Avoiding "The Issues" as Addressivity in US Electoral Politics

In televised debates in US electoral politics, behavior before The Issues is scrupulously monitored, so much so that even a candidate's dysfluencies can be perilous, often registering to commentators as 'avoidance' and spurring them to speculate about addressivity, about which category of implied voter the candidate's avoidance was "to" and "for." Focusing on the 2007-2008 primary debates and post-debate coverage, I examine how infelicities around The Issues are read as addressivity and used to cast candidates as social types (e.g., "flip-flopper"). I situate these critical readings in relation to the political marketing industry and compare this kind of ascribed performativity with the rigid performativity of verbal taboo.