ジェンダー研究

Special Section

第 21 号2018 年

Gender and Political Leadership

A Woman at the Top of the Ticket: The Role of Gender in the2016 Presidential Election1
Julie Dolan
Macalester College
The 2016 presidential elections in the United States pitted former First Lady,
US Senator, and Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, the first female to be
nominated by a major party for the office, against a hyper-masculine, populist
businessman, Donald Trump. This paper analyzes the gender dynamics of theelection, drawing on Kathleen Hall Jamieson’s concept of the double bind, aconstruct that requires female candidates walk a tightrope of gendered
expectations by demonstrating sufficient masculinity as well as femininity on
the campaign trail. In particular, I argue that Trump used gender stereotypes asa weapon against Clinton: he critiqued her for being insufficiently masculine
and insufficiently feminine while, at the same time, exaggerating his own
masculinity. The results of the election suggest that when contesting the most
masculine office in the land—the US Presidency—female candidates struggle
to be considered on equal footing with male candidates.
Keywords
gender, presidential elections, masculinity, Hillary Clinton

Introduction
In July 2016, Hillary Clinton made history
by becoming the first woman to receive amajor party’s nomination for the office of theUnited States presidency. Four months later,
she became the first woman to lose her major
party bid for the presidency, despite amassing
nearly three million more votes than her rival,

Republican Donald Trump. The vast majorityof polls predicted Clinton would win thepresidency and become the first femalepresident of the United States, but she
ultimately fell short by 77 votes in the

1 Portions of this paper have been adopted from Dolan, Julie. 2016. “From 1776 to 2016: The
Historical Significance of Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Candidacy,” Journal of Parliamentary and
Political Law 10(3): 511-519 and from Dolan, Julie, Melissa Deckman and Michele L. Swers,
Women and Politics: Paths to Power and Influence. 2017. Revised 3rd edition. Lanham, MD:
Rowman & Littlefiled.

33

A Woman at the Top of the Ticket: The Role of Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election

Electoral College2. How did this happen, andhow can we understand this outcome?
In this paper, I provide a preliminary
analysis of the 2016 presidential elections,focusing specifically on the pernicious role ofgender. I argue that Clinton did not lose herelection bid simply because of her status as awoman. Rather, in a country that has elected
only male presidents, I suggest thatmasculinity is so thoroughly infused in thepresidency that men are privileged as thedefault category (see also Duerst-Lahti and
Kelly 1995). During her primary and generalelection campaigns, opponents and the media
interjected gendered critiques that effectively
reminded voters of Clinton’s status as aninterloper, attempting to tread where no
woman has gone before. These efforts often
lacked subtlety and unsurprisingly, many votersresponded in kind.
Clinton’s historic loss to Trump, a politicalneophyte publicly disavowed by many in his
own party, reminds us that the qualifications
for the US Presidency remain deeply
gendered: our notions of leadership are atodds with our notions of what it means to be
womanly, thereby creating unique challenges
not only for Clinton, but for any woman whochooses to follow in her footsteps. Clinton’streatment on the campaign trail is actually par
for the course. The many women who havepreceded her in their quest for the presidency

encountered similar gendered assumptions
and critiques about their ability to lead(Fitzpatrick 2016). To provide historicalcontext, I briefly discuss a few of these
women’s experiences on the campaign trail
before turning to the 2016 election.
In particular, I argue that Trump’s strategic
use of gender stereotypes against Clinton,combined with mainstream media stories thatreinforced, rather than challenged, suchcharacterizations,
ultimately
primedundecided voters to prioritize gender incasting their votes. This combination offactors also persuaded them to privilege
masculinity over other values typically
prized by voters, such as experience,compassion, and decorum. I conclude that
Hillary Clinton’s failed candidacy illustrates
just how relevant masculinity remains in thequest for the presidency. In fact, future
femalepresidential
candidates
canrealistically expect more of the same.

Hillary’s Foremothers in Pursuit of
the Presidency3
Before Hillary Clinton, a number of women
ran for the US Presidency. Significant female
foremothers, including Victoria Woodhull,
Margaret Chase Smith, and Shirley Chisholm
are hardly household names. However, eachwoman helped pave Clinton’s path to thenomination, and would undoubtedly

2 Seven electors cast votes for neither Trump nor Clinton when the Electoral College votes weretallied on December 19, 2016. Two Republican and five Democratic electors refused to cast theirballots for their own party’s nominee (Schmidt and Andrews 2016).
3 Portions of this section have been adapted from Dolan, Julie. 2016. “From 1776 to 2016: The
Historical Significance of Hillary Clinton’s Presidential Candidacy,” Journal of Parliamentary and
Political Law 10(3): pp.511-519.

34

ジェンダー研究appreciate and understand the first female
nominee’s struggles in making her own
history. Like Clinton, each of these women
faced gendered assumptions about theirability to lead.
In 1870, Victoria Claflin Woodhull
became the first woman to run for the US
Presidency, declaring her candidacy via a
letter published in the New York Herald. She
ran under the banner of the Equal Rights
Party, a fledgling party she helped form. A
self-made, wealthy businesswoman who,along with her sister, founded the first female
owned brokerage firm on Wall Street,
Woodhull made women’s political equality
central to her campaign. In her letter to the
Herald, she drew on her success in the maledominated world of finance to illustrate herparticular qualifications for the US
Presidency. She wrote, “while others sought
to show that there was no valid reason why
woman should be treated socially andpolitically as a being inferior to man, I boldly
entered the arena of politics and business andexercised the rights I already possessed”(Fitzpatrick 2016, 30). Woodhull’s bold
declaration of women’s equal rights, coupledwith her historic run in the nascent years of
the suffrage movement, proved too visionary
for the public; her candidacy was never taken
seriously (Fitzpatrick 2016).
Almost one hundred years later, Senator
Margaret Chase Smith declared herpresidential candidacy in an announcement at
the Women’s National Press Club in 1964
(Fitzpatrick 2016). In addition to having
already earned the honor of becoming thefirst woman to serve in both chambers of

第 21 号2018 年

Congress, she also made history as the firstwoman to have her name placed into
nomination for the presidency at a major
party convention. She campaigned in only afew states, giving priority to her Senate
responsibilities and hitting the campaign trail
only during Senate recesses. She received 27
first ballot votes at the Republican National
Convention before Barry Goldwater
ultimately won the nomination (Center for
American Women and Politics 2012). Yet
Smith, too, was fighting an uphill battle
considering the political climate of the times.
Only a slim majority (55%) of the American
public indicated that they would vote a
female candidate for president in 1963 (Jonesand Moore 2003).
Eight years later, Congresswoman Shirley
Chisholm declared her candidacy forpresident. She became the first AfricanAmerican and Democratic woman to run forthe office. She was already serving as the sole,and first, African-American woman inCongress; having been elected only four
years prior. As a founding member of the
National Woman’s Political Caucus,
Chisholm spoke out in favor of more womenrunning for office before launching her own
presidential campaign (Harris 2011). Like
Smith, Chisholm prioritized her legislative
duties in the House of Representatives overcampaigning. However, unlike Smith,
Chisholm amassed an impressive 430,000
primary votes and secured 151 delegate votes
at the Democratic nominating convention(Fitzpatrick 2016; McClain, Carter andBrady 2005). Throughout her candidacy, she
was dogged by questions about whether or35

A Woman at the Top of the Ticket: The Role of Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election

not she was a serious candidate for the office,and whether the time was right for an
African-American woman to run for thepresidency. Exactly one hundred years after
Victoria Woodhull’s historic run, Chisholm
retorted, “If not now, I say, when?”(Fitzpatrick 2016).
When Clinton first ran in 2008, 88% of
Americans claimed they would vote for afemale presidential candidate (Malone 2016).
Eight years later, when asked whether theUnited States was ready for a femalepresident—a slightly different question—
only 80% of polled voters agreed (Dutton etal., 2016). What are the reasons for thisdifference? Approximately 20% of theAmerican population continued to express
reservations about a female president’s
ability to handle a military crisis, to keep thecountry safe from terrorism, to deal with theeconomy, and to make difficult decisions.
The same survey revealed that even fewer
voters (75%) think that both women and men
make equally good political leaders, thereby
illustrating voters’ continued preference for ageneric male candidate over a female
candidate (Associated Press 2016).
Clinton announced her 2016 candidacy
with an online video promising to be thechampion for everyday Americans. She
followed it up with a campaign rally on
Roosevelt Island in New York City,
positioning herself as someone committed tofighting income inequality in the UnitedStates. Clinton also paid special attention topolicy issues that disproportionately affectwomen, such as pay equity, affordable day
care, and paid family and medical leave

36(Chozick 2015). She also reminded votersthat she would not be the youngest president
if elected, although she did have a shot at
becoming the youngest female president everelected. But, as we know, her campaign fell
short. I turn now to an analysis of her generalelection campaign against Donald Trump.

Navigating Gender on the Campaign
Trail
For most of American history, [navigating
gender] has meant that presidential
candidates – male and female – have worked
to prove they are man enough for the job.
Whether by emphasizing their roles aspaternal protectors, displaying toughness
and strength, or proving their “manliness” incampaign
activities
andphoto-ops,
candidates have long engaged in the businessof gender performance to meet the masculine
credentials of executive office (Dittmar 2015).
Not only do presidential candidates need todemonstrate their masculinity, but female
candidates, more so than men, are expected
to convince voters that they will retain traits
such as compassion and honesty; they must
convince voters that they can remain “ladies”
even as they aspire to be leaders (see Brooks2013). According to Kathleen Hall Jamieson(1995), our notions of leadership conflictwith our notions of what it means to be
womanly, often to the detriment of womenseeking entrance into the masculine world ofpolitics. Dubbed the “double bind” byJamieson, successful female candidates often
must walk a tightrope of gendered
expectations by demonstrating sufficientジェンダー研究masculinity as well as femininity on the
campaign trail. As the theory goes, if afemale candidate comes across as too
masculine, voters will punish her foreschewing traditional gender roles, for losing
touch with her feminine side. However, if thefemale candidate shows too much of her
feminine side, voters will fault her for lacking
sufficient masculine characteristics tosurvive the manly world of politics. The trick
is to carefully calibrate one’s gender
performance so as to strike exactly the rightbalance between the masculine and feminine,at least for female candidates.
The double bind matters because, even at
the presidential level where information
about the candidates is plentiful, voters relyon shortcuts in evaluating candidates (Falkand Kenski 2006). When a female candidate
is in the running, gender stereotypes andimplicit biases about men and women’s
characteristics and capacities come into play:
men are presumed to bring masculine
character traits, such as decisiveness,
toughness, and overall competence to thetable, whereas women are typically given theedge in feminine qualities, such ascompassion, honesty, and morality. And
these stereotypes work to men’s advantage
and women’s disadvantage, especially in arace for the presidency where voters
prioritize masculine over feminine traits(Rosenwasser and Seale 1988). Men must
demonstrate sufficient masculinity to betaken seriously for the presidency, but theirstatus as men gives them an advantage
nonetheless. Voters have little reason toquestion how their male gender affects their

第 21 号2018 年

capacity to govern: some male presidents
have performed better than others, but
because only men have held the office, one
particularly poor performer is not read as anindictment on all men. By virtue of their
historical monopoly on the position, malecandidates benefit from being regarded ascompetent and capable from the start, even if
evidence suggests otherwise.
Women, then, are the anomaly, andevaluating their fitness for the presidency ismore complicated for two reasons. First,
voters and the media typically draw on
entrenched masculine notions of power andleadership to determine how women stack up.
As journalist Ezra Klein (2016) argues, oursocietal preference for the masculine is veryclearly illustrated in our notions of what
distinguishes a good candidate from aninferior candidate:presidential campaigns are built toshowcase the stereotypically male trait ofstanding in front of a room speaking
confidently … [c]ampaigns built on
charismatic oration feel legitimate in a waythat campaigns built on deep relationships do
not.
Klein compares Democratic rivals Hillary
Clinton and Bernie Sanders to make his point.
He observes that “Sanders is a great talker
and a poor relationship builder. Clinton is agreat relationship builder and a poor talker.”If both qualities were equally valued, Sanders
would be faulted for lacking relationshipbuilding skills in the same way that Clinton
was criticized for her oratory skills. But hewas not, because in the presidential context,

37

A Woman at the Top of the Ticket: The Role of Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election

feminine qualities such as collaboration andrelationship-building play second fiddle tomasculine qualities such as confidence andbombast.
Second, because female candidates for thenation’s highest offices are rather rare, votersscrutinize them more closely to gauge how
well they meet traditional feminine norms,
such as compassion, honesty, and likeability(Brooks 2013). Deborah Brooks suggeststhat such practices effectively characterize
female candidates as “ladies, not leaders.”
The essence of treating women as “ladies”
lies in expecting them to exhibit bothfeminine characteristics, as well asstereotypicallymasculine
leadership
qualities. Such an expectation poses
formidable challenges for women trying tofigure out how to strike the right balance.
Lacking any successful female predecessors
in her quest for the Oval Office, Clinton had
to figure out how to navigate this tricky
terrain on her own.
As such, the essence of the double bind isthat men are free to exhibit their fullmasculine selves without worrying too muchabout convincing voters that they also have afeminine side. As a man, Trump’s
masculinity was never really in doubt: heshowed a willingness to humiliate his
opponents, denigrate those who dareddisagree with him, and brag about his ability
to get away with sexual assault, as uncoveredin the leaked audiotape of an interview he haddone earlier in his career with Access
Hollywood. Moreover, given his claims that
he, and only he, could fix America’s
problems, and that he knew more about

38

destroying ISIS than the Generals in chargeof the military, Donald Trump was referred toas an alpha male, “a cartoon of masculinity”,
and a “parody of machismo” (Ball 2016). As
a result, voters seem to have given him a pass
on feminine qualities, overlooking his lack of
empathy and compassion, as well as his welldocumented dishonesty. At the end of the day,it appeared that many voters chalked up his
boorish behavior and his open hostility
toward women and other groups as irritating,but hardly disqualifying (Blake 2016).
Indeed, it may very well be the case thatmany of Trump’s supporters were drawn tothis hyper-masculine behavior. Melissa
Deckman’s (2016) analysis of PRRI datashows that two-thirds of Trump’s supporters
believed that “society as a whole has become
too soft and feminine,” compared with just 17
percent of Clinton supporters. Little wonder,
then, that Trump and his vice-presidential
nominee, Mike Pence, routinely declared on
the campaign trail that “broad shouldered”
leadership was the only way to keep
Americans safe from danger. Trump’s
campaign routinely cast Hillary Clinton as
weak and ineffectual, and one television ad,“Dangerous,” went so far as to show clips ofClinton coughing and stumbling when she
went through a brief bout with pneumonia
during her campaign. This footage wasaccompanied by Trump’s statement that
“Hillary Clinton doesn’t have the strength or
stamina to lead in our world.” As Erin
Cassese and Mirya Holman note (2016), suchattacks on stamina and toughness can beespeciallyeffective
againstfemalecandidates who are Democrats, a party that is

ジェンダー研究

often viewed by voters as being weaker onnational security.
Thus, Hillary Clinton faced a formidable
challenge in presenting herself as sufficiently
masculine. In her attempts to differentiate
herself from Trump and persuade undecided
voters to vote for her, Clinton was caught
between a rock and a hard place. If she cameacross as too masculine in an attempt to rival
Trump, voters could dismiss her as
unladylike, as a woman who has lost touchwith her softer, feminine side. Indeed, in theaftermath of Clinton’s 2008 loss to Barack
Obama, gender politics scholars who
dissected her defeat concluded that sheshould have run a less masculine and more
feminine campaign (Lawrence and Rose2014). Because voters were alreadyconvinced that Clinton was tough enough forthe job, the authors suggested that Clinton
could have gained more mileage by playing
up her lifelong advocacy on behalf of womenand children, thereby effectively reminding
voters of her softer side.
Her 2016 campaign slogan “Stronger
Together” appears to have been crafted withthis particular criticism in mind. Not only did
it draw on Clinton’s reputation as a skilledconsensus builder in the Senate and as
Secretary of State; it also spoke to women’s
perceived strengths as natural collaborators.
Despite adopting a more distinctly feminine
tone in 2016, Clinton again struggled toconvince voters of her feminine strengths.
Most voters readily acknowledged her
impressive presidential qualifications, butevidence suggests that their final vote choices
were based on factors other than her

第 21 号2018 年

leadership capacity. Such evaluations wereundoubtedly due to her political rivals’
sustained efforts over many years to paint her
as cold and calculating, as quintessentially
unfeminine (Gates 1996; Petri 2016). As one
voter said of her, “She doesn’t wear a dress
ever…She’ll probably show up in a pantsuitfor the inaugural. She’s not a typical
woman—she’s not soft. She’s so powerhungry, which is not becoming of a woman”(Ball 2016). President Obama addressed thisvery issue on the campaign trail. At a
campaign event in Columbus, Ohio, heespecially addressed the men in the audience,saying “to the guys out there, I want to behonest… You know, there’s a reason wehaven’t had a woman president before.” Hecontinued, “[w]hen a guy is ambitious andout in the public arena and working hard, wellthat’s okay. But when a woman suddenly
does it, suddenly you’re all like, well, why’s
she doing that?” (Kearns 2016). For many, an
ambitious woman is not a likable woman.
Trump’s campaign reinforced thesegendered voter expectations. Trump evenattempted to negate any perceived advantage
Hillary Clinton might have in feminine
character traits by labeling her “Crooked
Hillary.” I suggest he did so in order to cast
doubt on her honesty, as well as her moral
and ethical compass. Because women are
expected to be more ethical and honest,
Trump’s tagging of Clinton as “crooked,”primed voters to scrutinize and penalize her
for falling short of “ladylike” behavior. And
because the public tends to hold men to lower
expectations when it comes to honesty (Pew
Research Center 2015), Trump could39

A Woman at the Top of the Ticket: The Role of Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election

essentially fabricate stories to keep the issueof trustworthiness in the public eye,expecting that voters would use gendered
notions of proper behavior and hold Clinton
to a higher standard. As journalist Susan Page
of USA Today suggests, “[m]ale candidates
face lower expectations they will be honest,
and voters are quicker to forgive them when
they aren’t.” Adrienne Kimmell adds, “whenwomen are pushed off of or fall off theirhonesty-and-ethical pedestal, it is very, very
hard for them to climb back up, and that isn’t
the case for men” (Page 2016).
For Clinton, climbing back up on thepedestal proved nearly impossible. Months
after she was cleared by the FBI of any
criminal wrong-doing for setting up her own
email server while serving as Secretary ofState, FBI Director James Comey made thehighly controversial decision to re-open theinvestigation a mere two weeks before theNovember election. The decision wasparticularly suspicious for a number ofreasons, but particularly because Comey
broke with standard protocol by commenting
on an ongoing investigation. He had also
potentially violated federal law by behaving
in a way that could reasonably be interpreted
as attempting to influence the outcome of thepresidential election (Hodges 2016). The reopened investigation did not produce any
new evidence or information, but it did leadmany of Clinton’s campaign staff andsupporters to believe that Comey’s actions
had sealed the deal for Trump. Not only was
the timing of Comey’s action problematic—
undecided voters were running out of time tomake up their minds—the narrative also

40

played perfectly into Trump’s strategy ofpainting Clinton as fundamentally corrupt
and unladylike (McElwee, McDermott, andJordan 2017).
And Trump’s strategy appeared to haveworked. Despite much evidence to thecontrary, voters regarded Clinton and Trumpas equally trustworthy (36% viewed Clinton
as honest and trustworthy, and 33% viewed
Trump similarly). By examining nearly 400
candidate statements made on the campaign
trail, Politifact rated Clinton as the moretruthful candidate: 52% of her statements
were rated true or mostly true, whereas only
15% of Trump’s statements were rated true.
At the other end of the spectrum, a striking
70% of Trump’s statements were rated as
false, well over twice the number reported for
Clinton (28%). Trump was also the main
offender in the most egregious category:many of his statements were so dishonest thatthey merited the “pants on fire” rating.
Nearly one out of five of statements made by
Trump received this rating (18%), whereas
only three out of one hundred (3%)
statements made by Clinton received thisrating (Sharockman 2016).
According to Washington Post journalist
Paul Waldman and scholar Thomas Patterson,
the mainstream media contributed to voters’
distorted assessment of the candidates’
trustworthiness by employing remarkably
different and unfair standards in theircoverage of the two candidates. Waldman(2016) suggests that the media essentiallylocked in on different frames for therespective candidates: Trump was the
crazy/bigoted one, and Clinton was theジェンダー研究

corrupt one. Once these frames were in place,each one of Clinton’s steps was investigatedand reinvestigated for evidence of corrupt
wrong-doing. As he argues, “even when the
new information serves to exonerate Clinton
rather than implicate her in wrong-doing, thecoverage still emphasizes that the wholething just ‘raises questions’ about her
integrity.” In contrast, he continues, “when it
comes to Trump… we’ve seen a very
different pattern. Here’s what happens: A
story about some corrupt dealing emerges,
usually from the dogged efforts of one or a
few journalists; it gets discussed for a coupleof days; and then it disappears.” Politicalscientist Thomas Patterson (Shorenstein
Center 2016) goes a step further. He takes themedia to task for failing to distinguishbetween the two candidates’ weaknesses,
thereby implying that both were equallyflawed. As he puts it, “when journalists can’t,
or won’t, distinguish between allegations
directed at the Trump Foundation and those
directed at the Clinton Foundation, there’s
something seriously amiss.”
So how did voters respond? When we lookat other public opinion measures for the twocandidates, the results are initiallyencouraging, but ultimately suggest thepower of the double bind. Zeroing in on two
key leadership traits—qualifications andtemperament for office—reveals substantial
advantages for Clinton. A majority of votersagreed that Clinton was qualified (52%) andhad the right temperament to be president(55%) while much smaller minorities agreed
that Trump satisfied such criteria (38% and35%) (CNN 2016). On this score, there

第 21 号2018 年

appears to be no double standard: Clinton
undeniably possessed greater government
experience than Trump, and was far lesscombative and reckless on the campaign trail.
But when we examine how voters’
assessment of both candidates affected theiractual votes, we find evidence of a double
standard. Trump secured 94% of the votes of
those who thought he had the righttemperament to be president, as well as 94%
of the votes of those who thought he wasqualified to serve as president. For Trump,convincing voters that he had the righttemperament and qualifications for officevirtually assured their votes for him. For
Clinton, the same two indicators were lesstelling predictors of vote choice. She secured
83% of the votes from those who agreed that
she had the temperament to be president, and
86% of the votes from voters who agreed she
was qualified to serve as president (CNN
2016). Clinton convinced plenty of people
that she possessed the necessary leadership
qualities to be president, but these sentiments
were not enough to sew up their votes in theway in which they were for Trump. The
differences are not extraordinary, but
certainly large enough to shape the final
electoral outcome. These findings suggestthat at least some voters downplayed
Clinton’s experience and qualifications, orthat voters did not draw on their perceptionsof the candidates’ qualifications andtemperament in gender-neutral ways.
The double standard is even more obvious
when we examine voters who thought Trump
and Clinton compared favorably on
leadership traits, roughly 20% of the voting

41

A Woman at the Top of the Ticket: The Role of Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election

population. Despite such similar evaluations,these voters overwhelmingly chose Trump
over Clinton. Among those who deemed both
Clinton and Trump suitable in temperament,
a whopping 77% ultimately voted for Trump,and 20% voted for Clinton (Figure 1). A
similar pattern exists in terms of voters’
perceptions of the candidates’ qualifications.
Among those who thought both werequalified, 71% voted for Trump, and 22%
voted for Clinton (Figure 2) (CNN 2016).
The same pattern persists among voters
who held more negative attitudes about bothcandidates. Among those who thought
neither candidate had the right temperament
to be president, 67% ultimately voted for
Trump, more than four times the number(12%) of people who voted for Clinton(Figure 3). For those who found both of themquite unqualified, 66% voted for Trump and
15% for Clinton (Figure 4) (CNN 2016). If
voters were gender-neutral in theirassessment of these candidates’ suitability forthe presidency, these numbers should bemuch more comparable. The fact that Trump
received nearly four times more votes acrossall of these categories suggests that voterswere using other criteria to determine their
final vote choices. And since they comparedfavorably on feminine qualities, such astrustworthiness and honesty, the evidence
seems to suggest that Clinton was penalized
for her perceived feminine failings. On theother hand, Trump was never expected to
exhibit these qualities in the first place.
In sum, Hillary Clinton did secure close to
three million more popular votes than Donald
Trump, which is an historic achievement and42

demonstrates that many voters have become
more comfortable with the idea of a woman
president. Unfortunately for her, she wasunable to win those votes in the states thatmattered, and Trump secured an Electoral
College victory, in part, by winning statesthat Obama had more easily won in 2012.
Surprisingly, Trump emerged victorious in
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania.
Many experts predicted that these states were
not necessarily in play for the Republican
ticket in 2016. Indeed, experts believe that ashift of roughly 80,000 votes in these latter
three states would have been enough tosignificantly alter the election results (Bump
2016).
While it is impossible to gauge the extent
to which gender alone influenced the election,
my preliminary analysis and evidence
suggests that longstanding genderedassumptions about women in politics,
strategically primed by Trump andexacerbated by media narratives, posed asignificant set of barriers to Clinton’s quest to
break the glass ceiling. Despite developing
valuable experience during her 2008 run for
the Democratic nomination, nothing could
have prepared Clinton for the nasty andgender-infused battled that ensued in 2016.
Trump routinely displayed his own
masculinity in crude and exaggerated ways
while, at the same time, faulting Clinton forbeing insufficiently masculine. Likewise, his
campaign also called into question Clinton’s
femininity; he repeatedly referred to her as“Crooked Hillary,” a “nasty woman,” and an
unfaithful wife (Ball 2016). Given the close
margins of the final results, it is very likely

ジェンダー研究第 21 号2018 年

Figure 1. Vote Choice—Those Who Think Both Clinton and Trump have the Right
Temperament to be President.
Both Clinton and Trump have Right Temperament

320% Voting for Clinton% Voting for Trump% Voting for Other
77

Source: CNN, Exit Polls (2016).

Figure 2. Vote Choice—Those Who Think Both Clinton and Trump are Qualified tobe President.
Both Clinton and Trump Qualified

7
22% Voting For Clinton% Voting For Trump% Voting For Other
71

Source: CNN, Exit Polls (2016).

43

A Woman at the Top of the Ticket: The Role of Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election

Figure 3. Vote Choice—Neither Clinton nor Trump Have the Temperament to be
President.
Neither Clinton nor Trump have Right Temperament

1221% Voting for Clinton% Voting for Trump% Voting for Other
67

Source: CNN, Exit Polls (2016).

Figure 4. Vote Choice—Neither Clinton nor Trump is Qualified to be President.
Neither Clinton nor Trump Qualified

15

19% Voting For Clinton% Voting For Trump% Voting For Other
66

Source: CNN, Exit Polls (2016).

44

ジェンダー研究the double standard Hillary Clinton faced onher historic quest for the presidency mattered.
Just how future women presidential
candidates can navigate these tricky terrains
remains an open question. However, studying,

第 21 号2018 年

understanding, and educating people about
the ways in which gender is infused in ourpolitical system may be the first step inbreaking down gendered barriers for female
candidates.

References
Associated Press – NORC Center for Public Affairs Research., 2016, “Hillary Clinton’s Candidacy and the Stateof Gender Discrimination in the United States,” University of Chicago, NORC Center for Public Affairs
Research.
Ball, Molly, 2016, “What Kind of Man is Donald Trump?” Atlantic, October 8, 2016.
Blake, Aaron, 2016, “About 1 in 5 Voters Think Trump Made Unwanted Sexual Advances, But are Still Voting forHim,” Washington Post, October 17, 2016.
Brooks, Deborah, 2013, He Runs, She Runs: Why Gender Stereotypes Do Not Harm Women Candidates, Princeton:
Princeton University Press.
Bump, Philip, 2016, “Donald Trump will be President Thanks to 80,000 People in Three States,” Washington Post,
December 1, 2016.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/12/01/donald-trump-will-be-president-thanks-to80000-people-in-three-states/?utm_term=.5072b24df46b
Cassese, Erin and Mirya Holman, 2016, “Party and Gender Stereotypes in Campaign Attacks,” Working Paper.
https://www.academia.edu/29107953/Party_and_Gender_Stereotypes_in_Campaign_Attacks?auto=down
load
Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP), 2012, “Women Presidential and Vice Presidential Candidates,”
Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics.
CNN, 2016, Exit Polls 2016. http://www.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls
Chozick, Amy, 2015, “Hillary Clinton Announces 2016 Presidential Bid,” The New York Times, April 4, 2015.
Deckman, Melissa, 2016, “Why is anyone sticking with Trump? His ‘Alpha Male’ Appeal,” Washington Post.
October 14, 2016.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/10/14/why-is-anyone-sticking-with-trump-hisalpha-male-appeal/?utm_term=.f0d4dcce3bd8
Dittmar, Kelly, 2015, “Everyone’s Playing the Gender Card: The Question is How,” Presidential Gender Watch,
August 2, 2015.
http://presidentialgenderwatch.org/everyones-playing-the-gender-card-the-question-is-how/#more-3154
Dolan, Julie, Melissa Deckman, and Michele L. Swers, 2017, Women and Politics: Paths to Power and Political
Influence, 3rd Revised edition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Duerst-Lahti, Georgia and Rita Mae Kelly, 1995, Gender Power, Leadership and Governance, Ann Arbor:
University of Michigan Press.
Dutton, Sarah, Jennifer De Pinto, Fred Backus, and Anthony Salvanto, 2016, “Clinton Maintains Lead After45

A Woman at the Top of the Ticket: The Role of Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election

Claiming Nomination,” CBS News.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/clinton-maintains-lead-after-claiming-nomination-cbs-news-poll/
Falk, Erika and Kate Kenski, 2006, “Issue Saliency and Gender Stereotypes: Support for Women as Presidents inTimes of War and Terrorism,” Social Science Quarterly 87(1): pp. 1-18.
Fizpatrick, Ellen, 2016, The Highest Glass Ceiling: Women’s Quest for the American Presidency. Cambridge:
Harvard University Press.
Gates, Henry Louis, 1996, “Hating Hillary.” New Yorker, February 26, 1996.
Harris, Duchess, 2011, Black Feminist Politics from Kennedy to Obama, Reissue edition. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Hodges, Lauren, 2016, “Did FBI Director James Comey’s Email Announcement Break the Law?” National PublicRadio, October 31, 2016.
http://www.npr.org/2016/10/31/500071704/did-fbi-director-james-comeys-email-announcement-breakthe-law
Jamieson, Kathleen Hall, 1995, Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership, New York: Oxford University
Press.
Jones, Jeffrey M., and David W. Moore, 2003, “Generational Differences in Support for a Woman President,”
Gallup, Inc. June17, 2003.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/8656/Generational-Differences-Support-Woman-President.aspx
Kearns, Landess, 2016, “Obama Calls on Men to Reflect on Sexism Before Voting,” Huffington Post, November
2, 2016.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/obama-sexism-voting_us_58191a3fe4b07c97c1c53435
Klein, Ezra, 2016, “Understanding Hillary,” Vox.com, July 11, 2016.
http://www.vox.com/a/hillary-clinton-interview/the-gap-listener-leadership-quality
Lawrence, Regina, and Melody Rose, 2014, “The Race for the Presidency: Hillary Rodham Clinton.” In Womenand Elective Office: Past, Present and Future, edited by Sue Thomas and Clyde Wilcox: pp. 67-79. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Malone, Clare, 2016, “From 1937 to Hillary Clinton, How Americans Have Felt About a Woman President,” Five
Thirty Eight blog.
McClain, Paula D., Niambi M. Carter, and Michael C. Brady, 2005, “Gender and Black Presidential Politics: From
Chisholm to Moseley Braun,” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 27, no. 1-2: pp. 51-68.
McElwee, Sean, Matt McDermott, and Will Jordan, 2017, “4 Pieces of Evidence showing FBI Director James
Comey cost Clinton the Election,” Vox.com, January 11, 2017.
http://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/11/14215930/comey-email-election-clinton-campaign
Page, Susan, 2016, “‘Why are You Yelling?’ Women Still Face a Political Double Standard,” USA Today, June 6.
Petri, Alexandra, 2016, “The Hideous, Diabolical Truth about Hillary Clinton,” Washington Post, October 14,
2016.
Pew Research Center, 2015, “Hillary Clinton Favorability Timeline,” Pew Research Center, May 19, 2015.
http://www.people-press.org/2015/05/19/hillary-clinton-approval-timeline/46

ジェンダー研究第 21 号2018 年

Rosenwasser, Shirley M., and Jana Seale., 1988, “Attitudes Toward a Hypothetical Male or Female Presidential
Candidate,” Political Psychology 9(4): pp. 591-598.
Sharockman, Aaron, 2016, “The Truth about the 2016 Presidential Campaign,” PolitiFact, September 26, 2016.
Shorenstein Center on Media, Politics, and Public Policy, 2016, News Coverage of the 2016 General Election:
How the Press Failed the Voters. Boston: Harvard Kennedy School.
Waldman, Paul, 2016, “Trump’s History of Corruption is Mind-Boggling.” Washington Post, September 5, 2016.

（掲載決定⽇：2018 年４⽉４⽇）

47

A Woman at the Top of the Ticket: The Role of Gender in the 2016 Presidential Election

要旨

大統領候補トップの女―2016 年米大統領選挙におけるジェン
ダーの役割
Julie Dolan
2016 年⽶⼤統領選挙では、主要政党により⼤統領に推薦された初の⼥性である、前⽶⼤統領夫⼈でもある国務⻑官ヒラリー・クリントン⽒と、超男性性でポピュリストの実業家ドナ
ルド・トランプ⽒が競い合った。本稿では、Kathleen Hall Jamieson のダブルバインドの理論
を⽤い、この選挙のジェンダー・ダイナミクスを考察する。ダブルバインドとは、⼥性候補者に強いられる性の⼆重拘束である。これは張り詰めた社会のジェンダーバランスの中で、その期待に応えるために⼥性候補者は綱渡りの選挙戦で、⼗分な「男らしさ」と同時に「⼥らしさ」を発揮しなければならないということである。筆者は特に、トランプ⽒がジェンダ
ー・ステレオタイプを武器にクリントン⽒を追いつめた事を主張する。彼は、クリントン⽒
を「男らしさ」と「⼥らしさ」に⽋けていると批判し、同時に⾃⾝の「男らしさ」を誇張した。この選挙結果が⽰唆するのは、アメリカで最も「男らしい」公職である⼤統領の座を狙う際、⼥性候補者は男性候補者と対等な⽴場を築くのに苦戦するということである。

キーワード
ジェンダー、⼤統領選挙、男性性、ヒラリー・クリントン《筆者紹介》

Julie Dolan is a Professor of Political Science at Macalester College. Her Scholarly interests
include American government and politics, women and politics, and bureaucratic politics andher research focuses especially on women in the public bureaucracies and in executive positions.
She has authored or co-authored many books, including Representative Bureaucracy: Classic
Readings and Continuing Controversies (with David H Rosenbloom). And four editions of
Women and Politics: Paths to Power and Political Influence (with Melissa Deckman andMichele Swers). She is currently working on a book manuscript investigating health caredelivery in the Veterans Health Administration.

48