Gender and Candidate Communication: An Analysis of Televised Ads in the 2020 US Senate Races

Recent studies of the content of television ads of female versus male political candidates have shown that women and men are increasingly similar in their communication styles and strategies, with some notable exceptions. However, few studies examining gender and political ad content have focused exclusively on US Senate races, considered the influence of the candidates’ political party, or compared the messages of women running against female versus male opponents. This study examines 236 political ads—160 from mixed-gender and 76 from female–female—U.S. Senate races in 2020 for their verbal and visual content. Results show gendered and partisan differences in the issues emphasized and the tone used. Candidates were similar in the images emphasized. Female candidates were more balanced between formal and casual attire compared to previous election cycles. And candidates in mixed-gender races used different strategies than those in female–female contests as to the issues and political actors mentioned.

The 1980s

Chapter 4 tells the story of how AIDS created a health and political crisis in gay communities, which led to a rapid political mobilization and the forcible outing of many formerly closeted people. Many states had decriminalized sodomy, but in the 1986 Bowers v. Hardwick decision, the U.S. Supreme Court decided that criminalization of sodomy was not unconstitutional, a major setback for gay rights. Lewis Powell, who claimed he had never known a gay person was the deciding vote. After Bowers, Lewis Powell retired from the Supreme Court. President Reagan nominated Robert Bork to fill the empty Supreme Court seat, but the US Senate did not confirm Bork. Eventually Anthony Kennedy took Powell’s seat on the Supreme Court. Kennedy would go on to author majority decisions in four major gay rights cases.

Life in the Middle

For almost thirty years, political scientists have believed that the US Senate would be less affected by partisan polarization due to the existence of a handful of moderate senators who would act as power brokers between the two sides, yet year after year we see partisan gridlock. Life in the Middle argues that the belief in the powerful, pivotal moderate neglects their electoral circumstances and overestimates their legislative power. Indeed, not all senators are elected under equal circumstances where the modern centrist has to balance between two conflicting constituencies like Susan Collins in Maine, or represents a state where the opposition outnumbers their base like Joe Manchin in West Virginia. Using data compiled from the Congressional Record, the book examines the legislative behavior of moderates and finds that they seldom amend legislation to their preferences, rarely speak on the record, and often lose on final votes. Using unique interview data with nineteen legislative directors and six retired centrist senators, it also finds that the behind-the-scenes conversations mirror the on-stage behavior where centrists are not influential or viewed as pivotal by party leaders. Furthermore, moderates reported less satisfaction with legislative outcomes than their peers. Life in the Middle suggests that lawmaking needs to be re-evaluated as being much more variable and less reliant on the work of moderates and more on party leaders. Indeed, the mainstream concerns about polarization and its negative effects of increased gridlock and ideological legislation may be true.

Introduction

Chapter 1 examines how polarization has impacted the role of moderates and what it means to be “moderate” in US Senate in the modern era. While the intuitive definition of a moderate is any legislator who sits in the middle between the liberal and conservative poles and represents ideologically moderate positions, the reality seems to be anything but this. Chapter 1 examines how polarization among Americans has led to cross-pressured constituencies for centrist senators. Furthermore, while the literature on Senate demonstrates increased polarization within the chamber as well, this has yielded less power for individuals and more power for party leaders.

Fetterman and the Forgotten: Dramatism and Democracy after January 6

This essay argues that Lt. Governor John Fetterman (D-PA), in running for the open US Senate seat in Pennsylvania, is attempting to appeal to disaffected Trump voters, showing what the “forgotten men and women” of Pennsylvania might stand to gain by embracing his progressive, Democratic populist appeal. This study examines Fetterman’s announcement advertisement, “Launch,” illustrating how he figuratively and literally enacts Burkean “consubstantiality,” as the candidate not only speaks about and on behalf of the forgotten, but he also appears on camera with the history of Braddock tattooed on his body. Utilizing Burkean theory, we contend that Fetterman’s two-and-a-half-minute video follows the basic formula for Burke’s guilt-redemption cycle. In the wake of the failed insurrection, “Launch” offered the promise of rhetorical redemption through what Burke labeled victimage in the form of factional scapegoating. Additionally, midway through the video, the “Agent” and the “Scene” switch roles, in a unique symbolic move. The analysis concludes that, from Burke’s perspective of purification-redemption, Fetterman uses visuals, text, and context to appeal to an important audience for his candidacy.

Tweeting is Leading

Social media is changing the business of representation and lawmaker reputation building, and this book uses the US Senate to illustrate the constituent-driven nature of political communication. I offer a critical analysis of senators’ communication on Twitter, the forces that shape it, and the agendas that result. Senators strategically communicate a political image that reflects their unique political persona. They have to decide what they want to be known for, crafting communications that prioritize legislation, constituent service, and party politics in ways that meet the interests of their constituencies and foster promising electoral returns. Senators’ communicated, public priorities—what is termed in this book as the rhetorical agenda—offer a necessary tool for understanding how senators link their carefully crafted public image with potential voters. The rhetorical agenda uses more than 180,000 lawmaker tweets to challenge what we know about representation, removing the institutional and political constraints on congressional communication and giving lawmakers a messaging platform where individual discretion is high, the relative costs are low, and someone is always watching.

US Senate Democrats face uphill task in days ahead

Headline UNITED STATES: Post-infrastructure bill pressures loom