Ready for Hillary?: Explicit and Implicit Sexism in the 2016 Presidential Election

The Forum ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 295-313
Author(s):  
Michelle A. Barnello ◽  
Rachel Bitecofer ◽  
Quentin Kidd
Keyword(s):  
Public Service ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Major Party ◽  
Men And Women ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Original Survey ◽  
Traditional Norms

Abstract The 2016 nomination of Hillary Clinton as the first female major party nominee for president created an unprecedented opportunity to test for evidence of explicit sexism in the electorate. Presidential elections normally produce two equally matched nominees with impressive public service resumes who behave similarly on the campaign trail. However, while Democrats were making history nominating the first female nominee, the Republicans also made history by selecting a nominee with no public service experience, a controversial personal background, and conduct that conflicted sharply with traditional norms of presidential candidates. In survey after survey, voters recognized that Clinton held a significant qualification advantage over Donald Trump. Yet, despite the fact that both men and women were more likely to rate Clinton as more qualified than her opponent overall, using an innovative approach via an original survey, we find evidence of implicit sexism in the way that some males evaluated Clinton compared to their female counterparts.

The Mixed Effects of Candidate Visits on Campaign Donations in the 2020 Presidential Election

2021 ◽  
pp. 1532673X2110415
Author(s):  
Boris Heersink ◽  
Nicholas G. Napolio ◽  
Jordan Carr Peterson
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
Mixed Effects ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Recent Scholarship ◽  
Weak Evidence

Recent scholarship on the effect of candidate visits in presidential elections has found that appearances by candidates appear to mobilize both supporters and opponents. Specifically, in the 2016 presidential election, donations to campaigns of the visiting presidential candidates increased, but—in the case of Republican nominee Donald Trump—so did donations to his opponent, Hillary Clinton. In this paper, we extend this research by assessing the effect of visits on campaign donations by presidential and vice presidential candidates in the 2020 election. We find evidence that visits by Donald Trump and Kamala Harris had strong mobilizing and counter-mobilizing effects, increasing donations to both campaigns. We find weak evidence that visits by Joe Biden increased contributions to his campaign, but we do not find evidence that his visits had a counter-mobilizing effect, and we find no evidence that visits by Mike Pence affected donations in either direction.

scholarly journals Don’t Republicans Tweet Too? Using Twitter to Assess the Consequences of Political Endorsements by Celebrities

2019 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 144-160
Author(s):  
Jan Zilinsky ◽  
Cristian Vaccari ◽  
Jonathan Nagler ◽  
Joshua A. Tucker
Keyword(s):  
Social Media ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Candidate ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Political Preferences ◽  
The Social ◽  
Decision To Stay ◽  
Presidential Election Campaign

Michael Jordan supposedly justified his decision to stay out of politics by noting that Republicans buy sneakers too. In the social media era, the name of the game for celebrities is engagement with fans. So why then do celebrities risk talking about politics on social media, which is likely to antagonize a portion of their fan base? With this question in mind, we analyze approximately 220,000 tweets from 83 celebrities who chose to endorse a presidential candidate in the 2016 U.S. presidential election campaign to assess whether there is a cost—defined in terms of engagement on Twitter—for celebrities who discuss presidential candidates. We also examine whether celebrities behave similarly to other campaign surrogates in being more likely to take on the “attack dog” role by going negative more often than going positive. More specifically, we document how often celebrities of distinct political preferences tweet about Donald Trump, Bernie Sanders, and Hillary Clinton, and we show that followers of opinionated celebrities do not withhold engagement when entertainers become politically mobilized and do indeed often go negative. Interestingly, in some cases political content from celebrities actually turns out to be more popular than typical lifestyle tweets.

Experiencing vicarious rejection in the wake of the 2016 presidential election

2018 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 179-194
Author(s):  
Heather M. Claypool ◽  
Alejandro Trujillo ◽  
Michael J. Bernstein ◽  
Steven Young
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
The United States ◽  
Political Orientation ◽  
Presidential Candidate ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Social Pain ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Before And After

Presidential elections in the United States pit two (or more) candidates against each other. Voters elect one and reject the others. This work tested the hypothesis that supporters of a losing presidential candidate may experience that defeat as a personal rejection. Before and after the 2016 U.S. presidential election between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, voters reported their current feelings of rejection and social pain, along with potential predictors of these feelings. Relative to Trump supporters, Clinton (losing candidate) supporters reported greater feelings of rejection, lower mood, and reduced fundamental needs post-election, while controlling for pre-election levels of these variables. Moreover, as self–candidate closeness and liberal political orientation increased, so too did feelings of rejection and social pain among Clinton supporters. We discuss the implications of these results for understanding human sensitivity to belonging threats and for the vicarious rejection literature.

Rigged-Election Rhetoric: Coverage and Consequences

2018 ◽  
Vol 52 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-238 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kirby Goidel ◽  
Keith Gaddie ◽  
Spencer Goidel
Keyword(s):  
Content Analysis ◽  
Survey Data ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
News Coverage ◽  
Media Bias ◽  
Previous Literature ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Original Survey ◽  
Voter Fraud

ABSTRACTUsing content analysis and original survey data, we investigated the news coverage and consequences of Donald Trump’s “rigged-election” claims during the 2016 presidential election. We added to previous literature by showing that the effects of such claims were highly contingent on individual partisan affiliation. Republicans and Independents who believed that the elections were rigged via voter fraud or media bias were more likely to report that they intended to vote or had already voted. Democrats and Independents who believed that Hillary Clinton would benefit from voter fraud or media bias were more likely to vote for Donald Trump.

scholarly journals Trait Associations for Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in News Media

2018 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-130 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sudeep Bhatia ◽  
Geoffrey P. Goodwin ◽  
Lukasz Walasek
Keyword(s):  
Semantic Memory ◽  
News Media ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Media Representations ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Trait Words ◽  
Strength Of Association ◽  
Trait Associations

We study media representations of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. In particular, we train models of semantic memory on a large number of news media outlets that published online articles during the course of the election. Based on the structure of word co-occurrence in these media outlets, our models learn semantic representations for the two presidential candidates as well as for widely studied personality traits. We find that models trained on media outlets most read by Clinton voters and media outlets most read by Trump voters differ in the strength of association between the two candidates’ names and trait words pertaining to morality. We observe some differences for trait words pertaining to warmth, but none for trait words pertaining to competence.

Alexander Hamilton and the 2016 Election

2019 ◽  
pp. 151-175
Author(s):  
Robert M. Alexander
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Election ◽  
The Body ◽  
Electoral College ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Alexander Hamilton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
The Past ◽  
Electoral Vote ◽  
2016 Election

This chapter examines the 2016 election through the lens of the Electoral College. The election represents the sixth time the popular vote winner did not win the Electoral College vote. It also represents the most faithless votes cast for president in any presidential election, and it is the second time in the past three elections that a state split its electoral vote between presidential candidates. Particular attention is devoted to the so-called Hamilton elector movement that aimed to have electors select an alternative candidate to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. A survey of the 2016 Electoral College reveals that a record number of electors considered voting contrary to expectations, and most all electors were lobbied to do so. Electoral College lobbyists consisted of citizens throughout the country and members of the body itself. Reservations over elector discretion draws attention to the differences between the original Electoral College and the evolved body.

Understanding the Stories of Presidential Candidates: A Comparison Between the Stories of 2012 and 2016

2017 ◽  
Vol 61 (9) ◽  
pp. 1024-1039 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kenneth J. Levine
Keyword(s):  
Presidential Elections ◽  
The United States ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Popular Vote ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Candidate Preference ◽  
2016 Election ◽  
Mitt Romney ◽  
2012 Election

To be elected President of the United States, a candidate must create a story that both resonates with and persuades the electorate. Gardner suggested that “leaders achieve their effectiveness chiefly through the stories they relate” and that there are three types of leadership stories: Ordinary, Innovative and Visionary. The differences between the 2012 and 2016 U.S. Presidential elections are extreme. As the 2016 election was one of unusual and unexpected moments as compared with the more tame and typical election in 2012, this study compared the stories of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump with those of the 2012 election between Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. Results from the 2012 election found that Romney’s story fit into the category of Ordinary leader, while Obama’s story was one attributed to an Innovative leader. T tests found large and significant differences between candidate preference and story credibility and whether the stories motivated the respondents to vote. However, for the 2016 election, both candidates had innovative stories, and this may explain how one candidate won the popular vote, while the other received the majority of electoral votes.

Making Americans Feel Great Again? Personal Significance Predicts Political Intentions of Losers and Winners of the 2016 US Election

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katarzyna Jasko ◽  
Joanna Grzymala-Moszczynska ◽  
Marta Maj ◽  
Marta Szastok ◽  
Arie W. Kruglanski
Keyword(s):  
Political System ◽  
Presidential Elections ◽  
The Political ◽  
Power Transition ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Electoral Success ◽  
Personal Significance ◽  
Before And After ◽  
The Times

Reactions of losers and winners of political elections have important consequences for the political system during the times of power transition. In four studies conducted immediately before and after the 2016 US presidential elections we investigated how personal significance induced by success or failure of one’s candidate is related to hostile vs. benevolent intentions toward political adversaries. We found that the less significant supporters of Hillary Clinton and supporters of Donald Trump felt after an imagined (Study 1A) or actual (Study 2) electoral failure the more they were willing to engage in peaceful actions against the elected president and the less they were willing to accept the results of the elections. However, while significance gain due to an imagined or actual electoral success was related to more benevolent intentions among Clinton supporters (Study 1B), it was related to more hostile intentions among Trump supporters (Studies 1B, 2, and 3).

scholarly journals A pragmatic study of speech as an instrument of power: Analysis of the 2016 USA presidential debate

2018 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 97-113
Author(s):  
Misyi Gusthini ◽  
Cece Sobarna ◽  
Rosaria Mita Amalia
Keyword(s):  
Power Analysis ◽  
Speech Act ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Research Results ◽  
Presidential Candidates ◽  
Illocutionary Acts ◽  
The Usa ◽  
Research Show ◽  
Made In

This research was aimed at analyzing the speeches of Donald Trump and of Hillary Clinton in the USA Presidential candidates’ debates as instruments of power. The data is a presidential final debate video of Trump and Clinton made in September 2016 which has been converted into a transcript. The data analyzing technique is divided into three steps: 1) describing the context, 2) analyzing the illocutionary acts, and 3) analyzing the power dimensions. The results of this research show that the speakers use the speech act as an instrument of power with classifications of representative, commissive and expressive. In this regard, the researchers found that the speakers demonstrated their power to try to convince the voters in their society to trust them to be the president. The research results also showed that the usage of speech in debate as an instrument of power can influence the voters especially on Election Day.

Losing (to) Misogynists

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kate Manne
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
Presidential Election ◽  
Male Counterpart ◽  
Left Wing ◽  
Hillary Clinton ◽  
Leadership Positions ◽  
Donald Trump ◽  
Protective Mechanisms ◽  
The Right

This final chapter applies the analysis of misogyny to the 2016 presidential election, in which Hillary Clinton was defeated by Donald Trump, despite the latter being vastly underqualified and temperamentally and morally unsuited to the position. There was also a great deal of misogyny directed toward Clinton not only by Trump and others on the right but also from left-wing sources. It is argued that much of this misogyny and even the outcome were to some extent predictable, on the basis of evidence of misogynistic biases against women who compete for male-dominated leadership positions. Research in social psychology shows that, when a woman cannot be judged less competent than her male counterpart in such contexts, many people will hold that, although they are equally competent, she is less likable than he is. Women are just as likely as men to reject high-achieving women in this manner, due to ego-protective mechanisms.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document