Hillary for President:
Gender positioning strategies in Hillary Clinton’s 2008 and 2016 primary campaigns.
Emilie Westerouen van Meeteren
10174184
Master’s Thesis
Graduate School of Communication
Master’s Programme Communication Science
Supervisor: Marjolein Moorman
03-02-2017
Abstract
Gender plays an important role in election campaigns. Certain gender stereotypes proliferate in the public sphere and influence the way political candidates are perceived. Female
candidates can either play into this perception by emphasizing feminine stereotypes or try to overcome them by emphasizing masculine stereotypes. Historically, facets of leadership are stereotypically masculine, so women often turned towards a predominantly masculine presentation. However, studies are indicating a shift towards a political climate that is more accepting of women in positions of higher office, allowing for a more feminine presentation during election campaigns. In both 2008 and 2016, Hillary Clinton ran for President in the Democratic party as the only female candidate against a group of men. Gender stereotypes played a role in both of her campaigns and she has had to take them into account when making decisions about presenting herself during these campaigns. This study hypothesizes that the shift towards a more accepting political climate can be recognized in Clinton’s campaigns as well, moving towards an increasingly feminine gender presentation between 2008 and 2016. A systematic content analysis of 2008 and 2016 primary campaign speeches showed that almost all elements of Clinton’s gender positioning strategy became significantly more feminine in 2016. Her increasingly feminine presentation is indicative of a larger
societal shift towards a growing acceptance of women in politics, in the US as well as other Western democracies. However, the outcome of the 2016 general election highlights the importance of continuing to monitor this shift in future elections.
Keywords: Hillary Clinton, US Presidential primary elections, gender stereotypes,
Hillary for President:
Gender positioning strategies in Hillary Clinton’s 2008 and 2016 primary campaigns.
During the 2016 US Presidential election, Hillary Clinton became the first woman to win a big party nomination for President. This marked a new milestone for women in American politics, where, as still is the case in other Western democracies as well, there is still a great deficiency in the amount of women represented in higher office compared to men. This lack of female representatives is associated with the important role that gender still plays during political campaigns. When female candidates run for higher office they are often confronted with gender stereotypes, which can to a large extent – and often negatively – affect the perception of their viability (Falk, 2008). Traits like leadership and decisiveness, which people feel are important requirements for someone in higher office, are
stereotypically masculine (Shames, 2003). Women, by comparison, are much less easily associated with the desired qualities of political office. Through an uneven focus for women on their appearance and personality, rather than professional competencies, they may be seen as naïve, weak and unable to handle difficult tasks (Carlin & Winfrey, 2009). Such
stereotyping, often enabled and exacerbated by media coverage, can have significant effects on the outcome of an election.
Female candidates running for political office must take this into account when shaping their campaign strategies. They can choose to either sufficiently bridge the gap between them and any male candidates by emphasising masculine stereotypes, or turn the feminine gender stereotype into an advantage by emphasising its positive aspects (Shames, 2003). In both the 2008 and 2016 US Presidential primary elections, Hillary Clinton’s gender has been central to the debate of her competencies for the Presidency. Consequently, she has had to deal with these stereotypes and take them into account when choosing how to position herself in terms of gender.
However, there is some academic evidence that shows that, over time, gender stereotypes in political campaigns are changing, both in media coverage and public perception. Studies show an increasing perception of women as being equally capable of being a good political leader as men, alongside a steady increase in women running for higher office in the United States (Pew Research, 2008; Woodall & Fridkin, 2007). This may
indicate that there is a societal move towards a larger acceptance of female politicians in higher office, which in turn would allow female candidates to present themselves as more feminine as well. Such a logic would then also be applicable to Hillary Clinton’s primary campaigns for President and possibly uncover a shift in her gender positioning strategy over the years, moving from a more masculine presentation in 2008 so a more feminine
presentation in 2016.
This study aims to assess how Hillary Clinton positioned herself as a candidate for President during her campaigns in both the 2008 and 2016 US Presidential primary elections, in both of which she ran as the only woman against a group of male candidates. While many studies in this field have focused on comparing male with female candidates (Lee, 2007; Panagopoulos, 2004) or female candidates among themselves (Carlin & Winfrey, 2008; Caughell, 2016), this study is in the unique positon to compare the same female candidate running for the same office over time. As Hillary Clinton is the first woman to run in two Presidential primaries, a comparison of her campaigns allows for conclusions to be drawn about the development of a single female candidate’s gender positioning strategy.
A systematic content analysis of campaign speeches will aim to show to what extent elements of both masculine and feminine gender stereotypes are present in Clinton’s primary campaigns for President. After both campaigns have been analysed a comparison can be made, which will show how Clinton’s gender positioning strategy has developed and perhaps
Hillary Clinton used gender positioning in her campaign for the 2016 US Presidential election, compared to her campaign in 2008? A difference in strategic approaches between the two campaigns allows us to uncover some of the complexities of gender positioning strategies in a campaign for higher office, as well as to draw broader conclusions the political climate for female politicians in the United States and the rest of the Western democratic world.
First, the existing literature in this field of study will be put together into a theoretical framework on which my hypotheses and the subsequent analysis will be based. Then I will describe the methodological framework and the variables used to test my hypotheses. The results of the analysis will be followed by a discussion of the results, implications and limitations of this study, as well as suggestions for future research.
Theoretical background
A lot of previous academic research exists about gender and politics, and specifically also about women in political campaigns. This area of research can broadly be divided into two strands: studies focused on media coverage of candidates in political campaigns (Bode & Hennings, 2012; Bystrom & Dimitrova, 2013; Carlin & Winfrey, 2009, Caughell, 2016; Kahn & Goldenberg, 1991) and studies focused on campaign presentations themselves (Lee, 2007; Meeks, 2016; Panagopoulos, 2004; Sapiro, Walsh, Strach & Hennings, 2009; Shames, 2003). Both strands of research will be explained briefly below.
The first strand of research looks at how media coverage reinforces gender
stereotypes in the public sphere. Research continuously proves that “the public perceives men and women, their characteristics, interests, and activities, differently and values them
differently” (Sapiro et al., 2009, p.116). This is, to a large extent, the consequence of the tendency of media coverage to focus on different aspects for female and male candidates. For
instance, female candidates generally receive less coverage, as well as coverage that reinforces certain stereotypically feminine traits and issues, and focuses on appearances rather than substance (Bystrom & Dimitrova, 2013; Carlin & Winfrey, 2009; Kahn & Goldenberg, 1991). Such coverage calls into question the viability of the candidate, often putting female politicians at a disadvantage with voters (Hayes & Lawless, 2015). To combat the resulting assumption that women are less qualified than men to hold higher office, certain compensation strategies need to be adopted (Lee, 2007).
Female candidates can choose to strategically respond to stereotypical media coverage and consequentially stereotypical public perception by presenting themselves in a way that either plays into these stereotypes or overcomes them: female candidates can either
emphasize masculine stereotypes to compensate for their femininity or emphasize feminine stereotypes to accentuate the positive aspects of their femininity (Lee, 2007). Such gender positioning strategies – understood in this study as the intentional, strategic use of gender stereotypes to present oneself to the public as predominantly masculine or feminine (Shames, 2003) – are what encapsulates the second strand of research. As this study looks at the gender positioning strategies of Hillary Clinton over the years, it can be categorized into this strand of research. The means through which to position one’s gender includes the conscious use of a certain speaking style, an emphasis on either experience or family, a choice of which personality traits and values they focus on and which issues they choose to speak about.
Historically, female candidates have opted to position themselves in predominantly masculine terms rather than feminine, as the American political climate has principally favoured men. This can be attributed to the so-called ‘double bind’, which entails that women can either meet societal expectations of femininity at the cost of being perceived as
incompetent, or meet professional standards of competency and being perceived as not feminine enough (Jamieson, 1995; Meeks, 2016). Back in 1994, Kahn found that women
running for the United States Senate stressed masculine traits in their campaigns. More recently, female candidates are still shown to emphasize traits such as strength and toughness, which are deemed stereotypically masculine qualities, in an effort to counter any existing negative associations with femininity (Sapiro et al., 2009).
However, there is a growing body of research that points out a shift in this regard. A Pew Research study showed that people increasingly see women as equally capable of being good political leaders as men, even superior on some trait dimensions of leadership (Pew Research, 2008). This growing comfort with women in positions of higher office is
accompanied by a steady increase of women running for them (Woodall & Fridkin, 2007). Furthermore, studies show that gender is becoming less of a liability and more of an asset when it comes to vote choice in elections (Dolan, 2014). All of this indicates a societal move towards larger acceptance of female politicians in higher office.
As a consequence, gender positioning strategies may also be shifting. Studies show that female candidates are increasingly able to benefit from presenting themselves as
feminine (Herrnson, Lay & Stokes, 2003; Lee, 2014), with men aiming to reap the rewards of feminine stereotypes as well (Panagopoulos, 2004). Shames argues that women increasingly favour this kind of presentation, rather than “playing an honorary man” to fit the bill (2003, p.118). This may point towards an increasing freedom for female candidates to emphasize their femininity in their election campaigns, rather than hiding it underneath a predominantly masculine presentation.
This study will build on the premise of this body of research, which alludes to a shift over time to feminine rather than masculine gender positioning strategies by female
candidates. There are several elements of gender positioning strategies that can demonstrate this shift. Among these are the use of feminine language, an emphasis on family or
elements will be analysed separately in this study and hypothesized to follow the same logic; that Hillary Clinton’s gender positioning has systematically shifted between 2008 and 2016,
moving towards a predominantly feminine gender positioning strategy.
Feminine language
First of all, female candidates can rely on a certain way of speaking that is also known as feminine style (Campbell, 1989) or feminine language (Bate & Bowker, 1997;
Blankenship & Robson, 1995). This speaking style promotes feelings of understanding and inclusivity, opposite to a more masculine style that focuses on establishing dominance (McKinney & Banwart, 2005). More specifically, feminine language is characterized by its personable nature, using personal disclosures and anecdotes to connect with an audience. Having a closer connection with voters is greatly beneficial to candidates in election campaigns, so the feminine communication style can be used to the advantage of female politicians, especially in a time of internet and social media proliferation (Meeks, 2016). As part of the feminine language, candidates can also explicitly emphasize their gender and the novelty of them running for a certain position. Despite the earlier mentioned ‘double bind’, women are increasing embracing this feminine style (Meeks, 2016). Therefore, the following hypothesis can be established:
H1: Hillary Clinton made more use of feminine language in 2016 than in 2008.
Experience
Political election campaigns tend focus a lot on the previous experience of a candidate running for higher office. Experience is stereotypically considered to be an aspect of
masculinity (Dolan, 2014). More specifically, women are stereotypically linked to having insufficient experience (Bode & Hennings, 2012). In response to this, female candidates can choose to emphasize their experience as a compensation strategy. However, the need for such compensation strategies may be diminishing due to a growing acceptance of women in
positions of higher office (Woodall & Fridkin, 2007). Therefore, the following hypothesis can be established:
H2: Hillary Clinton made less references to her experience in 2016 than in 2008.
Family
References to a candidate’s family or role as a parent or spouse are stereotypically
linked to femininity (Bode & Hennings, 2012). Coverage of female candidates often negatively associates family, questioning a woman’s ability to balance a position in higher office with maternal responsibilities (Carlin & Winfrey, 2009; Meeks, 2016). However, motherhood is also positively associated with being compassionate and nurturing, which female candidates can use to their advantage. Female candidates can highlight these positive aspects by referencing family or motherhood; a strategy that allows them appeal to voters in a unique way (Falk, 2013). If Hillary Clinton indeed shifted her focus to more overtly feminine stereotypes, the following hypothesis can be established:
H3: Hillary Clinton made more references to family in 2016 than in 2008.
Personality traits
Previous research has shown that certain personality traits can be categorized into stereotypically masculine and feminine groups (Kahn & Goldenberg, 1991). Female candidates can place focus on stereotypically gendered personality traits to present
themselves in a certain way in their campaigns; those who wish to undermine the importance of their gender as a factor in their candidacy will try to level the playing field by focusing on masculine traits, while those who wish to strategically employ their femininity will
emphasize feminine traits (Shames, 2003). Although leadership is traditionally seen as a masculine quality, feminine traits such as understanding and honesty can certainly be used to the advantage of a female candidates (Bystrom & Dimitrova, 2014). While both masculine and feminine traits can be emphasized side by side, it is the proportion between the two that
elicits the predominant gender positioning strategy. Following the initial logic over time, the following hypotheses can be established:
H4: Hillary Clinton made relatively more references to stereotypically feminine traits in 2016 than in 2008.
Values
Aside from presenting themselves in terms of traits, candidates can also call upon certain values to be upheld. Values can be defined as “goals […] that serve as guiding
principles in the life of a person or a group” (Schwartz, 1994, p.21). In an election campaign, this can refer to the values of the candidate herself, as well as values of the audience, the voters or the country. A group of ten basic values, that are recognized across societies, have been identified by Schwartz (1992). While values can be influenced by various factors, for example by party affiliation, Schwartz & Rubel have found that these ten basic values can also be divided into categories of masculinity and femininity (2005). However, very few research has been done on the usage of such stereotypically gendered values in election campaigns, let alone over time. The following hypothesis will look to fill that gap in currently existing scholarship:
H5: Hillary Clinton made relatively more references to stereotypically feminine values in 2016 than in 2008.
Issues
As for issues, the same assumption can be made as with personality traits and values. Gender stereotypes reinforce the public perception that male politicians are more competent to deal with some issues than female politicians, and vice versa (Sapiro, 1982). Given this perception, the issue salience during an election can influence the success of male and female candidates (Kahn & Goldenberg, 1991). Candidates can play into public perception of their competencies by focusing on certain issues, a strategy which Sapiro et al. label “gender-based
issue ownership” (2009, p.108), or subvert expectations by focusing on issues belonging to the opposite gender.This establishes the following final hypothesis:
H6: Hillary Clinton made relatively more references to stereotypically feminine issues in 2016 than in 2008.
Methodology
To test these hypotheses, a systematic content analysis of Hillary Clinton’s speeches from the 2008 and 2016 US Presidential primary campaigns will be conducted. Each speech will be coded for the presence of feminine language, references to experience or family, and references to various personality traits, values and issues. Coding for each speech will be done manually, using a codebook that is comprised of codebooks from various other studies on gender and gender positioning, both from within and outside of the political context.
Sample
To make the comparison as equal as possible, the sample is taken from both the 2008 and 2016 Democratic Presidential primary campaigns. The LexisNexis CQ Transcriptions search engine was used to gather transcriptions of Hillary Clinton’s primary campaign
speeches1. For the 2008 election, Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy on January 20, 2007 and suspended it in support of Barack Obama on June 7, 2008. Within this timeframe, a LexisNexis CQ Transcriptions search yielded a total of 112 speeches. For the 2016 election, Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy on April 12, 2015 and the Democratic primary officially ended with her nomination during the National Democratic Convention on July 25, 2016. Within this time frame, a LexisNexis CQ Transcriptions search yielded a total of 73 speeches. Six units from the 2016 sample had to be left out, as their content did not directly
concern the campaign, nor did the speakers represent Hillary Clinton in any way2. The remaining 67 speeches will all be coded. For the 2008 speeches, a sample of 67 will be made by skipping every third speech in chronological order, as well as the first and last four
speeches. A list of all speeches included in the sample can be found in Appendix A.
Variables
All variables in this study will be coded manually, using a systematic procedure that can be found in the codebook (see Appendix B). To assess the reliability of the codebook, a second coder coded 20 articles, 10 for the 2008 sample and 10 for the 2016 sample, which amounts to almost 15% of the total sample. The codebook and the method of coding were kept identical to the main coding procedure. Intercoder reliability will be measured using Cohen’s Kappa and reported for each of the variables below. The value of Cohen’s Kappa
will be interpreted using the index by Landis and Koch (1977)3.
Feminine language. The use of a feminine language was measured with four items,
using the operationalisation Meeks (2016), which was adapted slightly to the context and method of this study. These items count references to the candidate’s gender, references to the uniqueness of a woman running for this office, personal disclosures of any kind and personal anecdotes or examples (See Appendix B). After coding, the four items were added together to create a new single variable ‘Feminine language’. Intercoder reliability was substantial for this variable (K = .770, p < .05).
Experience. Experience was measured with four items based on keywords that were
established using Bode & Hennings’ codebook (2012), as well as some added keywords specific to Hillary Clinton’s previous experience. The four items count references to
previously held professional positions, references to past achievements, references to
2 Three units contained statements from the FBI concerning the investigation into Clinton’s leaked e-mail server and three units contained transcriptions of the Benghazi hearings.
3 K < 0 = poor, 0 – 0.20 = slight, 0.21 – 0.40 = fair, 0.41 – 0.60 = moderate, 0.61 – 0.80 = substantial, 0.81 – 1 = almost perfect (Landis & Koch, 1977).
cooperation with other politicians and more general references to experience (See Appendix B). After coding, these four items were added together to create a new single variable ‘Experience’. Intercoder reliability was also substantial for this variable (K = .775, p < .05).
Family. Family was measured with three items based on keywords that were also
established using Bode & Hennings’ codebook (2012), as well as some added keywords specific to Hillary Clinton’s own family. The three items count references to Clinton’s own
direct family, references to Clinton’s position within her family and general references to families (See Appendix B). After coding, the three items were added together to create a new single variable ‘Family’. Intercoder reliability for this variable was substantial as well (K =
.787, p < .05).
Personality traits. Personality traits were measured using the stereotypically
gendered traits as operationalized by Evans & Davies (2000). However, as the study by Evans & Davies (2000) focused on children’s literature rather than political election campaigns, some of these traits were replaced by traits that better suited the context of this study. These added traits were taken from the operationalization by Shames (2003) and Dolan (2014). The presence of masculine and feminine traits is measured using 8 items each, so 16 items in total. The stereotypically masculine traits are: aggression, competitiveness,
argumentativeness, decisiveness, firmness, risk-taking, self-reliance and power. The stereotypically feminine traits are: nurturing, affection, kindness, understanding, honesty, impetuousness, emotional expression, and cooperation. Traits were coded as such whenever Clinton made a reference to herself containing such a trait in the form a keyword (See
Appendix B). These keywords were established through dictionary definitions and synonyms. It was possible to code for the presence of multiple traits within one speech. After coding, the eight items for each stereotype were added together into two new variables ‘Masculine traits’ and ‘Feminine traits’. To assess the relative difference between feminine and masculine traits
for each campaign cycle, a final variable was created by dividing ‘Feminine traits’ by ‘Masculine traits’, which makes a new variable ‘Ratio feminine traits’. Intercoder reliability
for this variable was substantial (K = .665, p < .05).
Values. Values were measured using the basic values established by Schwartz (1992)
and their gendered division by Schwartz & Rubel (2005). The presence of feminine and masculine values is measured 5 items each, so 10 items in total. The stereotypically feminine values are: benevolence, tradition, conformity, security and universalism. The stereotypically masculine values are: power, achievement, hedonism, stimulation, self-direction. Keywords were already present in the definition of these values by Schwartz (1992), but added on using dictionary definitions and synonyms (See Appendix B). These were coded whenever mention of such a value was made in reference to the candidate, the audience, voters or the country. It was possible to code for multiple values within one speech. After coding, the five items for each stereotype were added together into two new variables ‘Masculine values’ and
‘Feminine values’. To assess the relative difference between feminine and masculine values for each campaign cycle, a final variable was created by dividing ‘Feminine values’ by ‘Masculine values’, which makes a new variable ‘Ratio feminine values’. Intercoder
reliability was also substantial for this variable (K = .709, p < .05).
Issues. Issues were measured using the stereotypically gendered issue division as
operationalized by Shames (2003) and Dolan (2014). The presence of feminine or masculine issues are both measured using 7 items, so 14 items in total. The stereotypically feminine issues are: women’s issues, education, health care, welfare, LGBT rights, race issues and the
environment. The stereotypically masculine issues are: taxes, economy, military,
transportation, immigration, foreign policy and national security. These were coded as such whenever an issue was referenced generally, or whenever it was referenced more specifically by mentioning a sub-issue or case that falls within an issue area. Keywords for these issues
and specific cases were established using the 2008 Election Center on CNN.com (CNN, 2008) and the 2016 Election Issue Overview by ProCon.org (ProCon.org, 2016) (See
Appendix B). It was possible to code for multiple issues within one speech. After coding, the seven items for each stereotype were added together into two new variables ‘Masculine issues’ and ‘Feminine issues’. To assess the relative difference between feminine and
masculine issues for each campaign cycle, a final variable was created by dividing ‘Feminine issues’ by ‘Masculine issues’, which makes a new variable ‘Ratio feminine issues’.
Intercoder reliability for this variable was substantial as well (K = .768, p < .05).
Results
To assess how Hillary Clinton’s gender positioning strategy has changed over time, the hypotheses will now be tested. First of all, H1 proposes that Hillary Clinton made more use of feminine language or a feminine speaking style in 2016 than in 2008. This was tested using an independent samples T-test, comparing the means for the variable ‘Feminine language’ over the 2008 and 2016 groups4. Results (p < .05, see Graph 1) show that Hillary
Clinton did indeed make significantly more use of feminine language in 2016 (M = 5.27, SD = 4.39) than in 2008 (M = 3.49, SD = 3.85). Therefore, H1 can be accepted. The main difference lies in a sharp increase in personal disclosures and anecdotes in 2016, as Graph 1 shows. While Clinton relied on anecdotes and examples to create a personable speaking style in both elections, she disclosed more about her personal history and her family in 2016 compared to 2008, for example speaking more often about her mother’s background (for example in Rochester, NH, 15 June 2015) and her upbringing (for example in Columbia, SC, 27 May 2015). Furthermore, her speaking style became increasingly anecdotal. In her
speeches, Clinton would often elaborate about the meetings she had with members of her
4 The means indicate the average amount of elements of feminine language (all four items taken together) counted in the 2008 speeches and the 2016 speeches.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 References to own gender References to uniqueness Personal disclosure Personal anecdote or example Feminine language Total 2008 2016
Graph 1. Average amount of separate elements and total for ‘Feminine language’ counted in 2008 and 2016 speeches
Independent samples t-test for total ‘Feminine language’: T (132) = -2.491, p = .140
constituency during her trips around the country, using these stories and experiences as arguments for her various policy decisions (for example a conversation with a teacher in Tama about bad conditions in a school to argument her education plan, Cedar Rapids, IA, 1 February 2016). One example of a recurring anecdote in 2016 is one of how Obama asked her to be Secretary of State and she initially refused because of her commitment as a Senator to the people of New York, which doubles as an argument for her experience and devotion to her constituents (for example in Brooklyn, NY 5 April 2016). Explicit references to her femininity or to ‘breaking the glass ceiling’, however, were made very sporadically.
H2 states that Hillary Clinton made less references to her professional experience in 2016 than in 2008. This was also measured using an independent samples T-test, comparing the means for the variable ‘Experience’ over the 2008 and 2016 groups5. Results (p > .05, see Graph 2) show that Clinton actually made more references to her experience in 2016 (M = 8.48, SD = 7.90) than in 2008 (M = 7.62, SD = 6.44). Therefore, H2 must be rejected.
5 The means indicate the average amount of references to experience (all four items taken together) in the 2008 speeches and the 2016 speeches.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Previous professional experience Previous accomplishments Cooperation with other experiences politicians General references to experience Experience Total 2008 2016
Graph 2. Average amount of references to elements and total for ‘Experience’ in 2008 and 2016 speeches
Independent samples t-test for total ‘Experience’: T (131) = -.684, p = .495
In 2008, most references were general, rather than listing specific positions and
accomplishments. As Graph 2 shows, in 2016 Clinton focused most on her previously held positions, for example as Secretary of State, as well as highlighting her record of cooperation with well-known politicians during her time as Secretary of State, Senator and First Lady before that (for example “As Secretary of State, senator, and first lady, I had the honor of
representing America abroad and helping shape our foreign policy at home”, San Diego, CA, 2 June 2016). While references to accomplishments and general references did decrease somewhat, experience clearly played a bigger role overall in 2016 than in 2008.
H3 states that Hillary Clinton made more references to family in 2016 than in 2008. This was measured using an independent samples T-test as well, comparing the means for the variable ‘Family’ over the 2008 and 2016 groups6. Results (p < .05, see Graph 3) show that Hillary Clinton made significantly more references to family in 2016 (M = 20.67, SD = 19.43) than in 2008 (M = 9.04, SD = 12.32). Therefore, H3 can be accepted.
6 The means indicate the average amount of references to family (all three items taken together) in the 2008 speeches and the 2016 speeches.
0 5 10 15 20 25
Direct family Position in family General family Family
Total
2008 2016
Graph 3. Average amount of references to elements and total for ‘Family’ in 2008 and 2016 speeches
Independent samples t-test for total ‘Family’: T (111.705) = -4.137, p < .001
As Graph 3 shows, Clinton showed a tendency to focus more on families in general than on her own during both campaigns, often referring to constituents as ‘families’, rather than ‘voters’ or simply ‘Americans’ (a recurring example is as “hardworking families”, for
example in New York, NY 24 July 2015). However, in 2016, Clinton significantly increased these general references, presenting herself much more explicitly as being family-oriented, which she aimed to reflect in her policy choices (for example “As president, I'll fight to put
families first, just like I have my entire career”, New York, NY, 13 July 2015). In general, family took on a more prominent role in the 2016 campaign, as all elements of family increased in 2016 compared to 2008.
H4 proposes that Hillary Clinton made relatively more references to stereotypically feminine traits in 2016 than in 2008. This was measured using an independent samples t-test, comparing the means for the variable ‘Ratio feminine traits’ over the 2008 and 2016 groups7. Results (p < .05, see Graph 4) show that Hillary Clinton referenced significantly more
7 The means indicate the average ratio of feminine to masculine traits mentioned in the 2008 speeches and the 2016 speeches, a higher mean indicating more feminine traits.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 A gg re ss io n A rg u me n tati ve n es s Co m p eti ti ve n es s Fi rmn e ss De ci si ve n es s R is k-tak in g Se lf-re lian ce Po w er N u rtu ri n g A ff e cti o n Ki n d n e ss Un d ers tan d in g H o n es ty Impr e tu o u sn es s Emo ti o n al e xp re ss io n Co o p erat io n R ati o fe min in e tr ai ts
Masculine Feminine Total
2008 2016
feminine traits relative to masculine traits in 2016 (M = 1.34, SD = .80) compared to 2008 (M = .72, SD = .54). Therefore, H4 can be accepted.
Graph 4. Average ratio of feminine to masculine traits and total for ‘Ratio feminine traits’ in 2008 and 2016 speeches
Independent samples t-test for total ‘Ratio feminine traits’: T (114.041) = -5.187, p < .001
As Graph 4 shows, decisiveness and cooperation were the most prominent traits in both campaigns (an often recurring quote from the 2016 campaign highlights this combination of traits: “[W]e have to be able to both stand our ground when we must and find common ground when we can”, San Diego, CA, 2 June 2016). In 2016, all feminine traits saw an
increase in 2016 compared to 2008, but the most prominent increases were for the traits affection, understanding and emotional expression. In her 2016 speeches, Clinton often mentioned her emotions (for example “I am so humbled by the prospect of being nominated next week”, Tampa, FL, 22 July 2016), as well as her admiration and affection for other
politicians and colleagues (for example Vice-President Mondale, Minneapolis, MN, 15 December 2015) and for Americans in general (for example for the mothers of victims of police violence, Columbia, SC, 27 February 2016). Furthermore, a recurring line in Clinton’s
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.81 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.82 Ben evo le n ce Trad iti o n Co n fo rm ity Se cu ri ty Un ive rs al is m Po w er A ch ie ve me n t H ed o n is m St imu lati o n Se lf-di re cti o n R ati o fe min in e valu es
Feminine Masculine Total
2008 2016
2016 speeches was: “[W]e need a president who has both the experience and the
understanding to deal with the complexity of the problems that we face”, which, along with many anecdotes about her listening to the needs of ordinary Americans, meant to underscore her understanding nature (Mason City, IA, 18 May 2015).
H5 states that Hillary Clinton made relatively more references to stereotypically feminine values in 2016 than in 2008. This was also measured using an independent samples t-test, comparing the means for the variable ‘Ratio feminine values’ over the 2008 and 2016 groups8. Results (p < .05, see Graph.5) show that Clinton did indeed mention significantly more stereotypically feminine values relative to masculine values in 2016 (M = 1.71, SD = .96) compared to 2008 (M = 1.24, SD = .81). Therefore, H5 can be accepted.
Graph 5. Average ratio of feminine to masculine values and total for ‘Ratio feminine values’ in 2008 and 2016 speeches
Independent samples t-test for total ‘Ratio feminine values’: T (122) = -2.928, p = .004
In both campaign cycles, conformity and achievement were the most prominent two values. In general, values seemed to be given a more prominent role in the 2016 campaign, showing
8 The means indicate the average ratio of feminine to masculine values mentioned in the 2008 speeches and the 2016 speeches, a higher mean indicating more feminine values.
an increase in references to both stereotypically feminine and masculine values. But while some stereotypically masculine values saw some increase in 2016, the biggest difference between the campaigns is the increase in the stereotypically feminine values of benevolence, tradition, conformity and universalism in 2016. Clinton often called upon kindness and respect in her speeches during the 2016 campaign, for example:
“Now, you can't put this -- you know, you can't really put this into law, is what I'm about to say. But we need more love and kindness in this country. We need -- we need more respect between and among our fellow Americans. We need to be listening more to each other” (Tampa, FL, 22 July 2016).
Furthermore, fairness and equality were often mentioned as important values in the 2016 campaign, which were reflected in some of Clinton’s policy decisions (for example Des Moines, IA, 25 January 2016).
Lastly, H6 states that Hillary Clinton spoke relatively more about stereotypically feminine issues in 2016 than in 2008. This was measured using an independent samples T-test as well, comparing the means for the variable ‘Ratio feminine issues’ over the 2008 and 2016 groups9. Results (p < .05, see Graph 6) show that Clinton did indeed talk significantly more about feminine issues relative to masculine issues in 2016 (M = 1.28, SD = .83) compared to 2008 (M = .87, SD = .48). Therefore, H6 can also be accepted. Economy was the most important issue during both campaigns. In 2008, foreign policy and education came closely behind the economy in prominence. In 2016 women’s issues and health care rose in
prominence, with education remaining high on the list as well. In general, 2016 exhibited a bigger focus on issues, with an increase in references to both stereotypically feminine and masculine issues. However, as Graph 6 shows, the biggest differences between the two
9 The means indicate the average ratio of feminine to masculine issues mentioned in the 2008 speeches and the 2016 speeches.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 W o me n 's is su es H ealt h c are Ed u cati o n W el fare LG BT is su e s R ac e is su es En vir o n me n t Ta xe s Ec o n o my Mi litar y Tran sp o rtati o n Immi gr ati o n Fo re ig n p o lic y N ati o n al s ec u ri ty R ati o fe min in e is su e s
Feminine Masculine Total
2008 2016
Graph 6. Average ratio of feminine to masculine issues and total for ‘Ratio feminine issues’ in 2008 and 2016 speeches
Independent samples t-test for total ‘Ratio feminine issues’: T (105.210) = -.466, p = .001
campaigns can be seen in the increased references to women’s issues, health care, LGBT issues and race issues. LGBT, race and women’s issues were often taken together as a general push for equality, for example: “[T]his campaign is about building a future where every American live up to his or her full potential, no matter where you come from, what you look like, or who you love” (Cleveland, OH, 8 March 2016). At other times Clinton focused more specifically on these issues, for example on mass incarceration for non-violent offences primarily affecting African-Americans (Florissant, MO, 23 June 2015) and the future of Planned Parenthood (Washington D.C., 10 June 2016). Furthermore, a recurring line in her speeches was: “before there was something called ‘Obamacare’ there was something called ‘Hillarycare’”, referencing her long-time advocacy for universal health care (for example
Conclusion
This study aimed to assess how Hillary Clinton’s gender positioning strategy has changed between the 2008 and 2016 Presidential primary campaigns. This was tested using a systematic content analysis of Clinton’s campaign speeches in both primaries, looking at
elements of the feminine language, mentions of experience and family, and references to stereotypically gendered personality traits, values and issues. Results show that there is indeed a significant difference between the two campaigns; almost all elements of Hillary Clinton’s gender positioning strategy became significantly more feminine in the 2016 campaign, compared to 2008. Hillary Clinton’s campaigns therefore show a clear development towards a more openly feminine gender positioning strategy.
The general trends outlined at the beginning of the previous chapter show a lot of similarities between the two campaigns; a similar preference for an anecdotal speaking style, a tendency to make references to families in general and a similar focus in traits, values and issues. However, the results outline several essential differences: Clinton significantly used a more feminine speaking style, focused more on family and emphasized stereotypically feminine traits, values and issues over stereotypically masculine ones. This aids the conclusion that Hilary Clinton has increased specifically those elements that put forward a predominantly feminine presentation. While her use of masculine stereotypes has also increased in some elements of her speeches in 2016, the relative increase of feminine stereotypes was pronounced to a sufficient extent for the hypotheses to be significant. For example, Clinton has significantly increased the amount of personal disclosures and anecdotes in her speeches. Meeks argues that this kind of a personable, stereotypically feminine speaking style can be very valuable, because people prefer a candidate whom they can relate to (2016).
When it comes to personality traits, Clinton did not exhibit too much change, with some measures remaining more or less the same. However, in 2016 Clinton clearly presented herself as being a more affectionate, understanding and emotional person. Openly showing such traits may be a direct consequence of a shifting political climate and public perception, in which being emotional is no longer necessarily negatively associated with leadership. The same can be said for openly advocating for more “love and kindness” as important values
during her speeches (Tampa, FL, 22 July 2016).
Similarly, while Clinton was already fairly family-oriented in her 2008 campaign, she significantly increased her references to family across all items in 2016. This kind of focus would stereotypically call into question a woman’s ability to balance family responsibilities
with a position in higher office (Bode & Hennings, 2012). Clinton’s ability to do so indicates a shift in public perception, perhaps aided by her increased references to experience as well.
The results of this study confirm what previous research has suggested; women are increasingly able to present themselves as feminine (Hernnson et al., 2004; Lee, 2014; Shames, 2003). The indication of an increase in openly feminine presentations of female candidates in political campaigns reflects the notion that a shift towards an increasing acceptance of women in higher office is indeed taking place in the political climate (Dolan, 2014; Woodall & Fridkin, 2007). While some of these previous studies indicating such a shift are from before 2008, the fact that a significant difference can be recognized within the relatively small time frame of the eight years since then, suggests that it is a rapidly evolving and ongoing development.
However, there was one variable that did not produce significant results; there was no significant decrease in Clinton’s reference to the stereotypically masculine variable of
‘experience’. In fact, results show that Clinton referenced her experience more in 2016
Hillary Clinton did in fact have more experience in 2016, compared to 2008, because of her function as Secretary of State during the Obama administration. The results support the conclusion that her function as Secretary of State became an important asset to the 2016 campaign, mentioned often in her speeches to underline her experience and competence on a high level of public office. Although this hypothesis could not be accepted, the overall conclusion of this study would have to be that a significant development over the years did in fact take place.
It is important to also take some other factors into account when looking at the results of this study. For example, the variable ‘family’ was probably influenced by the fact that, in 2016, Hillary Clinton became a grandmother. Clinton’s references to her own family and her position in her family increased in 2016. However, the general trends show that the main increase took place in references to families in general. This is because she often referred to her new granddaughter in speeches not only on a personal level, but also using this as a segue into addressing the needs of families in general (she often spoke about wanting to create equal opportunities for all families, not just for her own, for example in Marshalltown, 26 January 2016). This is likely to have influenced the significant increase in references to family in the 2016 campaign.
Issue salience is also an important factor to take into account. Shames has argued that campaigns in the American post 9/11 context have predominantly focused on the economy and foreign policy, both of which are stereotypically masculine issues (Shames, 2003). In 2008 the most salient issues in speeches indeed seemed to be the economic recession and the ongoing war in Iraq, and the general trends show that the economy indeed remained a very salient issue in 2016. However, as the war in Iraq ended with the withdrawal of troops in 2011 and the economy started to pick up again during the Obama administration, Clinton
may have seen more room for other issues to take a prominent place in her campaign as well, which may have influenced the significant development between the two campaigns.
Furthermore, towards the end of the 2016 primary campaign, Donald Trump called the Hillary Clinton campaign out for playing the ‘woman card’, or “attempting to use her gender to appeal to voters” (Caughell, 2016, p.763). Subsequently, Clinton used this remark
to her advantage in many of her speeches, saying that “if fighting for women’s health care and paid family leave and equal pay is playing the woman card, then deal me in” (Caughell, 2016, p.763). This may have influenced her focus on women’s issues, contributing to the significance of this variable.
There are some limitations to this research. First of all, Hillary Clinton’s campaigns obviously consisted of more than just speeches. Elements such as endorsements,
advertisements and debates were left out of this study, but their inclusion in any future research would provide for a more complete assessment of Clinton’s campaign effort and, subsequently, her gender positioning strategy.
Secondly, the intercoder reliability for all measurements was relatively low. The coding procedure was based on recognizing keywords related to the various variables, but the list of keywords may not have been extensive enough. This would leave room for
interpretation when synonyms or words related to one of the items came up in a speech. Furthermore, the counting of keywords may have been subject to human error, given the extent of words to be counted and the length of some of the speeches. Similar research in the future should take care to streamline the coding procedure further, to ensure a more reliable measurement.
Lastly, this study focused purely on Hillary Clinton’s efforts in the Democratic primary, but these of course did not occur in a vacuum: the other Democratic primary candidates, such as the prominent roles of main opponents Barack Obama and Bernie
Sanders, the Republican primaries and their candidates, and media coverage of the elections all influence the content of a campaign greatly and are therefore interesting and important to take into account for future research. Leaving them out of this study presents issues for the generalizability of the outcome, with the focus on the American political context
problematizing generalizability to other Western democracies as well. Furthermore, as
femininity increasingly becomes a campaign asset, future research must also examine to what extent male candidates are turning towards feminine gender stereotypes in their campaign strategies to present themselves in the most favourable way possible.
In the end, Hillary Clinton won the Democratic primary, but lost the general election for the Presidency to Donald Trump. While gender played an important role in the 2016 general election, the extent to which it was a factor in the outcome can’t yet be determined, nor how her gender positioning strategy may have influenced it. To assess this, future research must delve deeper into the complexities of the general election; its media coverage and public perception as well as, of course, the campaign itself. It is also not yet certain what the outcome of the 2016 US Presidential election will do for the political climate for women in the United States, as well as other Western democracies. Given the fact that Clinton’s more openly feminine presentation has still not led her to victory, as well as the abrasive rhetoric that led Donald Trump to his, the political climate may be taking a step back from the development towards openly feminine campaign presentations. On the other hand, the 2016 elections have already unleashed a strongly feminine counter-movement, taking form, for example, in the 2017 Women’s March, which was attended by huge crowds worldwide. It is certainly important for future research to continue to monitor the shift indicated by this study, to assess the impact of the 2016 US Presidential election.
One thing seems certain: gender stereotypes will continue to proliferate and female candidates must continue to be aware of this when making choices about how present
themselves in their campaigns. This study has shown that female candidates are increasingly choosing to use feminine gender stereotypes to their advantage, as part of a larger societal shift towards a growing acceptance of women in positions of higher office. By daring to openly present her femininity as an asset to her campaign, Hillary Clinton has paved the way for more women to follow suit. In 2016, the United States came one step closer to having their first female President. If the shift continues, the final step may not be far off.
References
Banwart, M. & McKinney, M. (2005). A gendered influence in campaign debates? Analysis of mixed-gender United States Senate and Gubernatorial debates. Communication
Studies 56(4), p. 353-373.
Bate, B. & Bowker, J. (1997). Communication and the sexes. Prospect Heights, II: Waveland Press.
Blankenship, J. & Robson, D. (1995). A “feminine style” in women’s political discourse: An exploratory essay. Communication Quarterly 43(3), p. 353-366.
Bode, L. & Hennings, V. (2012). Mixed signals? Gender and the media’s coverage of the 2008 vice presidential candidates. Politics & Policy, 40(2), p. 221-257.
Bystrom, D. & Dimitrova, D. (2014). Migraines, marriage, and mascara: Media coverage of Michele Bachmann in the 2012 Republican Presidential Campaign. American
Behavioral Scientist, 58(9), p. 1169-1182.
Campbell, K. (1989). Man cannot speak for her: A critical study of early feminist rhetoric.
Westport, CT: Praeger.
Carlin, D. & Winfrey, K. (2009). Have you come a long way, baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and sexism in 2008 campaign coverage. Communication Studies, 60(4), p. 326- 343.
Caughell, L. (2016). When playing the woman card is playing trump: Assessing the efficacy of framing campaigns as historic. Political Science & Politics 49(4), p.736-742. CNN. (2008). Election Centrer 2008: Campaign issues. Retrieved from:
http://edition.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/issues/.
Dolan, K. (2014). Gender stereotypes, candidate evaluations, and voting for women candidates: What really matters? Political Research Quarterly, 67(1), p. 96-107.
Evans, L. & Davies, K. (2012). No sissy boys here: A content analysis of the representation of masculinity in elementary school reading textbooks. Sex Roles, 42(3-4), p. 255- 270.
Falk, E. (2008). Women for president: Media bias in nine campaigns. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press.
Falk, E. (2013). Clinton and the playing-the-gender-card metaphor in campaign news.
Feminist Media Studies 13(2), p. 192-207.
Hayes, D. & Lawless, J. (2015). A non-gendered lens? Media, voters, and female candidates in contemporary congressional elections. Perspectives on Politics 13(1), p. 95-118. Herrnson, P., Lay, J. & Stokes, A. (2003). Women running “as women”: Candidate gender,
campaign issues, and voter-targeting strategies. The Journal of Politics, 65(1), p. 244- 255.
Jamieson, K. (1995). Beyond the double bind: Women and leadership. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kahn, K. & Goldenberg, E. (1991). Does Women candidates in the news: An examination of gender differences in U.S. Senate campaign coverage. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, p. 180-199.
Landis, J. & Koch, G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data.
Biometrics, 33(1), p. 159-174.
Lawrence, R. & Rose, M. (2009). Hillary Clinton’s race for the white house: Gender politics
and the media on the campaign trail. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
Lee, F. (2007). Gender differences in campaign materials and politicians’ professional orientation: The case of a Hong Kong election. Sex Roles 57(11), p. 865-878.
Lee, Y. (2014). Gender stereotypes as a double-edged sword in political advertising:
Persuasion effects of campaign theme and advertising style. International Journal of
Advertising, 33(2), p. 203-234.
Meeks, L. (2016). Gendered styles, gendered differences: Candidates’ use of personalization and interactivity on Twitter. Journal of Information Technology & Politics 13(4), p. 295-310.
Panagopoulos, C. (2004). Boy talk/Girl talk. Gender differences in campaign communications strategies. Women & Politics, 26(3-4), p. 131-155.
Pew Research Center. (2008). Men or women: Who’s the better leader? A paradox in public attitudes. Retrieved from
http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2008/08/25/men-or-women-whos-the-better-leader/.
ProCon.org. (2016). 2016 Presidental Election: The candidates and where they stand on the issues. Retrieved from http://2016election.procon.org/.
Sapiro, V. (1982). If U.S. Senator Baker were a woman: An experimental study of candidates images. Political Psychology, 2(2), p. 61-83.
Sapiro, V., Walsh, K., Strach, P. Hennings, V. (2009). Gender, context, and television advertising: A comprehensive analysis of 2000 and 2002 house races. Political
Research Quarterly 64(1), p. 107-119.
Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. In Advances in experimental social psychology, ed. M.P Zanna. New Yok: Academic Press, p. 1-65.
Schwartz, S. (1994). Are there universal aspects in the structure and contents of human values? Journal of Social Issues 50(4), p. 19-45.
Schwartz, S. & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Cross-cultural and multimethod studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 89(6), p. 1010- 1028.
Shames, S. (2003). The “un-candidates”. Gender and outsider signals in women’s political advertisements. Women & Politics, 25(1-2), p. 115-147.
Woodall, G. & Fridkin, L. (2007). Shaping women’s chances: Stereotypes and the media. In
Rethinking Madam President, ed. Lori Cox Han & Caroline Heldman. Boulder, CO:
Appendix A
List of speeches included in sample, by location and date.
Sample 2008 Washington D.C., 13 March 2007 Washington D.C., 14 March 2007 Washington D.C., 27 March 2007 Washington D.C., 28 March 2007 Elizabeth, NJ, 2 April 2007 Annapolis, MD, 9 May 2007 Portsmouth, NH, 11 May 2007 New York, NY, 14 May 2007 Manchester, NH, 29 May 2007 Washington D.C., 15 June 2007 Washington D.C., 19 June 2007 Washington D.C., 20 June 2007 Washington D.C., 27 June 2007 Des Moines, IA, 2 July 2007 Baltimore, MD, 2 July 2007 Iowa City, IA, 3 July 2007 Washington D.C., 5 July 2007 Nashua, NH, 13 July 2007 Washington D.C., 20 July 2007 Des Moines, IA., 17 September 2007 Atlanta, GA, 12 October 2007
Manchester, NH, 16 October 2007 Las Vegas, NV, 15 November 2007 Shenandoah, VA, 20 November 2007 Washington D.C., 30 November 2007 Sioux City, IA, 3 December 2007 Washington D.C., 11 December 2007 Milford, NH., 4 January 2008
Nashua, NH, 4 January 2008 Washington D.C., 9 January 2008 Los Angeles, CA, 11 January 2008 Washington D.C., 17 January 2008 Myrtle Beach, SC., 22 January 2008 Washington D.C., 25 January 2008 Miami, FL., 29 January 2008 Washington D.C., 6 February 2008 De Pere, WI, 18 February 2008 Galveston, TX, 20 February 2008 New York, NY, 20 February 2008 Washington D.C., 25 February 2008 Zanesville, OH, 26 February 2008 Columbus, OH, 5 March 2008 Washington D.C., 6 March 2008 Washington D.C., 10 March 2008 Washington D.C., 17 March 2008 Detroit, MI, 18 March 2008
Philadelphia, PA, 18 March 2008 Washington D.C., 21 March 2008 Philadelphia, PA, 25 March 2008 Union Town, PA, 25 March 2008 Washington D.C., 27 March 2008 Raleigh, NC, 27 March 2008 Pittsburgh, PA, 14 April 2008 Washington D.C., 15 April 2008 Washington D.C., 16 April 2008 Washington D.C., 17 April 2008 Philadelphia, PA, 22 April 2008 Greenville, SC, 5 May 2008 Indianapolis, IN, 7 May 2008 Sheperdstown, WV, 7 May 2008 West Palm Beach, FL, 21 May 2008 Boca Raton, FL, 22 May 2008 Kyle, SD, 28 May 2008
Washington D.C., 28 May 2008 Red Lodge, MT, 30 May 2008
Sample 2016
Chappaqua, NY, 12 April 2015 Monticello, IA, 14 April 2015 Keene, NH, 20 April 2015 Las Vegas, NV, 5 May 2015
Mason City, IA, 18 May 2015 Cedar Rapds, IA, 19 May 2015 Columbia, SC, May 2015 Houston, TX, 4 June 2015
Roosevelt Island, NY, 13 June 2015 Rochester, NH, 15 June 2015 Reno, NV,18 June 2015 Florissant, MO, 23 June 2015 New York, NY, 13 July 2015 Washington D.C., 14 July 2015 Dover City, NH, 16 July 2015 New York, NY, 24 July 2015 Fort Lauderdale, FL, 31 July 2015 Minneapolis, MN, 28 August 2015 Minneapolis, MN, 28 August 2015 Washington D.C., 9 September 2015 Nashua, NH, 16 October 2015 Rock Hill, SC, 6 November 2015 New York, NY, 19 November 2015 Manchester, NH, 29 November 2015 Minneapolis, MN, 15 December 2015 Portsmouth, NH, 29 December 2015 Exeter, NH, 4 January 2016
Des Moines, IA, 25 January 2016 Marshalltown, IA, 26 January 2016
Newton, IA, 28 January 2016 Des Moines, IA, 1 February 2016 Cedar Rapids, IA, 1 February 2016 Manchester, NH, 9 February 2016 Las Vegas, NV, 20 February 2016 Columbia, SC, 27 February 2016 Fairfax, VA, 29 February 2016 Miami, FL, 1 March 2016 Detroit, MI, 5 March 2016 Cleveland, OH, 8 March 2016
West Palm Beach, FL, 15 March 2016 Washington D.C., 21 March 2016 Stanford, CA, 23 March 2016 Brooklyn, NY, 5 April 2016 Baltimore, MD, 10 April 2016 New York, NY, 19 April 2016 Hartford CT, 21 April 2016 Philadelphia, PA, 25 April 2016 Philadelphia, PA, 26 April 2016 Chicago, IL, 19 May 2016 San Francisco, CA26 May 2016 San Diego, CA, 2 June 2016 Culver City, CA, 3 June 2016 Brooklyn, NY, 7 June 2016 Washington D.C., 10 June, 2016
Cleveland, OH, 13 June 2016 Pittsburgh, PA, 14 June 2016 Hampton, VA, 15 June 2016 Raleigh, NC, 22 June 2016 Cincinatti, OH, 27 June 2016 Washington D.C., 5 July 2016 Charlotte, NC, 5 July 2016 Portsmouth, NH, 12 July 2016 Springfield, IL, 13 July 2016 Cincinnati, OH 18 July 2016 Tampa, FL, 22 July 2016 Charlotte, NC, 25 July 2016
Appendix B
Codebook for coding gender positioning in Hillary Clinton’s 2008 and 2016 campaigns
The purpose of this codebook is to provide the instructions for how to code the speeches in terms of gender positioning. The unit of analysis are transcriptons of individual speeches given by Hillary Cliton, falling within the 2008 and 2016 primary campaigns. The time period of the study ranges from 20 January 2007 to 7 June 2008 for the 2008 campaign and from 12 April 2015 to 25 July 2016 for the 2016 campaign.
The following variables need to be coded. They correspond with the variables in the coding sheet.
1. Name coder
2. Date
Enter the date of the speech in the following format: dd/mm/yyyy
3. Campaign cycle
1 = 2008 2 = 2016
4. Experience
(Explicit mention of experience in general or specific experiences)
Keywords: Secretary of State, First Lady, Congresswoman, lawyer, Senate, Senator, written a book, Children Defense Fund
4b. Count any references made to Clinton’s previous accomplishments.
Keywords: trade, negotiate, deal, ambassador, peace, resolution, specific accomplishment, agreement, (co-)sponsored a law/bill/act/initiative
4c. Count any references made to cooperation with other experienced politicians.
Keywords: Barack Obama, foreign heads of state, leaders in a specific policy field, other Senators
4d. Count any general references to Clinton’s experience made.
Keywords: experience, knowledge, viability, accomplishment, readiness, mention of years of experience, years in a certain office, having a track record of doing something, having
advocated for…
5. Family
(Explicit mention of experience in own family or families in general)
5a. Count any references made to Clinton’s direct family.
Keywords: husband, daughter, granddaughter, Chelsea, Charlotte, father, mother
5b. Count any references made to Clinton’s position in her own family.
5c. Count any general references to families made.
Keywords: family, children, grandparents, mothers, fathers, kids
6. Feminine style
(Use of elements of so-called ’feminine style’ as defined by Campbell, 1989)
6a. Count any references made to Hillary Clinton’s gender.
Keywords: woman, playing the woman card, gender
6b. Count any references made to the uniqueness or novelty of Hillary Clinton’s gender
situation. Keywords: first female President, first woman in the White House, historic, novelty, breaking the glass ceiling
6c. Count any personal disclosures made.
Keywords: family background, hobby, religion, faith, favorite sports team, favorite food, alma mater, vacation experience
6d. Count any personal anecdotes or examples made to elaborate on or expain a position or
argument.
Keywords: personally, I have experienced/seen/been to..., I have spoken to/travelled to..., when I was in/with...
7. Traits
(Explicit mention of any of the following traits, in both verb and noun form, referencing herself, her campaign or her team)
Is any reference made of Clinton containing these traits (multiple answers possible): 1 = Aggression Keywords: aggressive, angry, mad, attack, blast, push,
attack, fight, outraged
2 = Competitiveness Keywords: competition, compete, ambition, win, lose,
race, battle, debate, candidate, strong position, champion
3 = Argumentativeness Keywords: argument, opinion, factual, right, wrong,
agree, disagree, argue
4 = Decisiveness Keywords: decide, decision, assure, determined, proactive, resolute, crucial, critical, decide, choose, getting things done, clear intentions
5 = Firmness Keywords: firm, tough, unyielding, secure, strong, persevere, driven, drive, intention, commitment, tenacity, persistent, vigorous, serious, forceful, stick with decisions
6 = Risk-taking Keywords: dare, taking chances, risks, risky, consequences,
bold, valour, sacrifice
7 = Self-reliance Keywords: self-reliant, by myself, lone, confident, independent,
autonomous, self-sufficient, qualified, able, prepared,
ambitious, ready
8 = Power Keywords: powerful, influence, capable, skill, talent, function,
effective, leadership, leader, commander-in- chief, moral
authority
9 = Nurturing Keywords: nurture, caring, take care of, helping, provide,
responsibility, providing relief
admire
11 = Kindness Keywords: tender, nice, kind, sensitive, considerate,
consideration
12 = Understanding Keywords: understand, compassion, comprehension, empathic,
generous, aware, grasp, sharp, knowledge, perception
13 = Honesty Keywords: honest, truthful, fair, genuine, integrity, openness,
upright, honourable, frank, straightforward, transparent, full
disclosure
14 = Impetuousness Keywords: impulsive, spontaneous, passionate, eager,
fierce, unexpected, fervid, willingness
15 = Emotional expression Keywords: happy, joy, sad, fearful, despair, excitement,
pride, hopeful, heartbroken
16 = Cooperation Keywords: work together, bring together, cooperate, collaborate, coordinate, unite, join forces, willingness, partnership, allies, bipartisan
8. Values
(Explicit mention of the following values, imposing them on herself, the audience, supporters, voters or the country)
Is any reference made by Clinton of the following values (multiple answers possible): 1 = Benevolence Keywords: helpfulness, forgivingness, compassion, generosity,
kindness, humanity, hospitality
2 = Tradition Keywords: devoutness, devotion, tradition, humility, respect, patriotism, American values
parents/elderly/veterans, obedience, civility, reverence, compliance, duty, fairness, responsibility, accountability
4 = Security Keywords: safety, harmony, unity, stability of society or self, preservation
5 = Universalism Keywords: honesty, broadmindedness, tolerance, appreciation, equality, integrity
6 = Power Keywords: authority, dominance, control, resistance, strength, guts, toughness, justice
7 = Achievement Keywords: success, wealth, ambition, competence, performance, triumph, victory, effort, hard-working, accomplishment, getting things done, dedication
8 = Hedonism Keywords: pleasure, enjoying life, enjoyment, indulgence, satisfaction 9 = Stimulation Keywords: daring, excitement, novelty, challenges in life, commotion,
incitement, incentive
10 = Self-direction Keywords: creativity, freedom, independence, ability, wisdom,
knowledge, self-determination, commitment,
0 = None of the above
9. Issues
(Explicit mention of any of the following issues, including the sub-issues and specific cases mentioned within the more general categories)
Is any reference made to the following issues (multiple answers possible):
women in the military, maternity leave
2 = Education Keywords: early childhood education, pre-Kindergarten, public/private schools, university, community college, loans, college debt, test scores, school safety, teachers,
3 = Health care Keywords: Obamacare, Affordable Care Act, electronic record keeping, medical malpractice, employer-provided health care, health insurance, hospital bills, vaccines, euthanasia, Planned Parenthood 4 = Welfare Keywords: social security, Medicaid, Medicare, privatization,
individual investment accounts, retirement age, disability
5 = LGBT rights Keywords: same-sex marriage, right to deny goods and services to gay marriage, transgender, gays in the military, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell,
civil unions, Defense of Marriage Act
6 = Race issues Keywords: race discrimination, police brutality, racial profiling, affirmative action, Black Lives Matter, race issues in Criminal Justice
System
7 = Environment Keywords: global warming, climate change, deforestation, fossil fuel, fracking, nuclear power plants, oil drilling, renewable energy, green
energy, alternative energy sources, wind/solar energy
8 = Taxes Keywords: tax cuts, tax breaks, tax plan, subsidies, Flat Tax, Income Tax, Federal Tax, tax exemption, loopholes, carried interest 9 = Economy Keywords: creating jobs, small businesses, trade, deficit, recession,
government spending, budget, TPP, NAFTA, business, Wall Street,
banking, [un]employment, bail-out, stock, exchange, minimum wage 10 = Military Keywords: forces, army, troops, deployment, training, drones, military
budget, torture, waterboarding, interrogation techniques, veterans 11 = Transportation Keywords: infrastructure, roads, trains, public transport, bridges,
tunnels
12 = Immigration Keywords: comprehensive immigration reform, refugees, asylum- seekers, immigrants, Immigration Law, fence, border wall, Mexico, birth right, undocumented immigrants,illegal immigrants, migrants, deportation
13 = Foreign policy Keywords: terrorism, UN, cooperation, war, War on Drugs, Nuclear Arms Deal, Iran, Israel/Palestine, Russia, Putin, Iraq, Syria, ISIS,
Islamic State, Afghanistan, NATO
14 = National security Keywords: crime, justice, death penalty, prison, Guantanamo
Bay, gun control, gun violence, second amendment)
