Gender, Politeness, and the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary Debates

Abstract

Using politeness theory as a framework, this study compared men and women presidential candidates’ argumentative discourse in the 2020 Democratic primary debates. Researchers conducted a content analysis of all twelve debates in which women candidates were present utilizing Dailey, Hinck, and Hinck’s (2008) coding schema. Findings revealed differences in how men and women candidates approached the 2020 Democratic primary debates suggesting that the strategic use of face support and threat can be important tools in building a desirable political image of leadership.

Key Words:

• Argumentation
• Elections
• Gender
• Gender Adaptiveness
• Politeness
• Theory, Primary Debates

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. While “women” is a noun, in this paper, we use it more inclusively as an adjective (e.g., “women candidates”) rather than using female/male which denotes a biological category.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Robert S. Hinck

Dr. Robert S. Hinck is an Associate Professor at Air University. His research focuses on US political debates, strategic narratives, and US-China relations.

Edward A. Hinck

Dr. Edward A. Hinck is a Professor of Communication Studies and Department Chairperson at Central Michigan University. His research focuses on leadership, argumentation, and political debates.

Shelly S. Hinck

Dr. Shelly S. Hinck is a Professor Emerita of Communication Studies at Central Michigan University. Her research focuses on argumentation and politeness in US political debates, service learning, gender studies, and interpersonal communication.

William O. Dailey​

Dr. William O. Dailey is a Professor of Communication Studies at Central Michigan University and Department Chairperson of Journalism. His research focuses on US political debates, conflict, and bargaining.