Abstract
From the moment Donald Trump took the oath of office, women’s political engagement skyrocketed. This groundswell of activism almost immediately led to widespread reporting that Trump’s victory was inspiring a large new crop of female candidates across the country. We rely on a May 2017 national survey of “potential candidates” and the 2018 midterm election results to assess whether this “Trump Effect” materialized. Our analysis uncovers some evidence for it. Democrats – especially women – held very negative feelings toward Trump, and those feelings generated heightened political interest and activity during the 2018 election cycle. That activism, however, was not accompanied by a broad scale surge in women’s interest in running for office. In fact, the overall gender gap in political ambition today is quite similar to the gap we’ve uncovered throughout the last 20 years. Notably, though, about one quarter of the Democratic women who expressed interest in running for office first started thinking about it only after Trump was elected. That relatively small group of newly interested candidates was sufficient to result in a record number of Democratic women seeking and winning election to Congress. With no commensurate increase in Republican women’s political engagement or candidate emergence, however, prospects for gender parity in US political institutions remain bleak.
About the authors
Jennifer L. Lawless is the author or co-author of six books, including Women on the Run: Gender, Media, and Political Campaigns in a Polarized Era and It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. Her research on political ambition, campaigns and elections, and women and politics has been supported by the National Science Foundation, appeared in numerous academic journals, and is regularly cited in the popular press. She is an associate editor of the American Journal of Politics Science, and holds an appointment as a non-resident senior fellow at the Brookings Institution. She graduated from Union College with a BA in political science, and Stanford University with an MA and PhD in political science. In 2006, she sought the Democratic nomination for the US House of Representatives in Rhode Island’s second congressional district. Although she lost the race, she remains an obsessive political junkie.
Richard L. Fox conducts research that examines how gender affects voting behavior, state executive elections, congressional elections, and political ambition. Most recently he is co-editor of Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics and coauthor of Women, Men & US Politics: Ten Big Questions. Other books include Running from Office: Why Young Americans Are Turned Off to Politics and It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. His articles have appeared in Journal of Politics, American Journal of Political Science, American Political Science Review, Political Psychology, PS, Women & Politics, Political Research Quarterly, and Public Administration Review. He holds a BA in political science from Claremont McKenna College and a PhD from University of California, Santa Barbara.
Appendix: Data Collection and the Sample
We conducted our survey of potential candidates through GfK Custom Research LLC (formerly Knowledge Networks), which relies on a probability-based online non-volunteer access panel. In our case, GfK employed customized stratified random sampling based on level of education and employment status; only college-educated citizens who were employed full-time were eligible to be surveyed. The response rate for men was 58% and for women 55%. Table A1 provides basic demographics of the respondents.
Demographics of the Sample.
| Women | Men | |
|---|---|---|
| Party Affiliation | ||
| Strong Democrat | 27% | 18% |
| Democrat | 19 | 11 |
| Independent, leaning Democrat | 18 | 20 |
| Independent | 2 | 2 |
| Independent, leaning Republican | 11 | 20 |
| Republican | 12 | 12 |
| Strong Republican | 11 | 17 |
| Race | ||
| White | 72 | 75 |
| Black | 10 | 6 |
| Latino/Hispanic | 8 | 7 |
| More than Two Races or Other | 11 | 11 |
| Household Income | ||
| Less than $50,000 | 15 | 10 |
| $50,001–$74,999 | 15 | 13 |
| $75,000–$99,999 | 19 | 15 |
| $100,00–$199,000 | 43 | 47 |
| At least $200,000 | 9 | 15 |
| Highest Degree Received | ||
| Bachelor’s degree | 56 | 57 |
| Master’s degree | 32 | 30 |
| Doctorate or professional degree | 12 | 13 |
| Age | ||
| 18–29 | 18 | 15 |
| 30–44 | 31 | 30 |
| 45–59 | 32 | 34 |
| 60 or older | 19 | 20 |
| Region | ||
| Northeast | 23 | 21 |
| Midwest | 23 | 20 |
| South | 32 | 34 |
| West | 23 | 26 |
| Sample Size | 1001 | 1061 |
Entries are based on raw (unweighted) data.
References
Anzia, Sarah F., and Christopher R. Berry. 2011. “The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect: Why Do Congresswomen Outperform Congressmen?” American Journal of Political Science 55 (3): 478–493.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2011.00512.xSearch in Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2000. “Partisanship and Voting Behavior, 1956–1996.” American Journal of Political Science 44 (1): 35–50.10.2307/2669291Search in Google Scholar
Bartels, Larry M. 2002. “Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions.” Political Behavior 24 (2): 117–150.10.1023/A:1021226224601Search in Google Scholar
Burns, Nancy, Kay Lehman Schlozman, and Sidney Verba. 2001. The Private Roots of Public Action: Gender, Equality, and Political Participation. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.10.4159/9780674029088Search in Google Scholar
Burrell, Barbara. 1992. “Women Candidates in Open Seat Primaries for the U.S. House of Representatives, 1968–1990.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 17 (4): 493–508.10.2307/439863Search in Google Scholar
Burrell, Barbara. 2014. Gender in Campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.10.3998/mpub.213944Search in Google Scholar
Campbell, David E., and Christina Wolbrecht. 2006. “See Jane Run: Women Politicians as Role Models for Adolescents.” Journal of Politics 68 (1): 233–247.10.1111/j.1468-2508.2006.00402.xSearch in Google Scholar
Center for American Women and Politics. 2017. Gender Differences in Voter Turnout. New Brunswick, NJ: Eagleton Institute of Politics.Search in Google Scholar
Cohen, Geoffrey L. 2003. “Party over Policy: The Dominating Impact of Group Influence on Political Beliefs.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 85 (5): 808–822.10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.808Search in Google Scholar
Conway, M. Margaret, David W. Ahern, and Gertrude A. Steuernagel. 2004. Women and Political Participation: Cultural Change in the Political Arena, 2nd edition. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.Search in Google Scholar
Crowder-Meyer, Melody. 2013. “Gendered Recruitment without Trying: How Local Party Recruiters Affect Women’s Representation.” Politics & Gender 9 (4): 390–413.10.1017/S1743923X13000391Search in Google Scholar
Dolan, Kathleen. 2004. Voting for Women: How the Public Evaluates Women Candidates. Boulder: Westview Press.Search in Google Scholar
Freedman, Estelle. 2002. No Turning Back. New York: Ballantine Books.Search in Google Scholar
Fowlkes, Diane L., Jerry Perkins, and Sue Tolleson Rinehart. 1979. “Gender Roles and Party Roles.” American Political Science Review 73 (3): 772–780.10.2307/1955403Search in Google Scholar
Fox, Richard L. 2018. “Congressional Elections: Women’s Candidacies and the Road to Gender Parity.” In Gender and Elections, 4th edition, edited by Susan J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox, New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/9781108277792Search in Google Scholar
Fox, Richard L., and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2011. “Gendered Perceptions and Political Candidacies: A Central Barrier to Women’s Equality in Electoral Politics.” American Journal of Political Science 55 (1): 59–73.10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00484.xSearch in Google Scholar
Fox, Richard L., and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2014. “Uncovering the Origins of the Gender Gap in Political Ambition.” American Political Science Review 108 (3): 499–519.10.1017/S0003055414000227Search in Google Scholar
Fulton, Sarah A., Cherie D. Maestas, L. Sandy Maisel, and Walter J. Stone. 2006. “The Sense of a Woman: Gender, Ambition, and the Decision to Run for Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 59 (2): 235–248.10.1177/106591290605900206Search in Google Scholar
Hansen, Susan B. 1997. “Talking About Politics: Gender and Contextual Effects on Political Proselytizing.” Journal of Politics 59 (1): 73–103.10.2307/2998216Search in Google Scholar
Hayes, Danny, and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2016. Women on the Run: Gender, Media, and Political Campaigns in a Polarized Era. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9781316336007Search in Google Scholar
Jones, Philip E. 2014. “Does the Descriptive Representation of Gender Influence Accountability for Substantive Representation?” Politics & Gender 10 (2): 175–199.10.1017/S1743923X14000038Search in Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2005. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.Search in Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Kathryn Pearson. 2008. “The Primary Reason for Women’s Under-Representation: Re-Evaluating the Conventional Wisdom.” Journal of Politics 70 (1): 67–82.10.1017/S002238160708005XSearch in Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511778797Search in Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2012. Men Rule: The Continued Under-Representation of Women in U.S. Politics. Washington, DC: Women & Politics Institute.Search in Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2017. Women, Men & U.S. Politics: 10 Big Questions. New York: W.W. Norton.Search in Google Scholar
Lawless, Jennifer L., Sean M. Theriault, and Samantha Guthrie. 2018 “Nice Girls? Sex, Collegiality, and Bipartisan Cooperation in the U.S. Congress.” Journal of Politics 80 (4): 1268–1282.10.1086/698884Search in Google Scholar
Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes’.” Journal of Politics 61 (3): 628–657.10.2307/2647821Search in Google Scholar
Niven, David. 2006. “Throwing Your Hat Out of the Ring: Negative Recruitment and the Gender Imbalance in State Legislative Candidacy.” Politics & Gender 2 (4): 473–489.10.1017/S1743923X06060120Search in Google Scholar
Pearson, Kathryn, and Logan Dancey. 2011. “Speaking for the Underrepresented in the House of Representatives: Voicing Women’s Interests in a Partisan Chamber.” Politics & Gender 7 (4): 493–519.10.1017/S1743923X1100033XSearch in Google Scholar
Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2006. Where Women Run: Gender and Party in the American States. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.10.3998/mpub.168630Search in Google Scholar
Schulze, Corina. 2013. “Women, Earmarks, and Substantive Representation: Assessing Commitment to Women’s Issues through Requests for Funding.” Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy 34 (2): 138–158.10.1080/1554477X.2013.776389Search in Google Scholar
Schulze, Corina, and Jared Hurvitz. 2016. “The Dynamics of Earmark Requests for the Women and Men of the U.S. House of Representatives.” Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy 37 (1): 66–86.Search in Google Scholar
Sides, John, and Lynn Vavreck. 2013. The Gamble: Choice and Chance in the 2012 Presidential Election. Princeton: Princeton University Press.10.2307/j.ctt7ztpn1Search in Google Scholar
Swers, Michele L. 2013. Women in the Club: Gender and Policy Making in the Senate. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.10.7208/chicago/9780226022963.001.0001Search in Google Scholar
Verba, Sidney, Key Lehman Schlozman, and Henry E. Brady. 1995. Voice and Equality: Civic Voluntarism in American Politics. Cambridge: Harvard University.10.2307/j.ctv1pnc1k7Search in Google Scholar
Volden, Craig, Alan E. Wiseman, and Dana E. Wittmer. 2013. “When Are Women More Effective Lawmakers than Men?” American Journal of Political Science 57 (2): 326–341.10.1111/ajps.12010Search in Google Scholar
©2018 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
