Abstract
The 2020 presidential race started in Iowa, like it has since 1972. The slate of candidates was the most diverse ever and included six women. This study examines the relationship between candidates’ gender, image, and support among Iowa voters. Iowans have access to candidates that other voters do not, so their perceptions provide unique insight into the construction of candidate images. This study examines the image qualities of leading candidates as perceived by Iowa caucus-goers in the fall of 2019. Using survey data of 576 likely Democratic caucus attendees, I examine the relationship between candidates’ gender, image, and support. I find that women candidates did not benefit from stereotypical strengths of honesty and compassion, but they were perceived as strong leaders. I also find evidence of differences in image evaluations based on respondent sex, with women voters rating untraditional candidates higher than men voters.
“I’m f---ing moving to Iowa,” said Kamala Harris to a Washington colleague in September 2019 (Cadelago, 2019). Harris had been struggling to gain traction in Iowa while balancing big donor fundraising events around the country with campaigning in Iowa. Harris’ statement reflects the importance of campaigning in Iowa. Democratic candidates had spent months, and in some cases years, campaigning in Iowa, with more than 20 candidates holding nearly 3,000 events (“Iowa caucuses,” 2020). Ultimately, Harris’ polling in Iowa and nationally did not improve and she withdrew from the race before the caucus. For those that were able to stay in the race until February 3, 2020, the Iowa caucus served as the first electoral test of the Democratic presidential candidates and offered the possibility of momentum for those that finished well and the end of the road for those that did not. After reporting errors and delayed results, South Bend, Indiana Mayor Pete Buttigieg squeaked by with a slight lead in delegates over Bernie Sanders. Elizabeth Warren came in third, followed by Joe Biden.
Political experts, and some candidates, pondered again in 2020, why does Iowa go first? Why do we care so much about what happens in Iowa? There are many arguments as to why Iowa should not have such influence on the selection of a presidential nominee, but from the perspective of political communication research, Iowa provides a unique opportunity to study political campaigns. The sheer volume of political campaign communication that occurs in Iowa in the year leading up to a caucus provides ample opportunity to examine political speech, direct contact, advertising, mail, and more. The nature of the caucus also provides for a type of engagement between candidates and voters unlike presidential campaigning in other states. Iowa voters have the chance to meet candidates, numerous times. They hear them speak at large and small events, and they interact with campaign surrogates. Iowa caucus-goers are high information voters with a unique perspective of the candidates early in the process.
This study focuses on Iowans and their opinions of the diverse field of Democratic candidates in 2020. The slate of candidates in 2020 included the most diverse group in history including six women, seven people of color, and one gay man, as well as two septuagenarian White men leading early polls. I chose to focus on gender in 2020 because it is the first time the country has had numerous viable women candidates running simultaneously for a party’s nomination. Furthermore, the intense campaigning and voter interaction that takes place in Iowa provides a unique opportunity to study how gender bias does or does not influence perceptions of women and men candidates. The Iowa caucus campaign is focused on introducing candidates to voters in Iowa and making the case that they are the man or woman to represent the party in November. This type of campaigning emphasizes building the candidate’s image to establish him or her as a desirable presidential candidate. With that comes attempts to communicate desirable qualities like being a strong leader, compassionate, and honest. Decades of research on gender and politics make clear that women candidates face challenges in meeting the expectations of an ideal political leader. In an effort to expand our understanding of candidate image and gender bias in political campaigns, this study tests whether gender stereotypes hinder or help the leading male and female candidates in the 2020 Democratic presidential race. Using survey data of likely Democratic Iowa caucus voters, I examine whether candidates are perceived as having more traits associated with their gender and whether men and women caucus-goers differ in their perceptions of the candidates.
The Iowa Caucus Campaign
The Iowa caucus campaign is only the first step in the nomination battle, and Iowa’s effect is primarily in winnowing the field rather than selecting the nominee. Since the first Democratic caucus in 1976, 6 of 10 contested Democratic Iowa caucuses winners won their party’s nomination, and only 3 of 7 Republican caucus winners secured their nomination. In fact, only three caucus winners went on to win the White House—Jimmy Carter, Barack Obama, and George W. Bush, and technically Carter came in second to “uncommitted.” However, success in Iowa can give candidates momentum, or “the Big Mo’” as George H. W. Bush said of his caucus victory in 1980. If candidates do better than expected, they gain media attention and are perceived as more viable. On the other hand, a worse-than-expected performance can cause fundraising to dry up and media coverage questioning viability. The general belief is there are two or three tickets out of Iowa, and failure to rank in the top three means the end. As 2020 demonstrated with Biden’s fourth place finish, that is not always the case.
Campaigns leading up to the Iowa Caucus are unlike campaigns in any other state. Since the Iowa caucuses are the first test in a presidential race, candidates spend an inordinate amount of time in the state. The 2020 cycle was no different. Candidates crisscrossed the state shaking hands, giving speeches, and taking selfies. There were literally thousands of candidate events in the months leading up to the caucus. Amy Klobuchar held 191 events and travelled to all of Iowa’s 99 counties. Pete Buttigieg participated in 158 events, Sanders 138, Biden 117, Warren 104, and Harris 83 events (Harris dropped out of the race in December 2, 2019). The top 5 delegate getters on caucus night spent on average 64 days in Iowa (“Iowa Caucuses,” 2020).
Not only do candidates spend a lot of time in Iowa, the type of campaigning they do is different. The focus is on retail politics—the on the ground campaigning where candidates and campaigns make direct contact with each likely caucus goer. Candidates must meet the voters and talk to them as directly as possible. This means smaller gatherings, pop-ins at local diners, and lots of handshakes and photos. Iowa caucus-goers have an expectation of meeting presidential candidates, and they expect the candidates to come to them. In one of the few in-depth studies of Iowa caucus campaigning, Redlawsk et al. (2011) found a large majority of 2008 caucus-goers had been contacted by a campaign (by phone, mail, at their home or by email), and only 2.4% reported they had not received any contact from a campaign.
The Iowa caucus campaign is as much about who the candidates are as it is the policies they support. The fact that the caucus is an in-party test means the candidates are not too far apart on issues, and it elevates the importance of candidates’ image and likability. In 2008, there were relatively few policy differences between the leading Democratic candidates, Barak Obama and Hillary Clinton, and this elevated the importance of charisma and likability, a battle Barack Obama ultimately one. In 2020, there were 25 candidates that campaigned in Iowa, and while there were some important policy differences, there were also a lot of similarities. For example, Amy Klobuchar, Pete Buttigieg, and Joe Biden were all competing for moderate Democratic voters. The well-respected Iowa Poll conducted by Seltzer & Co. for the Des Moines Register, CNN, and Mediacom sheds some light on the battle of issues and image in the 2020 caucuses (Pfannenstiel, 2020). The poll, conducted a month before the caucus, found significant overlap between Biden and Buttigieg when respondents were asked about their first and second choice candidates. Buttigieg, who ultimately won the most delegates in Iowa, had the largest footprint with the most respondents reporting he was their first choice, second choice, or they were actively considering him. Similarly, Sanders and Warren were fighting for the more progressive Democratic caucus-goers, with the same poll showing 44% of Sanders supporters said Warren was their second choice, and 31% of Warren supporters naming Sanders as their second choice. In the Democratic Iowa caucus, second choices matter. In order for a candidate to be considered viable at a precinct caucus, they must garner at least 15% of the votes at that precinct. If they fail to meet that threshold they will receive zero delegates, and their supporters can move to support their second choice. In the case of 2020, Joe Biden was not viable in many precincts, so his supporters had to choose a second choice.
Given the similarities between these candidates’ issue stances and the need to have more than one choice, it seems likely that image played a role in caucus support. The Iowa Poll mentioned earlier indicated that 93% of Democratic caucus-goers wanted a candidate with the same positions on policies, but it also found factors related to the candidates’ images were important. For example, 93% said the ability to unite the country was important. Also rated as important was the likelihood of winning in November by 89%, the ability to inspire new voters by 87%, and how the candidates engaged with voters at caucus events by 80% (Pfannenstiel, 2020). These nonissue-related criteria for selecting a candidate warrants further investigation. Qualities like the ability to inspire and how one engages with voters hints at the idea of candidate image, so in the next section I turn to an examination of this construct and its role in presidential elections.
Candidate Image and the Presidency
Decades of research has examined how candidates’ images relate to electoral success. A candidate’s image grows from campaign messaging, personal style, media coverage, and the perceptions of voters. It is not necessarily indicative of a candidate’s actual personality or ability. Rather, it is a perception coconstructed by voters, candidates, and media. Louden and McCauliff (2004) identified four categories of image variables: issue stances, personal qualities, competence, and communicative behavior. Others have added or modified categories to account for variables such as charm and homophily (Warner & Banwart, 2016), and some have focused more in-depth on personal qualities such as integrity and empathy (Funk, 1999). What these different studies have in common is a set of characteristics often seen as desirable in political candidates.
Image is important because it is associated with vote choice (Bartles, 2002; Fridkin & Kenney, 2011; Prysby, 2008). Some factors have been found to be important across elections and candidates, and the influence of others has varied based on electoral context. Trent et al. (2010) examined trait importance over six presidential elections and found honesty to be the most important in four elections and second most important in two. Winfrey (2018) examined presidential elections from 2000 to 2012 and found leadership, caring, morality, and intelligence were important factors in support of presidential candidates, but the importance of each trait varied based on electoral context. Warner and Banwart (2016) found that character and homophily were important qualities in determining vote choice in the 2012 presidential election, and homophily was found to be a consistent predictor of vote choice across three competitive Senate races in 2014. Additionally, Fridkin and Kenney (2011) examined the influence of image qualities based on the electoral status of candidates and found that perceptions of incumbents’ leadership was important in vote choice and being seen as caring was most important for challengers, though leadership, caring, and honesty were all important for both incumbents and challengers. What this research has made clear is that candidates’ images, and specifically the traits voters perceive they have, influence election outcomes. It is important to note that much of this image research has focused on presidential races, which have been dominated by male candidates. It is clear from the few women who have ran for the presidency that they face unique challenges based on their gender.
Gender and Candidate Image
Image presents unique challenges and opportunities for women candidates, particularly running for the presidency. Decades of research has found women candidates are more often associated with traits tied to traditional notions of femininity, and men are more often tied to traits associated with masculinity (Alexander & Anderson, 1993; Dolan, 2008; Godbole et al., 2019; Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993a; Winfrey, & Schnoebelen, 2019). For example, women candidates are perceived to be more honest, cooperative, caring, sensitive, helpful, passive, emotional, and dependent. On the other hand, male candidates are associated with traditionally masculine traits such as being strong, competent, aggressive, experienced, knowledgeable, rational, and self-confident (Banwart, 2010; Bower, 2003; Bystrom, 2003, 2004; Clift & Brazaitis, 2000; Dittmar, 2015; Dolan, 2005a, 2005b, 2008; Eagly & Karau, 2002; Fridkin & Kenney, 2009; Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993a; Katz, 2016; Witt et al., 1994). These gendered assumptions about candidates’ traits also influence what issues voters think they are able to handle. Women are often presumed to be capable at issues associated with their feminine, care-taking traits, such as health care, education, and women’s issues; while men are seen as better able to handle issues related to strength and assertiveness like national security, the military, trade, and the economy (Banwart, 2010; Banwart et al., 2003; Clift & Brazaitis, 2000; Davis, 2003; Dittmar, 2015; Dolan, 2005b, 2008; Duerst-Lahti, 2010; Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993b, Niven & Zilber, 2001; Sanbonmatsu & Dolan, 2009).
Eagly and Karau’s (2002) role congruity theory of female leadership helps explain the double bind women leaders face. This theory states that traits typically associated with leadership overlap significantly with traits associated with men and masculinity, but femininity and leadership traits are incongruous. This places women leaders in a difficult spot because too often women that display masculine leadership traits are disliked for failing to meet expectations of their gender, but women who adhere to expectations of femininity are seen as incompetent for political leadership. One need only look at the media coverage of women candidates to see this dynamic. As Carlin and Winfrey (2009) found in their study of the 2008 election, Hillary Clinton was often characterized as an iron maiden who would castrate men, and Palin was framed as “Caribou Barbie”—nice to look at but not smart enough to be taken seriously. This double bind is particularly problematic for women running for higher levels of office, especially the presidency. Huddy and Terkildsen (1993b) found that voters considered masculine traits to be most important for candidates pursing national and executive offices. Numerous studies have confirmed that masculine traits such as toughness, aggressiveness, and self-confidence are most desirable for high level offices and are less likely to be attributed to women (Bower, 2003; Davis, 2003; Dolan, 2005b; Huddy & Terkildsen, 1993b).
As Heldman (2007) points out, the American presidency is a particularly masculine office. The images of the presidency in popular culture have largely been hypermasculine men like Harrison Ford in Air Force One. The American president has been constructed as the protector and chief, a role that relegates women to the sphere of the home and caretaking. Duerst-Lahti (2006) argues American’s desire for toughness, preference for military heroes, and common use of sports and war metaphors in political communication demonstrate the masculine nature of the presidency. However, over the past 12 years Americans have seen the number of women compete for the presidency rise significantly from Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2016, Michelle Bachman in 2012, Carly Fiorina in 2016, and six women in 2020. None of those women ultimately became president, and only one won her party’s nomination. But, the rise of women running for the presidency begs the question—Do women still face a disadvantage? Recent research suggests they do. Godbole et al. (2019) found that in 2016 masculine traits were seen as more typical of the ideal president than feminine traits. They also found that the average man was seen as having more masculine traits, and the average women was seen as having more feminine traits. If the presidency is still associated with masculinity, and women are seen as lacking in masculine traits, women running for the presidency fight an uphill battle to construct a compelling image.
Despite the fact women are presumed to lack in masculine traits, they are associated with some desirable leadership traits. Honesty and compassion are among the strengths for women, and those qualities have historically been among the most important for presidential candidates (Fridkin & Kenney, 2011; Trent et al., 2010). In theory, women candidates should have an advantage in these areas when competing against men. However, in reality, political women may not get much benefit from positive gender stereotypes. Schneider and Bos (2014) found that female candidates were not seen as possessing feminine strengths such as compassion or sensitivity, but were instead associated with negative traits such as being uptight and ambitious. Female politicians were also perceived to lack in traditional masculine traits such as leadership and competence. It seems that while women generally may benefit from some positive trait stereotypes, political women are viewed more negatively that the average woman. For example, Conroy et al. (2020) found that Hillary Clinton was often associated with negative terms like “untrustworthy” and “self-centered,” and she was rarely associated with positive feminine traits. Furthermore, those that used masculine terms to describe her were less likely to vote for her. The authors argue these associations “may reflect punishment for violating social role norms dictated by stereotypes of women as self-sacrificing and serving of others” (p. 15). Similarly, Godbole et al. (2019) found Clinton was rated as less feminine than the average woman, and despite respondents associating her with desirable masculine traits, she was punished because “she was a poor representative of her gender” (p. 709). In short, women still face a double bind when running for high-level political offices like the presidency. Women must be both feminine and masculine, but not too much of either.
There is evidence that the effects of stereotypes may be lessening, at least in offices other than the presidency. Dolan and Lynch (2016) found few differences in how men and women candidates were rated on gendered traits, but they did find some gender differences when they examined partisan responses. Democrats rated women as better able to handle female policy areas (e.g., child care, abortion, health care) and Republicans held traditional stereotypes associating men with masculine policies (e.g., economy, crime, security) and traits (leadership, intelligence). Their findings also suggest that Democratic women candidates may have an advantage with Democratic voters.
In fact, stereotypes might not always be a factor in voter decision making. Gender stereotypes may need to be activated in order for them to influence perceptions of candidates and vote choices, but stereotypes can be activated anytime a candidate’s gender is highlighted. For example, when feminine traits are emphasized in campaign messaging or if women candidates are seen with their young children, voters are reminded of the fact the candidate is a woman and her association with presumed feminine traits and abilities. Bauer (2015b) found that a voter’s attention, interest, knowledge, and partisanship influenced whether stereotypes were activated. Bauer (2015a) also found that stereotype activation had a negative effect on women candidates but little to no effect on men, likely because the stereotypes are congruous for masculinity and political leadership, but incongruous for women and leadership. While there are many ways to activate gender stereotypes, the 2020 election featured six women vying for the Democratic presidential nomination. The mere presence of these women in the race and the possibility of the first female president undoubtedly highlighted gender and possibly activated gender stereotypes.
The application and effect of gender stereotypes also may vary between men and women voters. Some studies have found a gender affinity in vote choice among women whereby women voters show a preference for women candidates and attribute more desirable traits to them, particularly if they are of the same political party (Brians, 2005; Dolan, 2008; Plutzer & Zipp, 1996; Winfrey, 2018). Additionally, research on candidate image has yielded some gender differences. Trent et al. (2010) found women rated numerous traits as more important than men did, suggesting women may hold a higher standard for their ideal candidate. Winfrey’s (2018) study of presidential elections between 2000 and 2012 revealed women voters’ choices were consistently related to their perceptions of candidates’ leadership and compassion. Male voters were less consistent, but seemed to give more weight to strong leadership. The challenge in studying gender and presidential candidate image has been a lack of women to study. Research has been able to examine a woman presidential candidate here and there, usually competing against numerous men, but 2020 provided the first opportunity to look at multiple women and test the role gender stereotypes played in perceptions of the candidates.
Gender and Image in the 2020 Iowa Caucus
The 2020 Democratic campaign for the presidential nomination offers a unique opportunity to examine the images of several competitive women and men. Six women campaigned for the nomination, with three, Elizabeth Warren, Amy Klobuchar, and Kamala Harris, gaining national attention and staying in the race into the fall of 2019. There were also three clear male frontrunners by fall—Bernie Sanders, Pete Buttigieg, and Joe Biden. Few places are better to study candidate image development than Iowa. Candidates spend months campaigning for the vote of Iowans by meeting voters and working to create the right image to prove they are the best candidate for the party’s nomination.
This study tests whether women and men running for the Democratic nomination were perceived as having gender stereotypical traits and as lacking in nonstereotypical traits. Based on existing research of gender stereotypes and candidate image, I propose the following hypotheses:
Previous research also indicates that men and women voters do not always behave the same or have the same opinions of candidates. Dolan and Lynch (2016) found that voters tend to think candidates of their same gender have more desirable traits, and others have found women voters may have an affinity for women candidates. To better understand the relationship between voters’ gender and their opinions of candidates, I address the following research question:
Method
Participants
Likely Iowa Democratic caucus-goers were recruited by Civiqs, an online polling company, to complete an online survey between October 18-22, 2019. In all, 576 participants completed the survey and are included in this analysis. All participants included indicated they would “definitely” (74.5%, n = 429) or “probably” (25.5%, n = 147) attend the Democratic Caucus on Feb. 3, 2020. They also either identified as Democrat (79.3%, n = 457) or Independent/No Party (20.7%, n = 119). Respondents were 56.4% female (n = 325), 42.5% male (n = 245), and 1% (n = 6) identified as nonbinary/third gender/preferred not to say. The majority of the sample, 90.8%, (n = 523) identified as White, similar to the state’s racial demographics, which is 90.6% White (U.S. Census Bureau, 2019). Ages ranged from 18 to 91 years, M = 55.02, SD = 16.23, with a median age of 58 years.
Procedures
Presidential Candidate Preference
Participants were asked which candidate would be their first and second choice “if the Democratic Caucuses were held today.” They were given a list of 17 candidates vying for the nomination and the option to indicate they were unsure or supported a candidate not listed. They were then asked if there were any other candidates they were considering supporting. Participants were also asked if there were any candidates they “do not want to be the nominee.” Responses to this item were open-ended.
Image
Respondents were asked to evaluate six candidates on three image measures. The candidates were selected based on their polling in Iowa and to have an equal number of male and female candidates assessed. The candidates included were as follows: Joe Biden, Pete Buttigieg, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Bernie Sanders, and Elizabeth Warren. Participants were asked how well the following phrases describe each candidate: “she/he is honest,” “she/he provides strong leadership,” and “she/he is compassionate.” Responses ranged from very well (4) to not well at all (1). Participants were also given the option to answer “don’t know.” The order of candidates and traits were presented in random order.
Results
Analysis of likely caucus-goers’ candidate preferences revealed Warren and Buttigieg led in first and second choice votes. See Table 1 for support percentages. Sanders and Biden came in next, with Biden having slightly more first choice votes. The six candidates examined in this study were the top six candidates in first and second choice selections, but 15.9% of respondents were still undecided or were supporting a different candidate. When asked if there was a candidate they did not want to be the Democratic nominee, more people identified Sanders and Biden than any other candidates.
Preferred and Not Preferred Candidates.
Hypothesis 1 predicted the female candidates would be rated higher on the feminine traits of honesty and compassion. This hypothesis was rejected. Buttigieg had the highest rating on honesty, followed by Sanders in second place. Means and standard deviations for each trait and candidate are displayed in Table 2. Paired sample t tests of the honesty trait revealed that the female candidates did not have an advantage with this trait. Sanders was rated significantly higher than Harris, t(424) = 10.32, p ≤ .01; Klobuchar, t(393) = 2.64, p = .01; and Warren, t(483) = 5.17, p < .01. Buttigieg was also rated significantly higher than Klobuchar, t(386) = 3.20, p < .01, and Warren, t(451) = 4.76, p < .01. The only pairings in which a female candidate was rated higher was between Klobuchar and Biden, t(388) = 8.37, p < .01, and Warren and Biden, t(476) = 6.27, p < .01.
Ratings of Candidates’ Traits.
There was also no consistent advantage for women on the compassion trait. Warren was the only female candidate rated significantly higher on compassion than a male candidate, and she was rated higher than Biden, t(471) = 5.11, p < .01, and Sanders, t(466) = 2.31, p = .02. Warren rated highest on compassion overall followed by Buttigieg; the other women, Klobuchar and Harris, came in fifth and sixth, respectively. On the other hand, Sanders and Buttigieg had an advantage on this trait over two women. Sanders was rated significantly higher on compassion than Harris, t(420) = 7.52, p < .01, and Klobuchar, t(377) = 6.17, p < .01. Buttigieg was also rated significantly higher than Harris, t(415) = 10.06, p < .01 and Klobuchar, t(386) = 9.82, p < .01. Though Biden scored next to last on compassion, he scored higher than Harris, t(419) = 6.68, p < .01.
Hypothesis 2 predicted that the male candidates would be rated higher on the masculine trait of strong leadership. This was not the case. In fact, most of the significant differences gave women an advantage on this trait. Biden was rated significantly lower on strong leadership than Harris, t(435) = 4.07, p < .01, Klobuchar, t(394) = 2.11, p = .04, and Warren, t(482) = 11.06, p < .01. Warren was also rated significantly higher on leadership than Sanders, t(476) = 7.34, p < .01, and Buttigieg, t(448) = 4.42, p < .01. Buttigieg was the only male candidate that had an advantage on leadership over a female candidate, with mean scores significantly higher than Harris, t(423) = 3.29, p < .01, and Klobuchar, t(388) = 4.88, p < .01.
Research Question 1 asked if women and men differed in their ratings of the candidates on the three traits. There were several significant differences. Generally speaking, women rated the untraditional presidential candidates higher than did men respondents. Means and standard deviations are reported in Table 3. Women rated Harris higher than men did on all three traits, strong leader, t(446) = 4.65, p < .01; honest, t(435) = 2.33, p = .02; compassionate, t(434) = 3.14, p < .01. Women rated Klobuchar higher on strong leader than men did, t(405) = 200018, p = .03. Women rated Warren higher on leadership, t(497) = 3.32, p < .01, and compassion, t(491) = 2.49, p = .01, than men did. Women also gave Buttigieg higher ratings than men did on all three traits, strong leader, t(461) = 2.90, p < .01; honest, t(467) = 2.42, p = .02; compassionate, t(461) = 2.07, p = .04. Buttigieg was the only male candidate rated significantly different by men and women, and Buttigieg also happens to be an untraditional candidate because of his sexual orientation.
Voter Gender Differences in Candidate Trait Ratings.
p < .05 (significant gender differences).
Discussion
This study set out to examine the images of men and women running for the Democratic presidential nomination and to test whether Iowa voters held gender stereotypical views of the leading candidates. Iowa voters did not adhere to gender stereotypes in their assessment of candidates’ traits. In fact, women did not hold an advantage in the feminine traits of honesty and compassion. Two male candidates, Sanders and Buttigieg, led in honesty ratings, and, while Warren was rated highest in compassion, the other two women rated fifth and sixth. While these findings run counter to previous research that has found women are viewed as more honest and compassionate, they are consistent with research that has found female candidates are not seen as possessing stereotypical strengths and may be penalized for a lack of femininity (Conroy et al., 2020; Schneider & Bos, 2014). This study could also be evidence of a lessening impact of gender stereotypes, as Dolan and Lynch (2016) suggest, but it does not reflect their suggestion that women candidates may have an advantage with Democratic voters.
Similarly, male candidates did not have an advantage on the masculine trait of strong leadership. Warren was rated highest on this trait, followed again by Buttigieg and Sanders. However, all three women, Warren, Klobuchar, and Harris, were rated significantly higher on leadership than Joe Biden, arguably the most qualified candidate based on his years of experience and role as vice president. This suggests again, that gender stereotypes were not applied in traditional ways to these political candidates. Ratings of these women candidates mirror perceptions of Hillary Clinton as possessing more masculine traits than feminine traits (Conroy et al., 2020; Godbole et al., 2019). It is also worth noting that likely Iowa caucus-goers have a good deal of information, and as such they may be less likely to rely on gender stereotypes as McDermott (1998) suggests.
As an examination of candidate image, this study indicates the three traits studied here are important factors in voters’ opinions of the candidates. The candidates rated in the top three for each trait, Buttigieg, Sanders, and Warren, were also more often identified as a first or second choice for caucus night. Only Biden’s trait ratings underperformed his preference ratings, possibly because his national popularity, name recognition, and experience made him preferred despite lower ratings on compassion, honesty, and leadership. Furthermore, these findings reflect Iowa Caucus results. Buttigieg narrowly edged out Sanders for first place with 26.2% of delegates to 26.1% of delegates. Warren came in third with 18%, followed by Biden (15.8%) and Klobuchar (12.3%). Harris had dropped out of the race before caucus night.
This study also reveals some important differences between men and women voters. Women did show a slight, but significant, preference for the four untraditional candidates—three women and a gay man. Women voters rated all of the women candidates and the gay male higher than men voters on the trait of strong leadership. This may reflect women’s preference for the untraditional, or it may reflect men’s stereotypical views of these candidates as less masculine. However, men did not rate the women candidates higher on feminine traits. In fact, they rated Buttigieg and Harris lower on honesty, and Buttigieg, Harris, and Warren lower on compassion than women did. It is unclear if this is a bias against untraditional candidates by men or an affinity for untraditional candidates by women, but this difference is noteworthy. It suggests that untraditional candidates like women and gay men may perform better with Democratic women voters than Democratic men.
The results of this study reveal some limitations as well as opportunities for future research. This study’s design did not allow for a direct test of the relationship between the image qualities measured and candidate support. Future research should use other measures of favorability to better examine this relationship. Additionally, this study is limited to the opinions of Democratic Iowa caucus-goers. This is an important group given the amount of campaigning candidates do leading up to the caucus and the outsized effect of Iowa results, but Iowa caucus-goers are not typical voters. Future research should examine image construction in other early primary states, perhaps up until Super Tuesday, where campaigning is heavy but more similar to national presidential campaigns. This study also only focused on one party; future research should examine Republican candidates and voters when there is a diverse enough candidate pool to do so.
Conclusion
The 2020 Democratic primary campaign provided the first opportunity in American history to examine gender dynamics with multiple women and one gay man competing for a presidential nomination, and the process started with Iowa’s first-in-the-nation caucus. This study demonstrates the importance of candidate image, showing the best performing candidates were also more likely to be viewed as honest, compassionate, and strong leaders. While the precise effects of gender are not entirely clear, it is hard to argue gender did not matter in Iowa. Women candidates did not seem to benefit from gender stereotypical strengths overall, but women voters often rated them higher than men did. Hopefully, 2020 was the first of many opportunities to study presidential candidate image and gender.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.