The Women Who Didn't Run

by: Erin Cutraro

Thu Jul 12, 2007 at 18:16


(Bumped to further add to the discussion on this topic. Also, I have posted a lengthy comment in this diary instead of making another front-page post directly in response. The more viewpoints we hear on this subject, the closer I think we will be to an answer and the better off I think we will be. - promoted by Chris Bowers)

Cross posted on the SheShouldRun.com blog.

Chris Bowers is raising the right concern - that we need more women in elected office - but he's asking the wrong question ("Why Did Democratic Women Do So Poorly in 2006 Elections" July 10). In pointing to losses by women in several close races, Bowers assumes the problem lies in the candidates who ran last year or the way their campaigns were managed. But the root of the gender gap in politics rests with the women who did NOT run last year.

The 2006 results for women House candidates were disappointing, but were an aberration based more on the toss-up dynamic of some of the closest House races in history rather than a deficiency attributable to women candidates.

Women are more than half the population, but currently hold less than a quarter of all elected offices in the United States.  We know these women are much more likely to run for office if someone asks them, and if they have access to support and resources to get started. So the real challenge is getting more of the right women on the ballot. If we can accomplish that, we'll see more women in office.

Fortunately, the Women's Campaign Forum is targeting the gender gap at its root: where the pipeline begins. WCF's She Should Run campaign, launched in June, is an initiative to recruit 1,000 pro-choice women to run for office up and down the ballot. It's about finding qualified women across the country who should seriously consider running for office -- your mom who is a community leader with experience effecting change, your sister who has stood up for what she believes in and has results to prove it, your boss who isn't afraid of risk, your best friend who has both the experience and the intellect to make a difference -- and encouraging them to make the jump to school board, city council, or legislature.

See what Congresswomen Debbie Wasserman Schultz and Kirsten Gillibrand and Washington D.C. City Councilmember Carol Schwartz have to say about the importance of encouraging more women to run:

These are the types of projects that our country needs to get women on the road to successful political careers. If we want more qualified women to hold elected office, we need to make sure they get the critical "ask" -- the tipping point -- that gets them to run.

We hope you'll visit She Should Run and nominate one of our great American women.

Erin Cutraro :: The Women Who Didn't Run

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Great idea - but men need it too! (0.00 / 0)
There are so many elected posts in local and state government - many of which, I suspect, are filled by nothing more democratic than inertia - it's amazing (to me, at least) that there are not systems in place whereby talent (of either sex!) is scouted by (some emanation of) the Dem Party to run for such posts. 

Perhaps there are good reasons why there isn't such a scouting system, though...


Agreed--thanks for the diary (0.00 / 0)
For the record, I never meant to imply that what happened was the fault of women candidates. In fact, in the article, I explicitly said that I did not accept such an explanation, and instead laid blame on the way virtually all progressives were promoting women candidates. From the article:

Also, I find it untenable to conclude that the average female Democratic candidate in the top thirty targeted races was weaker than the average top male Democratic candidate....


Instead, it can only point to a fundamental, structural problem in the way virtually the entire progressive ecosystem promotes top Democratic women candidates.

As for this being "an aberration based more on the toss-up dynamic of some of the closest House races in history," I accept that simple randomness can explain part of the dynamic, but I do think it can explain all of it. If we can generally accept that the following races were all toss-ups going into election day (these were the Republican-held seats decided by 5 points or less):

D-men: AZ-05, CA-04, CT-02, FL-16, FL-22, IN-09, IA-02, KY-03, NH-02, PA-04, PA-08, NC-08, NY-19, NY-25, NY-26, NY-29, VA-02, WI-08, WY-AL. 12-6, 66.7%

D-women: CT-04, CO-04, FL-13, IL-06, KS-02, NV-03, NH-01, NJ-07, NM-01,.OH-02, OH-15, PA-06, WA-08. 2-11, 15.4%

I don't think that can just be explained by a statistical fluke.  Bad luck may have had a role, but I don't think it was the entire role.

I am sure there were multiple factors at play. The way Republicans targeted these seats probably played a role. The way the public views women on national security issues probably played a role. The way Dem committees like the DCCC and allied organizations like EMILY's list targeted and worked on these districts probably played a role. The difficulty of the districts where women were given a chance probably played a role. Local factors in each race probably played a role. And when you combine it all together, each of these factors probably did not have a huge impact on its own, but they did all contribute to the overall picture.

It might not necessitate huge changes across the board, but changes and internal improvements can still probably be made. Even in victory, we always need to look at ways we can do better. Too often, winners can assume that everything went right.  Win or lose, we always have to figured out what worked, what didn't, and how we can do things better. I hope we can keep having a discussion on how to make that happen.


I love this idea (0.00 / 0)
And I wonder how many women do actually get asked to run by their state and local parties.  Thank you for posting this diary and making us aware of your organization.

Full Disclosure: I am proud to work at ActBlue.

Good idea (0.00 / 0)
Men tend to be more aggressive and feel more "entitled."  Women do need to be asked or nudged to run--let's be clear about that.  That's just how it is. 

Generally, a party's prospects a year before the election determine recruitment--the better the outlook, the better the candidates.  So we should be looking at good candidates in 2008.  But I still think that women need a little more promotion by the blogosphere, as I kept saying over and over last cycle.  The DCCC needs to be looser and not so know-it-all about how to run, since therir track record last time wasn't so hot, and women candidates themselves need to be a bit more aggressive toward opponents and consultants, mpore true to themselves.  And clearer about their positions.  As someone said, this is going to be like the 1976 election--people are pining for honest politicians who won't lie to them, as they have been lied to over and over for the last 6 1/2 years.

I'm glad to see the DCCC supporting Larry Kissell and others this time around that they ignored last time, and I hope more good women will run for all sorts of offices.

John McCain--He's not who you think he is.


Donate to Open Left









QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search