, and warned us against making a bad man our potentate. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton performed the rhetorical functions of consolidating support and framing the campaign but, to date, no rhetor has found a way to reconcile them into a unifying American vision. }, number={9}, journal={AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST}, author={Smith, Craig Allen}, year={2017}, month={Aug}, pages={966–985} }
 @book{smith_2015, title={Presidential campaign communication}, ISBN={9780745680224}, publisher={Malden, MA: Polity Press}, author={Smith, C. A.}, year={2015} }
 @book{stewart_smith_denton_2007, title={Persuasion and social movements}, ISBN={1577664639}, publisher={Long Grove, Ill.: Waveland Press}, author={Stewart, C. J. and Smith, C. A. and Denton, R. E.}, year={2007} }
 @article{smith_2005, title={President Bush's enthymeme of evil - The amalgamation of 9/11, Iraq, and moral values}, volume={49}, ISSN={["0002-7642"]}, DOI={10.1177/0002764205279432}, abstractNote={ Ted Windt’s description of presidential crisis rhetoric helps explain the successes and the difficulties of President Bush’s war on terror. Immediately after the attacks, the president moved rhetorically to provide reassurance and to delegate policy direction. But President Bush’s rhetorical transformation of a faceless coward’s attack on our country into evil’s attack on everything good and proper in the world prepared us to respond against enemies beyond “those responsible for these attacks” even as his top advisors warned against doing so. The devil-angel melodrama provided the dramatistic proof Windt described, and when the president cast it in the form of a jeremiad, it reconciled contradictions and complicated counterargument and deliberation. }, number={1}, journal={AMERICAN BEHAVIORAL SCIENTIST}, author={Smith, CA}, year={2005}, month={Sep}, pages={32–47} }