2016: The Year of “Democrazy” and the Politics of Spectacle

  • Heather E. YatesEmail author
Part of the Palgrave Studies in US Elections book series (PSUSE)


This chapter maps the theoretical underpinnings of the conditions that shaped the political landscape of the 2016 presidential campaign. Among those conditions was the politics of the “no-third-term tendency” that created a difficult path to the White House for Democrats. There are several theoretical considerations addressed in this chapter: first, the politics of backlash and resentment, the politics of intergroup conflict, and the role of gender in politics. This chapter operationalizes the tenets political theme to situate the analysis of the book: the politics of spectacle and the 2016 campaign. Simply defined, spectacle creates something to look at. The thesis is advanced that the components of spectacle were largely anchored in campaign rhetoric and unconventional tactics. At times, the spectacle seemed to intentionally detract from substantive issues.


Political theater Politics of spectacle Gender in politics Intragroup conflict Racial resentment Campaign 2016 


  1. Abramowitz, Alan I. The Great Alignment: Race, Party Transformation, and the Rise of Donald Trump. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018. Google Scholar
  2. Barrett, Lisa Feldman, and Eliza Bliss-Moreau. “She’s Emotional: He’s Having a Bad Day: Attributional Explanations for Emotion Stereotypes.” Emotion 9, no. 5 (2009): 649.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Brescoll, Victoria L., and Eric Luis Uhlmann. “Can an Angry Woman Get Ahead? Status Conferral, Gender, and Expression of Emotion in the Workplace.” Psychological Science 19, no. 3 (2008): 268–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bystrom, Dianne G., Terry A. Robertson, and Mary Christine Banwart. “Framing the Fight: An Analysis of Media Coverage of Female and Male Candidates in Primary Races for Governor and US Senate in 2000.” American Behavioral Scientist 44, no. 12 (2001): 1999–2013.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bystrom, Dianne G. “Women as Political Communication Sources and Audiences.” Handbook of Political Communication Research (2004): 435–459.Google Scholar
  6. Carlin, Diana B., and Kelly L. Winfrey. “Have You Come a Long Way, Baby? Hillary Clinton, Sarah Palin, and Sexism in 2008 Campaign Coverage.” Communication Studies 60, no. 4 (2009): 326–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cassese, Erin C., and Mirya R. Holman. “Party and Gender Stereotypes in Campaign Attacks.” Political Behavior 40, no. 3 (2018): 785–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. ———. “Playing the Woman Card: Ambivalent Sexism in the 2016 US Presidential Race.” Political Psychology 40, no. 1 (2019): 55–74. Google Scholar
  9. Cramer, Katherine J. The Politics of Resentment: Rural Consciousness in Wisconsin and the Rise of Scott Walker. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2016. Google Scholar
  10. Cronin, Thomas E. and Michael A. Genovese. The Paradoxes of the American Presidency. New York: Oxford University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
  11. Curnalia, Rebecca M.L., and Dorian L. Mermer. “The ‘Ice Queen’ Melted and It Won Her the Primary: Evidence of Gender Stereotypes and the Double Bind in News Frames of Hillary Clinton’s ‘Emotional Moment’.” Qualitative Research Reports in Communication 15, no. 1 (2014): 26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dalton, Russell J. “The Blinders of Partisanship and the 2016 US Election.” Oxford University Press Blog. January 9, 2017. Accessed at
  13. Denton, Robert E. The Primetime Presidency of Ronald Reagan: The Era of the Television Presidency. Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 1988. Google Scholar
  14. Dittmar, Kelly. Navigating Gendered Terrain: Stereotypes and Strategy in Political Campaigns. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press, 2015.Google Scholar
  15. ———. “Finding Gender in the Election 2016: Lessons from Presidential Gender Watch.” Center for American Women in Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics. 2016. Accessed at
  16. Dolan, Kathleen A., and Thomas M. Holbrook. “Knowing Versus Caring: The Role and Affect and Cognition in Political Perceptions.” Political Psychology 22, no. 1 (2001): 27–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Dunaway, Johanna, Regina G. Lawrence, Melody Rose, and Christopher R. Weber. “Traits Versus Issues: How Female Candidates Shape Coverage of Senate and Gubernatorial Races.” Political Research Quarterly 66, no. 3 (2013): 715–726.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Edelman, Murray. The Symbolic Uses of Politics. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1964.Google Scholar
  19. Falk, Erika. Women for President: Media Bias in Eight Campaigns. Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 2008.Google Scholar
  20. Falk, Erika, and Kate Kenski. “Issue Saliency and Gender Stereotypes: Support for Women as Presidents in Times of War and Terrorism.” Social Science Quarterly 87, no. 1 (2006): 1–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fox, Richard L., and Jennifer L. Lawless. “Gendered Perceptions and Political Candidacies: A Central Barrier to Women’s Equality in Electoral Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 55, no. 1 (2011): 59–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Genovese, Michael, ed. Presidential Leadership in an Age of Change. Abingdon: Routledge, 2017. Google Scholar
  23. Genovese, Michael, and Todd Belt. The Post-Heroic Presidency: Leveraged Leadership in an Age of Limits. Denver, CO: Praeger, 2016.Google Scholar
  24. Guarino, Ben. “Fake News Spreads ‘Farther, Faster, Deeper’ Than Truth, Study Finds.” The Washington Post. March 8, 2018.Google Scholar
  25. Hall, Thad, and Betsy Sinclair. A Connected America: Politics in the Era of Social Media. New York: Oxford University Press, 2019.Google Scholar
  26. Han, Lori Cox. Women and US politics: The spectrum of political leadership. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner Publishers, 2010.Google Scholar
  27. Han, Lori Cox, and Caroline Heldman, eds. Rethinking Madam President: Are We Ready for a Woman in the White House? Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2007.Google Scholar
  28. Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37, no. 1 (1993): 119–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Jalalzai, Farida. “Women Candidates and the Media: 1992–2000 Elections.” Politics and Policy 34, no. 3 (2006): 606–633.Google Scholar
  30. Jamieson, Kathleen Hall. Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership. New York: Oxford University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  31. Kahn, Kim Fridkin, and Edie N. Goldenberg. “Women Candidates in the News: An Examination of Gender Differences in US Senate Campaign Coverage.” Public Opinion Quarterly 55, no. 2 (1991): 180–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kahn, Kim Fridkin. “Gender Differences in Campaign Messages: The Political Advertisements of Men and Women Candidates for US Senate.” Political Research Quarterly 46, no. 3 (1993): 481–502.Google Scholar
  33. ———. “The Distorted Mirror: Press Coverage of Women Candidates for Statewide Office.” The Journal of Politics 56, no. 1 (1994): 154–173.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kantola, Johanna, and Emanuela Lombardo. Gender and Political Analysis. New York: Macmillan International Higher Education, 2017.Google Scholar
  35. Kelley, Harold H. “The Processes of Causal Attribution.” American Psychologist 28, no. 2 (1973): 107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kristoff, Nicholas. “Lessons from the Media’s Failure in the Year with Trump.” New York Times. December 31, 2016.Google Scholar
  37. Lawless, Jennifer. “Sexism and Gender Bias in Election 2008: A More Complex Path for Women in Politics.” Politics & Gender 5, no. 1 (2009): 70–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Lawrence, Regina G., and Melody Rose. Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House: Gender Politics and the Media on the Campaign Trail. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2010.Google Scholar
  39. Lorber, Judith. “‘Night to His Day’: The Social Construction of Gender.” Race, Class, and Gender in the United States: An Integrated Study, 54–64. New York: MacMillan. 2004.Google Scholar
  40. Marcus, George E. Sentimental Citizen: Emotion in Democratic Politics. University Park: Penn State Press, 2010. Google Scholar
  41. McDermott, Monika L. “Race and Gender Cues in Low-Information Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 51, no. 4 (1998): 895–918.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. ———. Masculinity, Femininity, and American Political Behavior. Oxford University Press, 2016.Google Scholar
  43. Meeks, Lindsey. “Is She ‘Man Enough’? Women Candidates, Executive Political Offices, and News Coverage.” Journal of Communication 62, no. 1 (2012): 175–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Mezey, Michael L. Selecting the President: The Perils of Democracy. New York: Routledge, 2018.Google Scholar
  45. Miller, Arthur H., Patricia Gurin, Gerald Gurin, and Oksana Malanchuk. “Group Consciouness and Political Participation.” American Journal of Political Science (1981): 494–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Miroff, Bruce. “The Presidency and the Public: Leadership as Spectacle.” The Presidency and the Political System (2013): 299–322.Google Scholar
  47. ———. “The Presdiential Spectacle.” In Voices of Dissent: Critical Readings in American Politics, ed. William F. Grover and Joseph G. Peschek. Pearson Publishing, 2013.Google Scholar
  48. Morjorie Randon Hershy. “The Media: Covering Donald Trump.” In The Elections of 2016, ed. Michael Nelson. Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2018.Google Scholar
  49. Nagourney, A. “Calling Senator Clinton ‘Angry,’ GOP Chairman Attacks.” The New York Times, 2006.Google Scholar
  50. Olsen, Henry, and Dante J. Scala. “The Paths to the 2016 Republican Nomination.” In The Four Faces of the Republican Party, 122–147. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016.Google Scholar
  51. Paisley, Pamela O. Gender Issues in Supervision. ERIC Clearinghouse, 1994. Google Scholar
  52. Parry-Giles, Shawn J., and Trevor Parry-Giles. “Gendered Politics and Presidential Image Construction: A Reassessment of the ‘Feminine Style’.” Communications Monographs 63, no. 4 (1996): 337–353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Popkin, Samuel L., and Samuel L. Popkin. The Reasoning Voter: Communciation and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. University of Chicago Press, 1994.Google Scholar
  54. Prager, Dennis. “The Feminization of America Is Bad for the World.” The National Review. November 3, 2015.Google Scholar
  55. Ranney, Austin. Channels of Power: The Impact of Television on American Politics. New York: Basic Books, 1983.Google Scholar
  56. Rawls, John. A Theory of Social Justice. Cambridge, MA: Belknap, 1971.Google Scholar
  57. Rudman, Laurie A., and Kimberly Fairchild. “Reactions to Counterstereotypic Behavior: The Role of Backlash in Cultural Stereotype Maintenance.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 87, no. 2 (2004): 157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Sanchez, Leslie. You’ve Come a Long Way, Maybe: Sarah, Michelle, Hillary, and the Shaping of the New American Woman. New York: Macmillan, 2009.Google Scholar
  59. Scheckels, Theodore F., Nichola D. Gutgold, and Diana B. Carlin. Gender and the American Presidency: Nice Presidential Woman and the Barriers They Faced. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2012. Google Scholar
  60. Sheeler, Kristina Horn, and Karrin Vasby Anderson. Woman President: Confronting Postfeminist Political Culture. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2013.Google Scholar
  61. Shoaf, Nicole R. Foster, and Tara N. Parsons. “18 Million Cracks, but No Cigar: News Media and the Campaigns of Clinton, Palin, and Bachmann.” Social Sciences 5, no. 3 (2016): 1–15.Google Scholar
  62. Sides, John, Daron R. Shaw, Matthew Grossman, and Kenna Lipsitz. Campaigns and Elections: Rules, Reality, Strategy, Choice. New York: W. W. Norton, 2015.Google Scholar
  63. Sides, John, Michael Tesler, and Lynn Vavreck. “The Electoral Landscape of 2016.” The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 667, no. 1 (2016): 50–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. ———. Identity Crisis: The 2016 Presidential Campaign and the Battle for the Meaning of America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2018.Google Scholar
  65. Sinclair, Betsy. The Social Citizen: Peer Networks and Political Behavior. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2012. Google Scholar
  66. Skowronek, Stephen. The Politics Presidents Make: Leadership from John Adams to Bill Clinton. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  67. Smith, Jessi L., David Paul, and Rachel Paul. “No Place for a Woman: Evience for Gender Bias in Evaluations of Presidential Candidates.” Basic and Applied Social Psychology 29, no. 3 (2007): 225–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Theiss-Morse, Elizabeth, and John R. Hibbing. “Citizensip and Civic Engagement.” Annual Review of Political Science 8 (2005): 227–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Tiedens, Larissa Z. “Ander and Advancement Versus Sadness and Subjugation: The Effect of Negative Emotion Expressions on Social Status Conferral.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 80, no. 1 (2001): 86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Valentino, Nicholas A., Carly Wayne, and Marzia Oceno. “Mobilizing Sexism: The Interaction of Emotion and Gender Attitudes in the 2016 US Presidential Election.” Public Opinion Quarterly 82, no. 1 (2018): 213–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Van Dyke, Vernon. Ideology and Political Choice: The Search for Freedom, Justice, and Virtue. London, UK: Chatham House Publishers, 1995.Google Scholar
  72. Vaughn, Justin S., and Jennifer R. Mercieca, eds. The Rhetoric of Heroic Expectations: Establishing the Obama Presidency, vol. 24. College Station: Texas A&M University Press, 2014.Google Scholar
  73. Wasburn, Philo C., and Mara H. Wasburn. “Media Coverage of Women in Politics: The Curious Case of Sarah Palin.” Media, Culture & Society 33, no. 7 (2011): 1027–1041.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Wattenberg, Martin P. The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952–1996. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2009. Google Scholar
  75. Weaver, David, Maxwell McCombs, and Donald L. Shaw. “Agenda-Setting Research: Issues, Attributes, and Influences.” Handbook of Political Communication Research 257 (2004). Google Scholar
  76. Witt, Linda, Karen M. Paget, and Glenna Matthews. Running as a Woman: Gender and Power in American Politics. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Central ArkansasConwayUSA

Personalised recommendations