Debate Watching with a Gender Lens in Election 2024
While there is perennial disagreement about the influence of presidential debates on election outcomes, there is little doubt that the June 2024 debate between President Joe Biden and Donald Trump was pivotal to the complete shakeup of this year’s contest. As we look ahead to the first presidential debate between Vice President Kamala Harris and Donald Trump, many will be eager to see if the candidates’ performances are equally influential to the state of the race.
But the relevance of presidential debates goes beyond their potential impact on vote choice and voter turnout in November. These settings – unique in creating opportunities for direct engagement between the presidential nominees – provide us with an opportunity to observe and evaluate gender and intersectional dynamics among presidential contenders, as well as between the candidates and debate moderators.
Here are some tips on how to watch this – and upcoming – debates with a gender lens.
1. Observe the optics of the debate stage from start to finish, including the presence, posture, and positioning of women and men.
For just the second cycle in U.S. history, a woman is one of the general election nominees on a presidential debate stage. In 2016, Hillary Clinton – the first major-party woman nominee for president – participated in three presidential debates with Donald Trump. This year, Harris and Trump will meet for at least one debate on September 10 in Philadelphia. In this way, the mere presence of gender diversity on a general election presidential debate stage symbolizes progress.
The physical proximity between men and women candidates also has the potential to influence voters. Whether it be in their evaluation of candidates’ body language or even differences in height (yes, that’s a thing), debate viewers are able to react to candidates in relation to each other rather than independently, as is most common throughout the campaign season. These settings are ripe for gendered considerations, especially due to norms about male-female interactions and because of the ways in which physical traits have historically acted as cues for leadership.
In two of the Clinton-Trump debates, the candidates stood at podiums distanced from each other, a more traditional approach. In the second debate, the candidates alternated between sitting at stools or standing, given the ability to roam the stage more freely without being constrained to podiums. While this layout was not uncommon in previous presidential debates, it did present a distinctly gendered experience – as well as gendered optics – for Clinton. During the debate, Trump hovered behind Clinton while she was speaking, causing her to later write, “My skin crawled.” Clinton reminded readers that just two days prior, the Access Hollywood tape, in which Trump had bragged about groping women, had been leaked to the public. She explained that she wanted to yell, “Back up, you creep, get away from me,” but instead tried to ignore Trump’s attempt at asserting physical dominance. Clinton questioned her approach when she reflected on it later, writing, “Maybe I have over-learned the lesson of staying calm, biting my tongue, digging my fingernails into a clenched fist, smiling all the while, determined to present a composed face to the world.” That lesson is a gendered one, whereby women must be especially diligent to avoid playing into stereotypical biases that they are too emotional – or even unstable – to do the job.
Trump and Harris will appear at podiums for the September 10 debate, limiting opportunities for the type of physical encroachment described by Clinton. But body language, facial expressions, and orientation – are the candidates directly engaging each other or staying focused on the cameras and/or debate moderators – are all worthy of examination with attention to how gendered expectations will influence both candidate approach and audience response.
2. Pay attention to the experiences, perspectives, and identities from which candidates draw in discussing their policy positions and priorities, as well as creating contrast between themselves and their opponents.
What has the dominance of white men on debate stages meant for the content of presidential campaign conversations throughout U.S. history? Beyond the singular optics, this has narrowed the range of experiences and perspectives represented in presidential debates. In one of her most recognized debate moments of the 2020 Democratic presidential primary, Harris drew upon her lived experience – distinct from anyone else on the stage – to criticize Joe Biden’s opposition to busing as a mode of school desegregation. She said, “There was a little girl in California who was part of the second class to integrate her public schools and she was bused to school every day. That little girl was me.” Later, when the issue of police shooting of Black Americans came up, Harris invoked her identity again, requesting, “As the only black person on this stage, I would like to speak on the issue of race.”
Beyond informing policy dialogue, having diverse voices on the debate stage can bring starker contrast to the conversation. For example, when Jake Tapper raised Trump’s treatment of women in a 2016 Republican primary debate, he asked candidate Carly Fiorina directly about comments Trump made about her face. Fiorina’s response was simple but resonant with women viewers: “I think women all over this country heard very clearly what Mr. Trump said.” Likewise, when Brian Williams raised the issue of Barack Obama’s religion in a 2007 debate, Obama reminded viewers of the additional work he had to do - as a Black man - to overcome bias. “There is no doubt that my background is not typical of a presidential candidate,” he responded, adding, “I think everybody understands that, but that’s part of what is so powerful about America is that it gives all of us the opportunity - a woman, a Latino, myself - the opportunity to run.”
Again in 2024, Harris will have the opportunity to draw upon her multiple identities - including race and gender - to make the case for candidacy and/or to present a clear contrast with Trump in experience, understanding, and policy priorities.
3. Listen for how the candidates talk to and about women and communities of color, identifying the frequency, style, and substance of those references.
Importantly, it is not only women candidates who talk to or about women — or at least it shouldn’t be. It is critical for men and women candidates alike to appeal to women voters, especially because women make up the majority of voters and an even larger majority of the Democratic base. But do they recognize the diversity among women instead of assuming that all women share the same experiences, policy priorities, or positions? In response to a question about paid leave proposals at a November 2019 Democratic presidential primary debate, Harris combined the need for paid leave with a call for equal pay for equal work, noting both the gender and racial disparities persistent in the U.S. She explained, “We passed the Equal Pay Act in 1963, but fast forward to the year of our lord 2019, and women are paid 80 cents on the dollar, Black women 61 cents, Native American women 58 cents, Latinas 53 cents.”
Moreover, are words backed by actions and plans? Calling your opponent a “nasty woman” just minutes after saying, “Nobody has more respect for women than I do” - as Trump did in an October 2016 debate against Hillary Clinton - reveals the disconnect between words and actions.
The genuineness of candidates’ claims for gender and racial equality can also be evaluated in their knowledge of how policies and politics have affected different groups of women, as well as in their efforts to understand policy from diverse women’s perspectives. Are candidates engaged in true allyship with women - which also means appreciating the constraints on their understanding - or do their efforts to prove they are champions for all women keep the focus on them?
A mixed-gender presidential debate also allows observation of how men speak to women, not just about them. And these interactions are not only between candidates, but also between candidates and moderators. Ahead of the October 22, 2020 presidential debate, Trump attacked moderator Kristen Welker as a “dyed-in-the-wool, radical-left Democrat” who has “been screaming questions at me for a long time,” adding, “She’s no good.” Trump’s antipathy toward Welker – who was just the second Black woman to moderate a presidential debate alone – was consistent with his commentary on other Black women journalists. By the time of the actual debate, Trump’s concerns were apparently appeased as he provided an in-debate assessment of Welker, saying with implied surprise, “By the way, so far, I respect very much the way you’re handling this.”
Moderators to the September 10 debate will include ABC News journalists Linsay Davis, a Black woman, and David Muir, a white man. Being attentive to the interactions between them and the candidates may reveal similar evidence of either antipathy or affinity, potentially influenced by gender and racial identities and expectations.
4. Watch for how the candidates engage one another, noting aggression, direct references, and tone of comments or attacks.
When I spoke with candidates and practitioners for my book on gender and campaign strategy over a decade ago, they cited men’s concerns about being perceived as bullying a woman opponent in interpersonal settings like debates. While Trump appeared perfectly comfortable stalking Clinton on a 2016 debate stage, many men have been warned against having their “Lazio moment,” referring to the moment when Senate candidate Rick Lazio invaded Hillary Clinton’s personal space in a 2000 debate to demand she sign a pledge to forgo soft money donations to her campaign. The optics would have been bad enough had Clinton been a man, but the backlash was heightened among those who saw Lazio’s aggression as an attempt to intimidate Clinton and/or something he would not have done in a debate with a male opponent.
Smaller considerations that both men and women make are how to refer to their opponents (first name or titles) to best reflect their respect, the tone they use to engage their opponent, whether or not they interrupt, or if/how they engage physically before or after the debates (handshakes, hugs, or avoidance have all been seen in the past).
In the 2020 vice presidential debate, Harris’ “I’m speaking” moment went viral as a feminist meme, used as an illustration of how a woman claims space and rebuts men’s attempts to diminish her voice. If past is prologue, it is unlikely that Trump will be much concerned about interrupting or directly attacking Harris due to her gender, but his direct aggression and Harris’ response to it may very well land differently with viewers – men and women alike – due to long-held norms about gendered interaction.
The research on gender dynamics and negative campaigning reveals mixed findings on whether or not women will be penalized for attacking opponents, though most of the literature suggests that attacks on substance yield little backlash. In fact, when women stand up to opponents, they can prove to voters their passion and preparedness for political leadership. But this research lacks in its understanding of intersectional stereotypes, especially those navigated by Black women whose emotions – particularly when deemed “angry” – are leveraged in attacks that they are “extreme,” “dangerous,” or “unstable.”
It is likely that practitioners are advising Harris to be aware of her tone, especially in a campaign where these specific tropes have been central to Trump and Republican attacks against her. But if Harris presents the calm but forceful rebuttal that we saw in 2020, she may again strike the balance that resonates especially well with supporters.
5. Track questions that moderators ask (or do not ask), noting the substance and intention of the questions, as well as what’s asked of whom.
The debate moderators play a big role in shaping the conversation on stage. That’s why it’s important to consider what they are asking — and of whom they are asking it. Consider, for example, whether the debate moderators are asking questions about gender equality to women and men candidates, and questions about racial equity to candidates of color and white candidates. Putting the onus on candidates who represent marginalized groups to explain - and resolve - that marginalization is a problematic, yet common, approach to conversations of racial and gender equity.
Debate moderators have the chance to push men - particularly white men - candidates to interrogate their gender and race privilege in the context of politics and policy. We saw this in a December 2019 Democratic presidential primary debate, when moderator Tim Alberta cited a comment from former President Obama endorsing an increase in women’s executive representation globally and encouraging old men to “get out of the way.” Both Bernie Sanders and Joe Biden deferred the question, claiming Obama wasn’t talking about them, before women candidates Amy Klobuchar and Elizabeth Warren used the opportunity to talk about the value of diversity in political leadership. While women and candidates of color have long been asked to justify their inclusion in politics because they have stood apart from the norm, this and similar questions have forced men to consider the normalization of men’s presidential leadership as inherently unequal.
Women candidates have previously contended with questions about the men in their lives - husbands, fathers, previous partners - whether due to those men’s missteps or attempts to paint women’s success as reliant on these relationships. This requires women to reaffirm their independence and refocus the conversation on their own records. Hillary Clinton did this masterfully in a 2008 Democratic Debate when moderator Tim Russert tried to pin her to a position held by her husband, former President Bill Clinton. After Russert noted the difference in position between her and Bill, Hillary Clinton quipped of her husband, “He’s not standing here right now.” For Harris, it’s worth watching whether attempts to associate her with Biden go beyond the justified recognition of her role in the Biden-Harris administration to insinuate she is not capable of her own agenda and opinions.
6. Don’t ignore gender and intersectional dynamics in debates where candidates share the same gender and racial identities.
Too often, even in 2024, commentators and observers assume that gender or racial dynamics of campaigns are “neutralized” when candidates share gender and racial identities. In all of the ways already listed above, gender and race influence debate context, content, execution, and evaluations, no matter the diversity of its participants. This will be especially important to remember in the vice presidential debate on October 1, when two white men will take the stage.
In addition to the considerations already outlined above, same-sex debates allow even clearer evidence of diversity in gender performance even among candidates of the same sex. Trump has repeatedly taken an especially aggressive approach to debates, directly attacking and attempting to emasculate his opponents — men and women alike. His opponents, regardless of sex, have the opportunity to engage or not on his hyper-masculine terms of engagement or to take a different approach.
In 2024, vice presidential nominees JD Vance and Tim Walz have already presented very different models of masculinity in their gender performance and gendered beliefs. When they take the debate stage next month, we should be attentive to how their adherence to toxic versus tonic masculinities inform their debate strategy, interactions, and success. Additionally, their shared whiteness does not mean the debate will be “race neutral.” The ways in which they acknowledge – or not – their whiteness, address issues of racial equality, and speak about and to communities of color are just some areas where applying an intersectional lens will be especially important in watching the debate.
7. Consider what might be different with more or different types of diversity on the debate stage.
Until recently, we had little to work with to consider how greater gender and racial diversity among presidential candidates and moderators would change the substance of debates and/or how they were received by viewers. We have more of an opportunity to evaluate those dynamics this year, but there is also still value in thinking about what might be altered if the make-up of the debate stage were demographically different. What voices, experiences, and perspectives are still missing? And how might that shape the conversation?
