scholarly journals Gender Attitudes, Gendered Partisanship: Feminism and Support for Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton among Party Activists

2016 ◽  
Vol 37 (4) ◽  
pp. 394-416 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth A. Sharrow ◽  
Dara Z. Strolovitch ◽  
Michael T. Heaney ◽  
Seth E. Masket ◽  
Joanne M. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Gender Attitudes ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Party Activists ◽  
Sarah Palin

scholarly journals The Anatomy Of EEOs Level Playing Field

2009 ◽  
Vol 4 (2) ◽  
pp. 49-58
Author(s):  
Edward L. Powers
Keyword(s):  
Affirmative Action ◽  
Equal Employment Opportunity ◽  
Barack Obama ◽  
Employment Opportunity ◽  
Level Playing Field ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Playing Field ◽  
Equal Employment ◽  
The Future ◽  
Sarah Palin

The election of President Barack Obama, and the candidacies of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin raise the issue of whether we continue to need equal employment opportunity and/or affirmative action. The concept of a level playing field is carefully developed, and provides a basis for a more thorough analysis of the future of equal employment opportunity and affirmative action.

Gender Attitudes and Candidate Preferences in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Primary and General Elections

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-28
Author(s):  
Meri T. Long ◽  
Ryan Dawe ◽  
Elizabeth Suhay
Keyword(s):  
Hostile Sexism ◽  
Gender Attitudes ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Traditional Gender Roles ◽  
Presidential Primary ◽  
Electoral Choice ◽  
General Elections ◽  
Original Survey ◽  
The Relationship

Abstract Scholars increasingly recognize that voters’ attitudes about gender shape their electoral preferences. Yet previous research has not captured important nuances of the relationship between gender attitudes and electoral choice. We argue that the effects of gender attitudes are not unidirectional and interact in complex ways with voters’ perceptions of candidates, depending not only on candidates’ sex but also on their gender-relevant characteristics and values. We draw on an original survey of Americans during the 2016 elections that measured three gender attitudes—hostile sexism, modern sexism, and traditional gender roles—and evaluations of primary and general election candidates. Our study design increases analytical leverage by examining actual and hypothetical candidate matchups. We find that among Democrats, hostile sexists were drawn to Bernie Sanders, but gender traditionalists preferred Hillary Clinton. Our results also suggest that if Sanders had been the Democratic nominee, gender egalitarians would have strongly supported him over Donald Trump, as they did Clinton.

The life of the parties: Party activists and the 2016 presidential election

2021 ◽  
pp. 135406882098863
Author(s):  
Rosalyn Cooperman ◽  
Gregory Shufeldt ◽  
Kimberly Conger
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Policy Process ◽  
Republican Party ◽  
Congressional Elections ◽  
Policy Preferences ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Party Activists ◽  
Democrats And Republicans

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump secured their respective party’s 2016 nominations only after raucous, spirited debates among delegates at the start of each party convention. Groups and their preferred candidates behaved consistently with the policy demanders view of parties, which identifies parties as comprised of coalitions of groups with strong policy preferences that negotiate with one another for influence in the party decision-making and policy process. Using the 2016 Convention Delegate Study, the longest standing survey of Democratic and Republican Party activists, we examine intra-party groups as new delegates are folded into the framework along with returning delegates. We assess how the theory of parties as comprised of policy-demander groups works in a context of high external party polarization. The competition between these groups to recast their party in its preferred image in the absence of a standard party bearer for either party holds important implications for Democrats and Republicans in future presidential and congressional elections.

Motivational underpinnings of support for radical political leaders

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanna Grzymala-Moszczynska ◽  
Katarzyna Jasko ◽  
Marta Maj ◽  
Marta Szastok ◽  
Arie W. Kruglanski
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Campaign ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Personal Significance ◽  
Political Candidate ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Willingness To Engage

In three studies conducted over the course of 2016 US presidential campaign we examined the relationship between radicalism of a political candidate and willingness to engage in actions for that candidate. Drawing on significance quest theory (Kruglanski et al., 2018), we predicted that people would be more willing to make large sacrifices for radical (vs. moderate) candidates because the cause of radical candidates would be more personally important and engagement on behalf it would be more psychologically rewarding. We tested these predictions among supporters of Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, and Bernie Sanders. Our findings were in line with these predictions, as the more followers perceived their candidates as radical, the more they viewed leaders’ ideas as personally important, gained more personal significance from those ideas, and intended to sacrifice more for the leader.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document