Debate Watching with a Gender Lens

Tomorrow night, Vice President Kamala Harris will face Donald Trump in the first presidential debate of the 2024 general election. Harris is just the second woman to win a major-party presidential nomination, as well as the first Black woman and first Asian American person, so this debate presents unique opportunities to observe how gender and race interact with the American political system. Kelly Dittmar, the director of research at the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) at Rutgers University, has prepared an analysis providing helpful tips for watching tomorrow night’s debate with an eye towards understanding the intersections of gender, race, and politics.

CAWP’s Kelly Dittmar will be live-tweeting throughout tomorrow night’s debate with analysis on the gender and intersectional dynamics on display. Here are some key points from her full post, Debate Watching with a Gender Lens in Election 2024.

Observe the optics of the debate stage from start to finish, including the presence, posture, and positioning of women and men.

Whether it be in their evaluation of candidates’ body language or even differences in height, debate viewers are able to react to candidates in relation to each other rather than independently. 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.

Pay attention to the experiences, perspectives, and identities candidates draw on in discussing their policy positions and priorities, as well as creating contrast between themselves and their opponents.

The dominance of white men on debate stages has narrowed the range of experiences and perspectives represented in presidential debates. Beyond informing policy dialogue, having diverse voices on the debate stage can bring starker contrast to the conversation. Harris will have the opportunity to draw upon her multiple identities – including race and gender – to make the case for her candidacy and/or to present a clear contrast with Trump in experience, understanding, and policy priorities.

Listen for how the candidates talk to and about women and communities of color, identifying the frequency, style, and substance of those references.

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. 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.

Watch for how the candidates engage one another, noting aggression, direct references, and tone of comments or attacks.

It is likely that practitioners are advising Harris to be aware of her tone, especially in a campaign where specific tropes related to Black women have been central to Trump and Republican attacks against her. But if Harris presents the sort of calm but forceful rebuttals like the one she deployed against former Vice President Mike Pence which went viral following their 2020 debate, she may again strike a balance that resonates especially well with supporters.

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.

Debate moderators play a critical 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.

Don’t ignore gender and intersectional dynamics in debates where candidates share the same gender and racial identities.

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.

Consider what might be different with more or different types of diversity on the debate stage.

There is 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?

Read Debate Watching with a Gender Lens in Election 2024 in full on the CAWP blog, and follow Kelly Dittmar on Twitter during the debate for live analysis.