Posted by Karol at
I believe you may be right that Republican women are discouraged from running to begin with and face an extra obstacle to election if they do run because of the hate directed at them, but I think there’s probably something bigger at work. Even among Democrats, where equality of outcome is an explicit goal, women make up 24% and 26% of their Senate and House caucuses, compared to roughly 17% of each chamber as a whole. The current count of governors actually works against you – 12% are female, and 2/3 of those are Republicans. I’m going by congressional representatives and governors here because it was easy to get the data and do the math, but I’d be surprised if the same thing wasn’t true of all high level elected offices.
It occurs to me that the cause of the dearth of women at high levels of politics may be the same as the cause of the gender wage gap. If women are more likely to decide based on a variety of personal issues to avoid pursuing high elected offices (or work long hours for uninterrupted years at high paying jobs in the case of the mythical gender wage gap), is that really a problem that can – or even should – be solved? Is there any evidence to support the idea that women would make up 50% of congress if not held down by some external force?
None of this is to say that the left’s war on Republican/conservative women is acceptable. Simply as a matter of basic human decency, the way that the press and the Democratic party treat Palin and Haley (and Bachmann and O’Donnell and…) is incorrigible. But just demonstrating that it was indecent isn’t enough to prove that it’s causing a particular outcome.
Solid article from Karol but there is a lot more going on here I suspect…
There have been 5 coalitions that have dominated American presidential elections: Jefferson/Jackson Dems (won 12 out of 15 from 1800-1859 ); the Lincoln/Grant/McKinley/TR GOP (won 14 out of 18 from 1860-1931); the FDR Dems (won 7 out of 9 from 1932-1967); the Nixon/Reagan GOP (won 5 out of 6 from 1968-1991)…..and where we are now–the Bill Clinton Dems.
Back in 1988, George Bush patria beat out Mike Dukakis among women. Four years later, Clinton won female voters and took 53 percent of the 20 percent of the electorate who were single females–which is even more impressive when you consider it was a 3 man race.
Since that time, women have continued to back the Dems. Since that time, the Republicans have only beaten the Dems in the popular vote in only 1 of the 4 presidential elections that have been held. With more women graduating from colleges than men and with a growing Hispanic population in key states….remember the “permanent Republican majority” that Karl Rove and the usual suspects at National Review and Weekly Standard were gushing about in December 2004? Yeah….professional conservatives in New York and DC failed again. They did that a lot during W’s era.
With the economy being so lousy and with the bad and unpopular healthcare law, Obama should be toast. Should be but he’s not. The national polls look close and Romney has to damn near run the table in the swing states where there are growing numbers of government employees (which explains why Virginia is turning blue), Hispanics (Florida, Colorado, New Mexico, Nevada) and female voters who are increasingly not voting Republican. Can it be done? Yes but Romney has to have his A game.
Does the media go after female Republicans? Sure. But women have been drifting away from the GOP in the last 20 years and the likes of Bachmann and Palin aren’t exactly helping stem the bleeding. There are fewer women leading the Republicans at the national level since there are fewer women supporting the GOP as the years go by.
It’s why for the next few weeks, Paul Ryan is going to be turned into Todd Akin by the Dems and why, as awful as his presidency has been, Obama is still in the game–and is probably a slight favorite to win in November.
Back to my exile…