What It Takes to Win: Questioning “Gender Neutral” Outcomes in U.S. House Elections

Pearson, Kathryn; McGhee, Eric

doi:10.1017/s1743923x13000433

Cited by 102 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 44 publications

(53 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…On the other hand, it is also possible that Democratic women need to work harder to achieve the same results. Analyzing general election results from 1984 to 2012, Pearson and McGhee (2013) find that nonincumbent Democratic but not Republican women need to raise more money and run in more partisan friendly districts to win suggesting that Democratic women need to work harder to win at the same rate.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Aren't There More Republican Women in Congress? Gender, Partisanship, and Fundraising Support in the 2010 and 2012 Elections

Kitchens

Swers

2016

Pol & Gen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

S ince the early 1990s, women have slowly increased their presence in Congress. However, a gap has opened up such that the number of Democratic women far outpaces the number of Republican women. Indeed, in the 114th Congress, women constituted one-third of the Democratic caucus but less than 10% of the Republican caucus (Center for the American Woman and Politics 2015). To better understand the electoral environment women candidates face and how challenges vary for Republican and Democratic women, we focus on one of the most critical elements of a viable candidacy: fundraising. Previous studies of the impact of gender on fundraising analyze general election nominees but do not evaluate differences in the experience of all primary candidates. Moreover, past studies do not fully examine differences in sources and levels of financial support across all partisan and gender groups, including Democratic men and women and Republican men

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Aren't There More Republican Women in Congress? Gender, Partisanship, and Fundraising Support in the 2010 and 2012 Elections

Kitchens

Swers

2016

Pol & Gen

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We also include a variable for whether the candidate ran in the previous election to account for candidates who ran previous campaigns and established donor networks as well as frequent candidates who are less viable than other competitors. Because the donors who give the most to campaigns are geographically concentrated in a small number of cities and states (Gimpel, Lee, and Kaminski 2006) and because scholars have found that women are more likely to be elected from specific districts that are more wealthy, racially diverse, and urban, we include additional measures of district characteristics (Palmer and Simon 2012;Pearson and McGhee 2013). These district-level measures from the census include median household income, the proportion of the population that is white, and the proportion of residents in urban areas.…”

Section: Measuring Candidate Donor Networkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Which Women Can Run? Gender, Partisanship, and Candidate Donor Networks

Thomsen

Swers

2017

Political Research Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is well known that women are underrepresented in the U.S. Congress, constituting only 19 percent of House members and 20 percent of Senators (Center for American Women and Politics [CAWP] 2016). However, there is also a distinct partisan skew in women's representation as the number of Democratic women in Congress far outpaces the number of Republican women. The disparity emerged in the 1992 "Year of the Woman" elections and continues to grow. In the current 114th Congress, women constitute 33 percent of the House Democratic caucus but only 9 percent of the Republican caucus (CAWP 2016). Recent scholarship rejects campaign finance as a cause of women's underrepresentation in Congress because women raise as much money as men running in similar races. However, we argue that the composition of the parties' electoral coalitions and the candidate-centered nature of campaign fundraising make it easier for particular candidates to run.This article provides the first in-depth examination of the gender of campaign donors giving itemized individual donations. We use a unique dataset that includes primary and general election candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives in 2010 and 2012 to examine the gender composition of candidates' donor networks. Analyzing both successful and failed primary challenger, open seat, and incumbent candidates provides a better picture of the gender and partisan differences in the donor networks of male and female candidates. Given the increasing polarization of Congress and the research consensus that donors are more extreme than average voters, we also pay special attention to candidate ideology. Rather than inferring the preferences of donors through the aggregate activity of women's political action committees (PACs), we track the total amount of donations candidates receive from male and female donors.In line with previous research, we find that the ideological views of candidates are important to individual donors. Moreover, donors exhibit a gender affinity effect that is especially strong among Democrats, with female donors favoring Democratic women and male donors more likely to give to Democratic men. Furthermore, Democratic female donors appear to value the election of AbstractRecent scholarship rejects campaign finance as a cause of women's underrepresentation in Congress because women raise as much money as men running in similar races. We argue that campaign finance still impacts which women can make a run for office because candidates have to build their own donor networks. Using a unique dataset that includes primary and general election candidates for the U.S. House in 2010 and 2012, we examine the gender composition of candidates' donor networks. We find that candidates' ideological views are very important to contributors. Donors, particularly Democrats, also exhibit a gender affinity effect in which men give more to male candidates and women favor female candidates. Furthermore, female Democratic donors seem to value the election of women, especially liberal Democrati...

show abstract

“…For example, Anzia and Berry (2011) have shown that women in Congress sponsor and co-sponsor more bills than men do, and deliver about 9% more funding to their districts. They attribute this success to the fact that successful female candidates for Congress must overcome both potential discrimination and women's tendency to underestimate their own qualifications (Fox & Lawless, 2005), meaning that those women who win office are exceptionally qualified and confident (see also Epstein, Niemi, & Powell, 2005;Pearson & McGhee, 2013). At the subnational level, Bratton and Haynie (1999) examine six states across three decades and find that women are generally as effective as men at achieving passage of their legislative proposals (see also Saint-Germain, 1989;Thomas & Welch, 1991;Thomas, 1995).…”

Section: Women's Influence In American Political Institutionsmentioning

confidence: 99%