A perennial question facing political scientists in the United States is, Why aren’t more women elected to political office? Explanations for the underrepresentation of women tend to focus on three causes: individual-level factors stemming from gender socialization, institutional barriers and political gatekeepers, and voter bias. Yet scholars examining these features of American elections and candidates often find that women are not clearly disadvantaged when it comes to seeking elective office. Nichole Bauer suggests that these findings can be attributed, in part, to a lack of specificity and nuance when comparing electoral outcomes between men and women seeking office. She argues that “gender-neutral outcomes are not indicative of gender-neutral processes” (p. 15) and that there is a qualifications gap between men and women seeking office such that women, on average, need to be more qualified than their male competitors to win.

In her book, Bauer devotes significant attention to exploring the qualifications gap and the ways in which voter bias affects women’s success as candidates. In justifying her focus on voters, Bauer identifies several limitations with existing studies’ approaches to examining voter preferences when it comes to women candidates. First, she notes that studies comparing the electoral outcomes of men and women seeking office are insufficient because they cannot control for candidate qualifications. She indicates that there is “virtually no ‘real world’ scenario that pits a female candidate against a male candidate with the exact same qualifications” (p. 13). Moreover, she suggests that studies focusing on candidate messaging often ignore the ways in which women candidates talk about their qualifications and that this messaging has important implications for voters, especially in low-information contexts. Finally, she suggests that little research attention has been dedicated to understanding how voters react when confronted with information about a female candidate’s experience and accomplishments, especially in terms of how that information might challenge a voter’s preexisting gendered beliefs about the candidate.

To overcome these limitations, Bauer employs several methodological techniques and applies theories across political science, psychology, and social psychology to advance her central argument: assessments of what it means to be qualified for political office are inherently tied to masculinity. She draws on social role theory to develop a framework for understanding why masculinity and leadership are so closely associated. To advance her argument, she traces conceptualizations of what is considered masculine and feminine and how those conceptualizations stem from the biological capabilities of males and females. She asserts that, over time, masculine traits have become more closely associated with leadership and that measures of political qualifications are inherently masculine because they rely most commonly on experiences and backgrounds that men are more likely to have.

Next, Bauer examines the role of voter information and the impact that information levels have on candidate support. She embarks on an impressive content analysis of campaign websites for Senate candidates during the 2016 election cycle, followed by a content analysis of campaign coverage for these candidates. She finds that, although men and women do not engage in different self-promotion patterns on their websites, media coverage of the political and professional experience of men and women seeking office does differ: female candidates receive less coverage highlighting their qualifications than male candidates. These results suggest that media coverage is reinforcing beliefs about women candidates and their applicable experience.

Bauer then explores the ways in which voters might hold male and female candidates to different standards based on gender (chapter 5) and partisanship (chapter 6). She finds that, although women receive positive evaluations for their qualifications, this assessment is a result of an implicit comparison between the woman candidate and a “typical woman” (p. 98). When it comes to making electoral decisions, however, voters revert to comparing women candidates to masculine standards. This creates an environment wherein women have to excel to be able to meet the expectations of voters, thus explaining some of the qualifications gap. Bauer then moves on to examine the impact of partisanship on these assessments. She finds that because there is an association between the Democratic Party and femininity, there is more parity in voter assessments between Democratic women and Democratic men seeking office. However, the Republican Party is more closely associated with masculinity. This association exacerbates a Republican preference for male elected officials and helps explain why there are far fewer Republican women elected to office than Democratic women.

Finally, Bauer assures the reader that there are solutions to the qualifications gap. Her last empirical chapter tests several strategies to diminish voters’ reliance on gender stereotypes. Bauer notes elsewhere that voters are not rigid in their preferences for typical masculine traits and experience. However, she also finds that it is not enough to simply highlight one’s qualifications. Instead, voters need to receive information in context. To diminish the role of bias, thy need to be presented with an alternate “comparative anchor” (p. 160) so that they will not revert to gender-typicality, role-typicality, or partisan-typicality standards to evaluate candidates.

Although Bauer’s research is expertly crafted, she has omitted an important consideration that often plagues the women and politics literature more broadly: the role of race and ethnicity in voters’ evaluations of women candidates. Women of color are an understudied group. They are not often the explicit focus of analysis in either the gender and politics literature or the race and ethnic politics literature. Bauer misses an opportunity to enhance our understanding of women of color office seekers and how their experiences differ from those of white women seeking office. For example, women of color are a multiply marginalized group and as candidates must simultaneously battle gender stereotypes and racial stereotypes. How does the qualifications gap and the findings presented in this analysis apply to women of color? On which “comparative anchor” are voters more likely to rely when evaluating these candidates in low-information contexts? Do the same strategies that can help women in the aggregate overcome voter bias also work for women of color in particular? Though these questions are left unanswered in the present analysis, future scholars can pick up where Bauer has left off to determine how these results can apply to other groups.

In all, Bauer has crafted a convincing analysis of the ways in which gender bias continues to creep into voter assessments of women seeking elective office. Through a multimethod approach, Bauer not only documents evidence for the qualifications gap but also identifies possible solutions women can use to create a more equal playing field when it comes to elections. Her work here offers a potential framework for scholars studying intersectionality and voter bias in elections and represents an important contribution to the women and politics literature.