AN EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT OF WOMEN‘S PERFORMANCE

Burrell contends in Gender in Campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives that women candidates are not disadvantaged when it comes to running and winning elected office in the United States. Drawing on an extensive data set that covers the nine election cycles between 1994 and 2010 and a supplemental discussion of the 2012 election, she argues that many of the factors perceived as disadvantages for female candidates when running for the U.S. House of Representatives result from the structure of elections, not a candidate's sex. After finding few empirical differences between men and women, Burrell concludes that the influence of candidate sex on electoral politics has diminished to the point of near invisibility over these nine elections cycles.

Burrell's new book updates and builds on her now classic text, A Woman's Place is in the House: Campaigning for Congress in the Feminist Era (Reference Burrell1994). Published more than twenty years ago, this work chronicled the growing number of ambitious female politicians who took advantage of a welcoming electoral environment between 1968 and 1992. Her new volume provides a systematic assessment of women candidates’ electoral outcomes and documents further progress and changes for women candidates. Since 1992, the field of female candidates has continued to evolve, with greater diversity in terms of previous electoral experience, region, and previous occupation. Additionally, there is an increasing gap between the number of women Republicans and women Democrats emerging and winning elected office, with female Democrats experiencing greater electoral success. The political climate has also changed significantly since Burrell's original study. A politically active conservative countermovement has expanded in response to the feminist movement that defined Burrell's earlier work (Schreiber Reference Schreiber2012). Moreover, political elites have grown increasingly polarized, creating a more contentious partisan environment.

Burrell starts by providing an overview of the electoral environment female candidates have faced since “the year of the woman” in 1992. Through an examination of attitudes about female candidates (chapter 1) and analysis of news coverage (chapter 2), she concludes that female candidates encounter both advantages and disadvantages. For example, in her analysis of election coverage Burrell notes that during the 1996, 1998, and 2000 election cycles, news coverage of female candidates, while limited, was positive, focusing on women's gains and prowess as candidates. However, media coverage during the 2002 and 2004 elections, which occurred in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, raised concerns about female candidates’ leadership ability as the agenda shifted focus to international relations. Next, Burrell provides a detailed assessment of female candidates in primary elections (chapter 3) and general elections (chapter 4). Paying careful attention to party and candidate status (i.e., incumbent, challenger, open seat), Burrell confirms the long-standing finding that female candidates are just as likely to win as similarly situated male candidates (e.g., comparing female and male candidates who are both running in open seat races). In these chapters, she highlights how partisan electoral swings and political opportunity structures intersect with candidate sex to shape the emergence and success of female candidates. Of particular note, Burrell argues that the smaller number of female Republican candidates is partially a function of their failure to emerge when the political opportunity structure is favorable; however, further research is needed to understand why this is the case. Additionally, the poor electoral showing of the Democratic Party in 2010 resulted in the downturn in women's representation after that election.

Burrell then analyzes women's and men's electoral experiences with respect to financing campaigns (chapter 5) and support received from party organizations (chapter 6). She finds no systematic differences between campaign receipts for male and female candidates. There are several small differences, though: men were more likely to self-finance campaigns, and women candidates took in a greater number of larger donations. These variations suggest the aggregate findings may be masking interesting differences in how men and women finance their campaigns. In terms of party support, she argues political parties no longer treat female candidates as “sacrificial lambs.” Instead, both parties see female candidates as being as competitive as male candidates and offer them similar support. Burrell highlights the importance of existing female leadership in the Democratic Party for prioritizing the recruitment and funding of female Democratic candidates. She also discusses the pivotal role women's PACs have played in recruiting and supporting female candidates.

In the final chapters of the book, Burrell looks at the characteristics and behavior of men and women serving in the U.S. House of Representatives (chapters 7 and 8). She finds few, but significant, differences in the background between the women and men elected to the House. Women tend to be younger and are less likely to be married. Importantly, women also are more likely to have served in other elected positions. After election to the House, though, women and men exhibit similar career pathways. According to Burrell, in the current highly partisan environment, roll call voting differences between men and women have diminished. Nonetheless, the parties structure the leadership opportunities of women serving in Congress. Burrell observes that women have been able to enter into the numerous leadership positions offered by the Democratic Party. In contrast, women have been less successful at obtaining positions of power within the Republican Party; one factor that might contribute to this finding is that the Republican Party offers fewer leadership opportunities than the Democratic Party.

The book concludes with a brief discussion of women's electoral opportunities and outcomes in the 2012 election. Burrell notes that the 2012 election represented a once-in-a-decade opportunity as a result of reapportionment. She also observes that despite a record number of women running for elected office in 2012, it resulted in only marginal increases in women's representation in the House and Senate.

CAMPAIGNS AS A GENDERED INSTITUTION

Navigating Gendered Terrain by Kelly Dittmar is an innovative study of the gendered process of political campaigns. Dittmar argues that we should view campaigns as a gendered institution, explaining that “gender not only is embedded in the expectations for and behavior of candidates but also influences the psyche and strategic considerations of all those involved” (4). Dittmar directly investigates campaign practitioners’ views on gender and strategy. Drawing on original survey data and interviews with candidates, consultants, managers, and party practitioners associated with statewide campaigns for governor and U.S. Senate in 2008 and 2010, Dittmar shows how political campaigns strategically employ gender norms to maximize their chances of winning.

Using this interview data, Dittmar examines whether campaign practitioners view gender as influential in how voters evaluate candidates and to what extent these perceptions shape campaign strategies. Consistent with existing research, Dittmar confirms that campaign practitioners believe voters hold stereotypes about gender traits and issues. Interestingly, there are partisan differences in the perceptions of voters’ beliefs. For instance, both Democratic and Republican consultants view voters as holding traditional gender trait assumptions regarding female candidates as more emotional and compassionate. Democratic consultants are more likely than Republican consultants to perceive voters as viewing male candidates as tougher and assertive. Dittmar demonstrates that consultants who perceive voters’ reactions to candidates as gendered are more likely to consider gender when making strategic decisions.

The major themes and findings of Dittmar's survey research are contextualized through a series of detailed interviews with candidates and campaign consultants (chapters 4–6). Practitioners do not point to gender as a primary influence of campaign outcomes; rather, they identify the political climate, money, party influence, the media, and campaign strategy as the central factors shaping election outcomes. However, Dittmar's interviews reveal that gender interacts with these factors to fundamentally shape the decisions made in political campaigns. Indeed, in something of a self-fulfilling prophecy, gender often is not a primary factor in campaigns’ success because campaign consultants work to minimize its influence on electoral outcomes. For instance, consultants discuss how female candidates negotiate both feminine and masculine expectations when crafting their message. Moreover, campaign consultants for male candidates develop their strategies to counter the perceived advantages of female candidates on issues of honesty and integrity and to avoid potential backlash for violating gender norms in interactions with female candidates. For example, when engaging in negative attacks, consultants cautioned male candidates to avoid overly masculine rhetoric and tone.

Dittmar concludes by exploring the implications of analyzing campaigns as a gendered institution (chapter 7). She argues that despite work pointing to the minimal influence of gender on electoral outcomes, we should be cautious about minimizing the importance of gender in the campaign process. She also examines how campaigns both reinforce gendered expectations of candidates and hold the potential to disrupt and transform these expectations.

INTERSECTIONS OF GENDER AND RACE/ETHNICITY

The increasing number of women candidates is only one dimension upon which electoral politics is growing more diverse. A greater number of candidates are navigating multiple intersecting political and social identities as they run for elected office. Christina E. Bejarano investigates how race/ethnicity and gender intersect in The Latina Advantage: Gender, Race, and Political Success. In this volume, Bejarano challenges the traditionally held assumption that gender and race intersect to form a double disadvantage for racial/ethnic minority female candidates. Instead, she argues gender and racial/ethnic identities strategically intersect to provide Latina candidates with an electoral advantage.

According to Bejarano, Latina candidates have an advantage because they can draw support from a larger base compared to either white female candidates or racial/ethnic minority male candidates. Further, the racial/ethnic and gender identities of Latina candidates intersect to diminish negative opposition. In chapter 1, using data from the General Social Survey from 1972–2010, Bejarano focuses on how a respondent's racial/ethnic identification and sex shape support for hypothetical female and black presidential candidates, gender stereotypes, and racial/ethnic stereotypes. Chapter 2 provides additional evidence that the intersection of race/ethnicity and gender creates a “multiple identity advantage” through analysis of incumbent candidate evaluations in the 1992–2008 American National Election Studies.

The second section of the book analyzes the electoral experiences of Latina candidates. Focusing on the 36 states that have elected Latinas/Latinos to their state legislature, Bejarano systemically examines the types of state legislatures where Latinas have been successful from 2005 to 2009 (chapter 3). She finds that states with higher minority populations and more Hispanic-owned businesses are more likely to elect Latinas. Interestingly, many of the factors traditionally linked to higher levels of women's representation (e.g., professionalism of state legislature, moralistic political culture, and multimember districts) do not translate to higher levels of Latina representation. Bejarano continues this exploration with two detailed case studies of the electoral experiences of Latinas in Texas (chapter 4) and California (chapter 5). These case studies suggest that Latinas generally are high-quality candidates in terms of political experience, community involvement, and campaign contributions.

THE CONTINUING INFLUENCE OF GENDER

A common thread running through these three books is that strategic decision making by political elites is gendered. These strategic decisions are made largely to eliminate or minimize any potential negative impact of gender on election outcomes resulting from stereotypes or biases. Burrell's findings highlight how female candidates carefully consider the partisan context and opportunity structure to maximize their chances of success. Dittmar's analysis documents multiple decisions made by candidates and consultants to capitalize on perceived gender advantages and minimize perceived gender disadvantages by carefully selecting the campaign themes and constructing the public image of the candidate. Additionally, findings by Burrell and Bejarano that female candidates have more political experience than male candidates suggest that strategic calculations influence potential candidates’ decisions of when to run for elected office. One inference that follows from these findings is that since strategic decision making minimizes the impact of gender on election outcomes, relatively few obstacles exist for women seeking elective office. However, this creates a paradox between the apparent limited barriers and the lack of parity among male and female candidates and elected officials.

A second theme running through these books is that voters’ gendered beliefs and attitudes continue to influence candidate behavior and shape electoral outcomes. While this might seem obvious, there is a growing tension among research examining the persistence and influence of sex stereotypes. Burrell and other scholars increasingly argue that sex stereotypes do not harm female candidates and have little impact on vote choice (Brooks Reference Brooks2013; Dolan Reference Dolan2014). However, Dittmar, Bejarano, and others (e.g., Bauer Reference Bauer2014; Schneider and Bos Reference Schneider and Bos2014) demonstrate that voters, candidates, and practitioners see and treat candidates and politics as gendered. Gender stereotypes appear to shape electoral outcomes in important yet indirect and conditional ways. Scholars should not simply ask if gender stereotypes influence vote choice, but rather seek to understand how gender stereotypes shape the behavior of candidates themselves. A gendered approach to women candidates and elected officials would suggest we need to treat gender stereotypes as dynamic, constituted, and reconstituted through the gendered process of political campaigns. Future scholarship should seek to improve our understanding of how gendered institutions of politics—such as campaigns, political action committees, and political parties—shape the expectations and experiences of male and female politicians. Moreover, research on gender stereotypes should examine how the performance of female and male candidates and elected officials interact with voters, regendering and transforming politics.

Finally, each of these books recognizes that gender identities intersect with other political identities. Burrell illustrates how a candidate's partisan identity and the partisan political environment shape the emergence and success of female candidates. She also demonstrates how political parties influence congressional leadership and voting behavior of women once they are elected. Dittmar finds that partisan identities and the gendered beliefs of campaign consultants interact to influence how they help male and female candidates traverse campaigns. Bejarano analyzes how the racial/ethnic and gender identities of both candidates and voters intersect to determine the success of Latina candidates. The intersectional nature of their respective analyses is welcome. In addition to understanding how these interactions produce variation across groups, candidates, and voters, future work could usefully focus on how they create variation within groups of candidates and voters.