David Domke’s research while affiliated with University of Washington and other places

Research on the interplay of gender and political party in voters’ candidate evaluations has long focused on all-male elections and more recently on mixed-gender elections. This study takes the next theoretical step and focuses on woman-versus-woman elections. Specifically, we examine political party- and gender-based “ownerships” of political issues and character traits in the context of female-only elections. With an experimental design, adult participants were randomly assigned to read news articles that presented either two Republican or two Democratic women competing for Governor. Candidates were presented as “owning” stereotypically masculine or feminine issues and traits. Findings show that self-identified Democrats and Republicans eschewed the so-called masculine candidate, and preferred instead a partisan woman who created a gender balance of masculinity and femininity.

Scholarship in political communication and gender studies notes that concepts of presidential leadership and masculinity are deeply entwined in one another. Work is needed, though, on how performances of masculinity allow for the accrual of what we call masculinity capital, a linguistic form of masculinity that seems to become particularly significant and useful during times of threat and crisis in the United States. With this in mind, we undertook a content analysis to examine speeches from the 2004 presidential conventions of the Republican and Democratic parties in order to see how masculinity was discursively constructed as well as strategically employed. Our analysis indicates that public constructions of dominant masculinity were used by both political parties in order to shape party identity, and that a construction of hegemonic masculinity, which emasculated opponents by connecting them to femininity, was used by the Republican Party.

This study explores how news coverage about anti-American sentiment interacts with U.S. adults' sense of national identity and affects their understandings and interpretations of such negative attitudes. We build on scholarship on patriotism and social identity to conduct an experiment in which participants read one of two news stories focused on anti-American impressions. The findings suggest that news content influences both (a) how Americans interpret anti-American sentiment in general and (b) how Americans draw upon their identification with the nation in formulating attributions of blame for such sentiments and in deciding on what foreign policies to support.

In their public messages, United States politicians often invoke America in an attempt to unite citizens and build electoral coalitions. Such an emphasis is particularly common in presidential debates, which are climactic “media events” late in campaigns for the White House, when candidates take questions from journalists and citizens while addressing millions of voters. We analyzed the connection between (a) candidates' highlighting of national identity in presidential debates and (b) mass public opinion since 1960. We expected and found that (a) candidates increased their emphasis on the nation during times of heightened national uncertainty, (b) Democratic presidential candidates invoked the nation more often than Republican candidates, and (c) comparisons across elections among incumbents suggest that national uncertainty was more important than partisan identity in eliciting invocations of the nation.

Overt love of God and country have seemingly been prerequisites to be president in the United States in recent decades, if not always. Indeed, the 2008 presidential race was replete with campaign messages showcasing such perspectives—that Barack Obama and John McCain were religiously faithful and deeply patriotic. Scholarship demonstrates the potential political power of explicit appeals to America and Christianity; however, little research has examined (a) citizens' perceptions of candidates' ties to faith and nation and (b) how these impressions may be related to electoral attitudes and intended vote. We address this gap, measuring both explicit and implicit indicators of the Christian-ness and American-ness of Obama and McCain. We expected and found that both explicit and—in a final-entry regression position—implicit perceptions of these traits related to voters' overall candidate attitudes and intended vote choice and that they were connected significantly more strongly for our sample of self-described Republicans than Democrats. Results illuminate these partisan differences and raise questions about their implications for U.S. presidential politics in years to come.

Political actors and commentators in the global ‘West’ have often used two key rhetorical approaches to explain terrorism. On the one hand, they ascribe attacks to terrorists' violent hatred and resentment of democracy. On the other hand, they assert that democracy is the essential panacea for terrorism. These two approaches are linked through a process of discursive ‘articulation’ that inhibits public debate and disagreement. Specifically, the ideological power and unassailable goodness of ‘democracy’ become the simultaneous, self-evident cause of and cure for terrorism. Using five major terrorist events from 1993 to 2005, the article illustrates how political leaders and news outlets advanced a ‘rhetorical regime’ that suppressed oppositional discourse and rationalised innately anti-democratic policies. One result of this rhetorical regime is the hegemonic maintenance of power through new representations of global terrorism.

Religion has always been a part of American politics, but something profound has changed in recent decades. This book demonstrates that, beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980, US politicians have employed religion as a partisan weapon, using it in a no-holds-barred calculus designed to attract voters, identify enemies, and solidify power. The book reveals this political approach by identifying four crucial religious signals used by leading Republicans and Democrats, from Reagan to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush to the front-running candidates for the 2008 presidential election. In their emphasis on God and faith in public addresses, commemorations of tragedies and requests for divine blessing for the nation, the issue agendas pursued, and even the audiences addressed and the nature of Christmas celebrations, today's political leaders use religion for partisan gain in a manner distinct from those who came before. These signals become apparent through analysis of thousands of public communications by American politicians over the past seventy-five years, the tracking of public sentiment on several topics during the same period, and the perspectives of interest groups and political strategists. The result of these developments is an environment in the United States in which religion and politics have become almost inseparably intertwined — an outcome which benefits savvy politicians but endangers the vitality of church, state, and the entire American experiment in democracy.

Religion has always been a part of American politics, but something profound has changed in recent decades. This book demonstrates that, beginning with the election of Ronald Reagan as president in 1980, US politicians have employed religion as a partisan weapon, using it in a no-holds-barred calculus designed to attract voters, identify enemies, and solidify power. The book reveals this political approach by identifying four crucial religious signals used by leading Republicans and Democrats, from Reagan to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush to the front-running candidates for the 2008 presidential election. In their emphasis on God and faith in public addresses, commemorations of tragedies and requests for divine blessing for the nation, the issue agendas pursued, and even the audiences addressed and the nature of Christmas celebrations, today's political leaders use religion for partisan gain in a manner distinct from those who came before. These signals become apparent through analysis of thousands of public communications by American politicians over the past seventy-five years, the tracking of public sentiment on several topics during the same period, and the perspectives of interest groups and political strategists. The result of these developments is an environment in the United States in which religion and politics have become almost inseparably intertwined — an outcome which benefits savvy politicians but endangers the vitality of church, state, and the entire American experiment in democracy.