New Series, Vol. 2, No. 20
In 2022, U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) decided to not run for a third term. Then-Lt. Gov. John Fetterman ran and easily won the Democratic primary against young Congressman Conor Lamb and other candidates. Among Republican primary candidates, Dr. Mehmet Oz, a famous physician from national television appearances and a recent transplant from New Jersey, just barely beat Dave McCormick, a businessman and former Undersecretary of the U.S. Treasury for International Affairs, and several other candidates. Fetterman was already known as an unconventional politician: a tall, large, and bald man, he always wore shorts, hoodies, and other casual clothing that did not hide his tattoos, usually seemed spontaneous in media interviews, and occasionally disagreed with his party on major issues. Simultaneously, Oz’s medical and business career had become increasingly controversial. Both candidates had largely unknown views on national and international issues.
It is unknown whether Fetterman’s campaign researched academic literature on humor in politics, which shows, “how humor can be an effective political tactic for organizing social change, countering dominant ideology, or highlighting the (un)desirability of politics, positions or candidate attributes.” Research also shows that humor in political campaigns can be “clannish” (exclusionary of some groups) or promote “unbridled political cynicism.” Humor is risky in campaigns, as voters may perceive that it distracts from important issues, that it’s mean, and/or that it’s not funny. In any case, Fetterman decided to use humor against Oz, relentlessly mocking him on social media and then television. Fetterman was careful to first use humor to show Oz as an outsider to Pennsylvania, both geographically (Fetterman called Oz “New Jersey Strong”) and in terms of class. As the authors state, Fetterman probably correctly sensed that it would push too far to also make issues out of Oz’s dual Turkish-U.S. citizenships or Oz’s Muslim faith.
The Fetterman campaign also emphasized that Oz had eliminated from his website and his campaign all signs of influence from, or connections with, then former President Donald Trump. As the Fetterman campaign monitored public response to its humor, it then showed Oz literally as a clown, pointed out that Oz had mocked Fetterman’s stroke recovery, claimed that Oz’s celebrity was a scam, and noted that Oz abused animals during medical research. Thus, Oz was cumulatively portrayed to voters as a “deeply unserious, quite literally laughable, candidate” if also a “well coifed and polished” one.
Researchers Coker and Funk conclude that the dress and demeanors of Fetterman and his wife, together with how Oz was portrayed, for Fetterman “affect[ed] a domestic rust-belt toughness which appears ‘authentic’ because of their ‘distinctiveness of life experiences against the standardization and triviality of everyday life under the framework of industrial society.” Fetterman made statements such as, “Dr. Oz is a carpetbagger who barely won his own primary. He came over from his New Jersey mansion to OUR state” and “Stop price gouging + Make more sh*t in America + Fix supply chains.” The authors argue, “Fetterman’s outward presentation affectively embodies an almost conservative masculinity employing the appearance and aesthetic of the working class combined with broad populist appeals.”
Fetterman’s social media posts were “quick to self-deprecate,” used popular memes of the moment, included “candid selfie-style photographs,” and had “simple, even shoddy, production values [to] convey amateurism that conveys authenticity.” They displayed the “pleasure of mockery and derision of an obvious pretender.” Meanwhile, Coker and Funk argue, Oz’s social media posts “fail[ed] to stick humor and authenticity together” and were “polished in all the wrong ways.” Oz also caused himself problems on camera by, among other things, pausing to think about how many properties he owned and shopping at a “Wegner’s” store for his wife’s “crudité” appetizers. (Fetterman replied that Oz actually was at a Redner’s store and that in Pennsylvania, “crudité” appetizers are called simply a “veggie tray.”)
The researchers conclude that while some other politicians have not been successful at humor, Fetterman’s “jokes created a rhetorical environment hostile to Mehmet Oz’s brand of faux populism by (a) suturing Fetterman to the locale and ethos of Pennsylvania in opposition to wealthy outsiders, and (b) encouraging voters to dismiss Oz as patently ridiculous.” Still, Fetterman did not win in a landslide; the general election vote was Fetterman, 51.2%, and Oz, 46.3%.
Communication Currents Discussion Questions
- Consider the rhetorical and political pros and cons of other possible Fetterman strategies, such as a) emphasizing Oz’s dual Turkish-American citizenships and/or Oz’s religion (if elected, Oz would have been the country’s first Muslim senator), b) Oz’s total lack of experience in government and politics, and/or c) Oz’s scandals (losing huge lawsuits, Columbia University faculty’s push to fire him, his promotion of the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, numerous major conflicts of interest, using animals in research, etc.).
- This article suggests that Fetterman’s humor-based campaign was successful because he won and because rhetorical theory supports that Fetterman made a good choice of strategy, then handled it well. Given the risks of humor in politics, and that Oz could have run his campaign better than he did, would you have chosen the humor strategy? Why or why not? If not, what strategy would you have chosen instead and why?
- What role should a candidate’s own sense of humor play in politics? As context, in their races for president in 1984 and 1996, respectively, Democrat Walter Mondale and Republican Robert Dole often seemed stiff and boring. Privately, both were known to have excellent senses of humor, and many experts said that Mondale and Dole each should have relaxed and shown more of their personalities, especially their senses of humor, in their campaigns. Discuss.
For additional suggestions about how to use this and other Communication Currents in the classroom, see: https://www.natcom.org/publications/communication-currents/integrating-communication-currents-classroom
ABOUT THE AUTHORS
Calvin R. Coker is associate professor of communication at the University of Louisville.
Michelle E. Funk is assistant teaching professor of communication arts and sciences at Pennsylvania State University at University Park.
This essay, by Dane S. Claussen, translates the scholarly journal article, Coker, C. R., & Funk, M. E. (2025). Shitposting to the Senate: Humor, affect, and the working class in the Fetterman-Oz race. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies. https://doi.org/10.1080/14791420.2025.2557287. Advance online publication.
The full copyright and private policy link is available at natcom.org/privacy-policy/
New Series, Vol. 2, No. 23 This study investigates the rhetorical strategy of white victimhood and how such rhetoric evades moderation on social media (i.e., X, formerly Twitter) to spread bigoted, white nationalist content. The authors focus on everyday social media activity and explore how individuals posting engage in “white...
New Series, Vol. 2, No. 21 Community participation is an essential component of democracy, yet gaps in participation persist due to unequal distribution of resources that disenfranchise historically marginalized groups and in turn weaken the community’s overall representativeness. This study applied sensemaking, specifically constructs of sensegiving and sensebreaking to understand...
New Series, Vol. 2, No. 19 Student journalism in secondary schools has many documented benefits for participating students, including voice empowerment, improved academic performance, vocational training, and encouraging civic participation. However, when discouraged from pursuing topics that they are passionate about and/or benefit their communities because those topics may be...
New Series, Vol. 2, No. 16 Historically, US Supreme Court justices “off-bench” speech (their communications other than in judicial opinions) typically was limited in quantity, even while its content ranged from educational (justices teaching law school courses or seminars) to the personal (interviews, memoirs, etc.). Justices typically framed the Court...
New Series, Vol. 2, No. 9 Recent and historical efforts to control expression—despite constitutional protection of free speech in the First Amendment—increase the salience of free speech issues for many Americans. Although most people in the U.S. support free speech conceptually, the application of this belief seems to vary depending...
New Series, Vol. 2, No. 8 Metaphors, which this article defines (from Richard Gregg) as “a thoroughly rhetorical cognitive process” that “encourage us to adopt some particular perspective” and “culminates in a point of view,” have been used historically in politics, literature, religion, and beyond. This article concerns the metaphor,...
New Series, Vol. 2, No. 7 There is a long legacy of anti-literacy laws targeting Black communities in the U.S., with anti-woke legislation being only a recent iteration of these far right attacks on public education. In the piece, the author discusses the experiences and challenges of being a public...
New Series Vol. 1, No. 12 The Tonight Show, a late night comedy and interview program on the NBC network, was launched in 1954 and has been broadcast continuously since then, with the current host being Jimmy Fallon (since 2014). Fallon is the sixth permanent host, but the one most...
New Series, Vol. 1, No. 8 Black women face a unique combination of anti-Black racism and misogyny (i.e., hatred of women), the combination of these oppressive forces referred to as misogynoir. Similarly, women who claim space in the public sphere, especially Black women, are often subject to a centuries-long trope,...