She is Fierce: Gender should not play a role in a candidate’s electability
In my small Pennsylvania town, I, like many other Americans, was raised to never talk about religion, money or politics. But while zooming around some backroads after a brunch at my local diner over winter break, one of my friends asked which presidential candidate each of us would support in the upcoming election.
I silently navigated the car and braced for a screaming match, but to my surprise, everyone came to a consensus in a matter of minutes. Almost all of them wanted to support Sen. Elizabeth Warren — they just didn’t believe their neighbors and other voters would feel the same. Instead, they resolved to vote for whichever candidate seemed closest to clinching the nomination once our state primary came about.
Like many American voters, my friends considered Warren’s electability as a female candidate over their views on her policies and principles.
When I pointed out that focusing so heavily on electability seemed to push out candidates from underrepresented groups in politics, like Warren, Sen. Amy Klobuchar, Sen. Kamala Harris, Sen. Cory Booker and Andrew Yang, they insisted that it felt most important to pick a candidate who could defeat Donald Trump come 2020. If Hillary Clinton didn’t do the job in 2016, how were they to believe a different woman or person of color could draw enough support come election day in 2020?
And teens in Pennsylvania aren’t the only voters who pay attention to a candidate’s likeability and electability. A June Ipsos/Daily Beast poll found that just one-third of Democrats and Independents thought their neighbors would be comfortable with a female president, and pollsters and media outlets such as the New York Times have focused survey questions and coverage around a candidate’s chances against Trump.
Kelly Dittmar, a scholar at the Center for American Women and Politics at the Eagleton Institute of Politics, said when discussing electability, media outlets and voters should focus on statistics that show women winning elections at the same rate as men rather than subjective and often sexist factors, like a candidate’s likability. Because voters focus so heavily on a candidate’s potential success, Dittmar said female candidates and people of color running at all levels often end up managing “dual campaigns:” a traditional one to prove they’re the best candidate out of the pack and another to show that they’re able to beat the white men running against them.
“Imagine if all of the time that Elizabeth Warren has been on stage and in interviews responding to the question about whether or not she’s electable, imagine if she could instead be talking about public policy issues she wants to be talking about,” Dittmar said. “Or instead of convincing potential donors that she’s electable, she could be making 10 more donor calls.”
Even in 2016, when many Democrats believed Clinton had a clear path to victory over Trump because of his hateful rhetoric and lack of experience, my mom and friends had told me they didn’t think voters were “ready” to elect their first female president right after the country’s first Black president finished his second term.
In each of these elections, voters have justified the electability question with varying circumstances, yet each time it serves the same purpose: telling women and people of color they must continue to wait for their turn to hold office. But that waiting period often feels like it has no end time.
In order to push more voters to see underrepresented candidates as electable, Linda Zerilli, a University of Chicago professor studying gender and politics, said political hopefuls should explain the policy inequities that still exist for women and people of color. She said she thinks issues such as poverty that more so affect women and people of color need to be brought to the forefront of debates and mainstream media coverage, so that all voters see current political actions haven’t done enough to push equity reforms.
Dittmar often reminds her students at Rutgers University at Camden to check their opinions to ensure they’re being as harsh on white male candidates’ platforms, stances and behaviors as they are on women and people of color running for office.
She also thinks female candidates should avoid conforming to male stereotypes that are thought to convey leadership in their campaign messages. Rather than advertising themselves as tough and focused on issues like national security that are traditionally viewed as masculine, Dittmar believes female candidates can change the narrative by discussing other values voters should consider in potential leaders that don’t necessarily align with traditionally masculine traits.
The 2018 midterm election, which saw more female candidates elected than ever before, proved a sign of hope that more voters turned out to support women. In order to keep that momentum and ensure that our elected officials look more representative of the country they’re leading, voters need to pick the candidate they support when they head to the polls rather than the one they believe their neighbors could get behind.
And when anyone tries to bring up the question of electability or says a woman or person of color can’t win this time for whatever reason, voters should remember to defend their policies and stances as they would with any white man running for the same position.
Andrea Klick is a sophomore writing about women’s identities. Her column, “She is Fierce,” runs every other Monday.