June 25, 2024 • 53 mins
In this episode VEST Member Terra-Branson Thomas, Senior Policy Advisor at Clause Law and former Secretary of the Nation for the Muscogee Creek Nation talks about the Status of Women in Politics with Kelly Dittmar, Associate Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University and Director of Research at the Center for American Women and Politics at Eagleton Institute of Politics. Kelly is a published author in the field of Gender and Politics. She is also an influential expert in the field, contributing to publications like Forbes Women and serving as a commentator for various media outlets.
If you enjoy the episode share it with a friend and don’t forget to leave us a review.
About our Guest(s)
Kelly Dittmar is an Associate Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University–Camden and Director of Research at the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) at the Eagleton Institute of Politics. She is a published author in the field, co-authoring "A Seat at the Table: Congresswomen’s Perspectives on Why Their Representation Matters" (Oxford University Press, 2018) and authoring "Navigating Gendered Terrain: Stereotypes and Strategy in Political Campaigns" (Temple University Press, 2015). Her work primarily revolves around gender and American political institutions. Dittmar also serves as a co-editor of Politics & Gender, an influential journal in the field. With a background as an American Political Science Association (APSA) Congressional Fellow and experience working for Governor Jennifer Granholm (MI), Dittmar is recognized as an expert in her field, contributing to publications like Forbes Women and serving as a commentator for various media outlets. She holds a B.A. from Aquinas College and earned her Ph.D. from Rutgers University-New Brunswick.
Terra Branson-Thomas, a citizen of the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, has over a decade of experience in federal Indian policy, government relations, and self-governance. At Clause Law, she leverages her expertise from her tenure as Secretary of the Nation for the Muscogee (Creek) Nation, where she increased federal funding by $18 million, boosted grant funding by 40%, and provided strategic economic advice. Her career includes roles in national tribal non-profit management, federal negotiations, and legislative development, with prior experience at the National Congress of American Indians. Terra holds a BA in Native American Studies from Dartmouth College and an MPP from Georgetown University.
This episode is brought to you by VEST Her Ventures, a peer network of women professionals and investment fund for women-led companies building the future of work and care infrastructure needed to unlock women's labor participation, career potential and lifetime earnings. Learn more at www.VESTHer.co
If you enjoyed the episode share it with a friend, leave us a review and don't forget to hit the subscribe button. If you are ready to take your career and business to the next level, apply to join our community of professional women, all eager to help you get there and stay there. Check out our VEST Membership and apply today! www.VESTHer.co
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Hey everyone, this is Erica Lucas, your host and
founding member of Vest, anorganization connecting women
across industries, regions andcareer levels so that together
we can expedite the pipeline ofmore women in positions of power
and influence.
Welcome to another episode ofthe Vestor podcast, where we
(00:23):
explore the invisible barriersholding women back in the
workplace and share stories ofwomen building power
collectively.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
For women in politics specifically, I'm worried we're
not keeping our eye as well asour efforts and investment on
the ball when it comes torecruitment and support for
women candidates.
Often what happens is you havea great year for women, so in
2018, it was a great year forDemocrats.
In 2020, it was a pretty darngood year for Republican women,
relatively speaking.
(00:59):
And I think then folks partyleaders, donors, et cetera go
like OK, we did it In theproject that we did, this
Rethinking Power project, whenwe were talking to a lot of
women officeholders and eventhose working in these fields.
When they get into officeespecially younger and more
progressive women or, on theRepublican side, arguably more
(01:19):
moderate women their base is notsticking with them once they're
in, and so the ability to stayis a real problem.
They go into an institutionwhere they can't make the kind
of quick change that theirconstituencies want, and then
they're called traitors orsellouts or whatever, and I
think that's a real problembecause we're going to lose
(01:42):
women.
You can't just elect a woman andthen be like great she's in,
like folks have to be supportivewhen the party leadership
pushes against them, when othervoters come out to attack them.
Sticking with those women isnot only voting.
It's like getting other peoplein that, explaining to other
people why they're doing whatthey're doing.
(02:03):
We can give money.
Some of us don't love that.
That's the way the politicalsystem works.
But money matters.
It's not only because itmatters for the campaign, it's
also an indicator of support.
So we have power to do thosethings whatever is most
comfortable for you.
But like there are ways to getinvolved that go beyond the vote
, like there are ways to getinvolved that go beyond the vote
(02:28):
.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
In this episode, vest member Tara Branson-Thomas,
senior policy advisor at KlossLaw and former secretary of the
nation for the Muskogee CreekNation, talks to Kelly Dudmart,
associate professor of politicalscience at Rutgers University
and director of research at theCenter for American Women in
Politics at Eagleton Instituteof Politics.
Kelly is a published author inthe field of gender and politics
and she's also an influentialexpert in the field,
(02:52):
contributing to publicationslike Forbes Women and serving as
commentator for various mediaoutlets.
For our guests' full bios andshow notes, go to wwwbestherco.
Forward slash podcast.
If you enjoy the episode, sharewith a friend and don't forget
to leave us a review.
This episode is brought to youby Vest Her Ventures, a peer
(03:13):
network of professional womenand investment fund for women
led companies in the careeconomy and future of work.
To learn more, go towwwvestherco.
This episode was part of a moreintimate coaching session with
Vest members and has beenrepurposed to accommodate this
episode.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
I think I'll just start off and ask you kind of
what you're excited about inthis season.
I know it's a presidential year, but just wondering what you're
excited about and then whatyou're worried about, I think we
all have some concerns.
But just wondering what you'reexcited about and then what
you're worried about, I think weall have some concerns.
There's a lot of initiativesout in the world and everyone's
thinking about those as they goto the ballot box.
So it'd be great to hear fromyou and get your perspective.
Great.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Thanks, tara, thanks for doing this, thank you, erica
and the team for organizing itand having me back so I didn't
mess up too bad last time, and Ialso am just really grateful
for the work that BEST is doing.
I mean, this is part of I'mgoing to talk about, I'm sure
throughout the conversation, themost recent project we did at
the Center for American Women inPolitics, which is called
Rethinking Women's PoliticalPower.
(04:16):
Erica spoke to me, formerSenator Griffin spoke to us for
that and really that project waslooking at how we need to build
political power, not just inofficeholders but in all of
these spaces, and that I know isso important to the work that
you all are doing and will leadto that increase of power.
So thank you and let me talk.
So I don't think you want toknow all my worries because they
(04:40):
are too numerous, but I'm goingto just talk to a few things
about excited, a few thingsabout worried, and keep the
conversation going, but happy toelaborate on anything.
In terms of what I'm excitedabout, in terms of the election,
this is both excited andworried that the stakes are
really high, right, and so whenthe stakes are really high,
women already play a major rolein determining outcomes in
(05:02):
elections, but it will mattereven more right, and so the
stakes for women, the role thatwomen can have in this election,
is huge.
As you probably already know,women outnumber and outvote men.
They've been doing so for over40 years.
Women, of course, are notmonolithic in their voting or in
their policy priorities orpositions, but they are more
(05:24):
likely across the board to atleast consider and raise issues
around gender equality, even ifthey have very different
positions on how to resolve them.
They are also more likely, orwe've seen, at least recently,
that women are more likely to bemobilized by particular threats
on issues around gender orgender equality, like those felt
(05:44):
after the 2016 election andagain with the fall of Roe
versus Wade, as well as issueslike gun violence and
environmental degradation allthings, unfortunately, that we
are really dealing with in anacute way.
So when we talk about the roleof women in this election, there
is also an urgency that I thinkwe're seeing among a lot of
(06:07):
women about their participation.
And the last thing in terms ofexciting and related to that, I
would say, young women,especially young women of color,
have been at the forefront,especially in recent years.
I have a colleague namedMelissa Deckman who's doing some
really important work here onGen Z and mobilization and
advocacy and really pointing tothe gender difference where
(06:30):
young women and again at thatintersection of race and gender
are highly mobilized.
Now the important part isgetting them to vote, because
there's mobilization in theseother spaces but there's also a
disillusionment with formalinstitutions.
But I think there's so muchpotential there and again I hope
that leads to my worry.
(06:50):
I'm worried that not enoughyoung people, including those
most engaged, will choose tovote, disillusioned by the major
party presidential nominees,what's being offered.
But again, I don't think that'sa lack of interest or
engagement, in fact in somecases the opposite.
I don't think that's a lack ofinterest or engagement.
In fact in some cases theopposite.
Right is that we're highlyengaged and see these other
(07:11):
opportunities for influencewhich are also important.
Again, not only an issue withyoung people, also true across
parties and gender folks who arejust turned off by the
negativity and toxicity ofpolitics that they see.
For women in politicsspecifically, I'm worried we're
not keeping our eye, as well asour efforts and investment, on
(07:33):
the ball when it comes torecruitment and support for
women candidates.
I think often what happens isyou have a great year for women.
So in 2018, it was a great yearfor Democrats.
In 2020, it was a great yearfor Democrats.
In 2020, it was a pretty darngood year for Republican women,
relatively speaking.
And I think then folks partyleaders, donors, et cetera go
(07:54):
like, okay, we did it.
And so I think we're seeingthat.
So this year already and I cantalk more about the numbers
we're not seeing record levelsof women running writ large,
we're not seeing record levelsof nominations and probably
won't see huge gains for womenacross the board.
So I will stop there.
(08:15):
But those are some of theworries, but also the prospects
for potential, you know,influence and success.
Speaker 3 (08:22):
That's a really great point, I think, as I was
reflecting on the Oklahomaprimaries and I live in a rural
county in Oklahoma and therejust weren't a lot of female
options, whether you know, nomatter what your party was,
there wasn't a lot of folks onthe ballot to really consider.
And so it's interesting, youknow, when you talk about we
might be in a lull right wherethere's support kind of broadly
(08:45):
from political parties.
Can you talk a little bit aboutyour research year over year
and tell us about the trendmaybe going into 2024?
And if you make any predictionsI know not everyone does
predictions, but if you'rethinking you know abroad if
there are anything we shouldexpect to see or where we still
have an opportunity to influencethe outcome.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Sure, yeah, I'll talk about the numbers first.
So, for those who might not befamiliar, the Center for
American Women in Politics oneof the things we kind of pride
ourselves in and are known forkeeping track of data of women
officeholders as well as womencandidates.
So our website, which I'llshare the link before we get off
, you know, has access to thisand data sets that you can look
(09:26):
at over time to get to thesetrends and also just to know
where things stand.
So I'll give you the shortoverview.
So right now, women are 28.2%of members of Congress, 31.9% of
statewide elected executivesgovernors, attorneys general, et
cetera executives, governors,attorneys general, et cetera
32.9% just less than a third ofstate legislators nationwide.
(09:50):
And then 34% of mayors of thetop 100 largest cities about
25.8% when you expand it tocities over 30,000 in terms of
mayors For Congress, statewideand state legislative levels.
Those are all record highs.
So this is one of those momentswhere you go like we're at
records, but we're far below 50%.
(10:11):
Obviously, those trends havebeen up.
The biggest jumps, again, as Imentioned, were after 2018 for
Democratic women and after 2020for Republican women, pretty
consistently across levels interms of those trends, and then
in 2022, we had a relativelystace this year.
(10:31):
Again some increases, but notsignificant, and I would expect
we're going to see that againthis year.
You know, for those interested,obviously state by state, happy
to talk a little bit more aboutOklahoma or Texas.
I mean, I think in Oklahoma,just to say you know, still 45th
in the nation in terms ofwomen's representation in the
(10:52):
state legislature.
One of seven in thecongressional delegation.
Doesn't look like that's goingto change per the elections
yesterday.
And then about 27 percent ofthe statewide offices, and then
(11:21):
about 27 percent of thestatewide offices.
One trend that is different inOklahoma than in Texas and or
any state.
Many states across the countryis that the representation of
women is dominated, isdominantly Republican.
Across the country, the trendis that Democrats far outnumber
Republicans among womenofficeholders.
Took a lot of reasons why thatis.
Certainly some of those areactive efforts by those within
the party structure, whether itbe electorally incentivized,
(11:43):
which I think is a big part ofit in the Democratic side of the
aisle, or values based effortsto to try to increase women's
representation.
But when we think about thatand even in the case I'm going
to use Oklahoma as an example Ijust think it's a good, a good
case.
We also have to be cognizant ofthe trends in terms of women as
(12:04):
a percentage of their party andin that case, even in Oklahoma,
women are 11 percent of theirparty's office holders in the
state legislative level.
On the Republican side, theyare 53 percent of Democratic
office holders.
So we have to look at the datain ways to kind of think about
power and influence withinpartisan caucuses, especially in
(12:25):
supermajority states.
So again, that is true.
Unfortunately, in terms ofRepublican women's power and
influence and representation,that's pretty true across the
country, we see very few stateswhere Republican women have a
high percentage ofrepresentation.
We've also seen growth in theracial and ethnic diversity of
women office holders, again,especially since 2018.
(12:47):
You can find all thosebreakdowns on our website.
We have a page specificallydedicated to looking at women by
race and ethnicity, but there'sa lot of work to do there.
So again, I'll just hit a fewpoints.
So in the US House, we saw anincrease in that level of racial
and ethnic diversity, but westill just have one Black woman,
(13:07):
one Latina and two Asian womenthat serve among 25 women in the
Senate.
When we look at statewideoffices, that's where the
starkest racial and ethnicdisparities are for women.
Just four Asian American women,11 Black and eight Latina.
Just four Asian American women,11 black and eight Latina, zero
(13:29):
MENA, one native woman acrossthe whole country serving
statewide elective executiveoffices.
That's about 23 of 99 womenserving.
And then again, I'm going touse Oklahoma as an example, just
because what we have on ourwebsite is you can compare the
percentage of women in thepopulation by race and ethnicity
and gender to where it standsin the state.
So you look at Oklahoma.
Native women are about 7.2% ofthe population, 2% of state
(13:52):
legislators.
Latinas are 5.8% of thepopulation, 1.3% of members.
Black women are 4.8%.
Right, we could go down thelist and it's 1% or 0.7%.
So those disparities inrepresentation at those
intersections do persist and Ithink that's something to pay
closer attention to.
I'm going to pause therebecause I have more to say about
(14:13):
24, but I want to give you thechance, tara, to stop me from
talking too much.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
No, I definitely appreciate the commentary about
our representation, you know, inthe general population versus
maybe in the areas wheredecisions are being made about
us, and I wanted to talk alittle bit or ask you about how
that might be impacting ourexperience with politics,
whether that be, you know, fromthe outside just being engaged
(14:40):
or finding someone who mightshare a narrative with us, right
, and then if that creates abarrier to entry for folks who
might be interested in thelong-term, maybe running for
office or serving in some kindof public, if you have done any
research or have any notesaround how those impact, you
(15:00):
know where we get startedbasically.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
Absolutely.
I think this gets to.
You know, we use throw around aphrase, and I'm sure in this
crew, to like representationmatters, but we don't always
explain like why and how.
And I think when we don'texplain we leave it open to the
type of attacks Erica youalluded to at the start of this
conversation, the kind ofanti-DEI, the anti-DEI and the
(15:26):
anti-representation kind of likeattacks are.
You're just checking a boxright, like it's just you're
just doing this because youthink X number of you know women
need to be in these positionsbut we are choosing on merit and
so the undermining, I think, ofefforts to increase
(15:47):
representation along axes ofdemographic identities like
gender, like race, like sexualorientation, can be dismissed if
we don't fully explain what wemean by why representation
matters matters.
And I think for me youmentioned one of them, right.
(16:07):
So representation matters.
I would argue for simplefairness, supposed to be a
representative democracy andit's not.
Yeah, I will say people aren'tsold by that argument, but like
we should use it, it'sabsolutely true.
But then there are symbolic andsubstantive reasons why it
matters.
Symbolically it matters, and Iwould say it's both symbolic and
substantively for the reasonyou mentioned Tara.
(16:29):
We know from research that ifyou see an institution in which
your group, whatever that may beagain, it may be various
intersections of race andethnicity, of age and gender if
you don't see people like you inthat position, you are less
likely to consider that you cando it or you want to do it,
(16:52):
because it's not always like Idon't think I could do it.
It's like I don't want to gointo a toxic institution where
nobody's going to be welcomingto me.
When we interviewed nowminority leader Munson right,
she's now current the minorityleader when we interviewed her
for this project, she talkedabout how lonely it can be woman
(17:20):
in this legislature and thelack of understanding among her
peers and in fact, even theaggression to say things like oh
, you keep talking about raceand ethnicity, right, and really
pushing back against anyopportunity to use that unique
voice and perspective.
So we know that those things domatter for influencing whether
(17:44):
or not people make decisionsstrong.
On the flip side, it's alsoinspirational, right.
So there can be a mixed effectbecause you look at that and you
look at somebody like theminority leader and say like,
well, maybe I too can do that,even though the numbers are
small.
Then, when we get to furthersubstantive, of course,
conversations.
It's about how does it changethe conversation in these spaces
(18:07):
?
And we have a million examples.
I'm sure everybody in this roomhas a million examples of how
it matters when there aredifferent voices at the table,
but those voices are not.
It's not about your demographiccheckbox, it's the idea that
that demographic identity orthat intersection of identities
(18:28):
creates distinct livedexperiences and perspectives.
And for those who really pushback on me on this, I say well,
when a veteran runs for Congress, we hear all around like oh
well, they're a veteran, theymust know about national defense
.
And like this is no shade toveterans, I agree, right.
Like this around like oh well,they're a veteran, they must
(18:49):
know about national defense.
And like this is no shade toveterans, I agree, right.
Like this is like there's anexperience, there's a lived
experience and perspective thatthey're going to bring that is
unique.
You have a distinct experience.
We know, across all measures ofeducation, access to resources,
engagement with police,whatever it may be, we know that
(19:11):
those experiences are different.
Those two matter inpolicymaking because all of
those issues are also beinglegislated.
No-transcript.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Yeah, and I think Monica asked a really good
question in the chat around, youknow.
Are there any thoughts aboutquotas for women, especially in
the legislative bodies?
There must be some examples ina few Latin American countries
where quotas have helped womenprogress through their
legislative and representativeprocess.
Is it a strategy that maybe weshould look at or consider?
(19:52):
Even if it's not something wecan formally put into place,
maybe it's something that weaspire to.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
Yeah, I mean, there are always these questions and
there's a organization calledRepresent Women that is really
focused on structural solutions,right, like how can we change
rules and processes in order toincrease women's representation?
And so they will raise this attimes.
I will admit that I am oftenlike a kind of not critic, but I
(20:18):
am dubious that that ispossible in our system just
because it's a constitutionalchange.
So, as you all know, like tomake a change like that to move
from what would be so quoted asalmost no universally really
occur in places that are notcandidate-centered.
So they're proportional systemsof representation, and I just
(20:43):
find it I couldn't imagine ourcurrent elected leaders allowing
any move to not acandidate-centered system.
But the ways around that thenare do you create?
So?
In other countries they'vecreated party quotas.
Again, that doesn't work here,because we choose the party,
doesn't choose the nominees.
(21:04):
We, as voters, choose thenominees.
So the one place that we havedone it, or some states I think
it's only like two now but thathave done it, are create some
level of quotas in appointees,and then we have tried to do
that in informally when, like agovernor's elected, you'll see
these efforts.
They're often called women'sappointments projects.
(21:26):
I don't know if they'veoccurred in the states that you
all are from, but whereorganizations have come together
.
In fact it would be great forthis group because it's like and
they give what Mitt Romney gotin trouble for the binders
versus full of women.
That's actually not a bad thing.
I like defend Mitt Romney onthis one, because that's what
the Women's Appointments Projectwould do.
(21:47):
It would say here are all thesequalified women.
We are asking you to commit tochoosing 50% women in these
appointed positions.
So we've seen some minorsuccess of that level of quota
at that level of political power.
But I think electorally it'shard.
And then the last thing I'llsay on that is it is how
effective it's been across theworld.
(22:09):
There's a lot of studies onthat.
I think mixed questions.
It depends on the type ofquotas, because sometimes what's
happening is certainly likeplaceholder positions, right?
So the critique of it is oh,they're choosing these women who
just will vote in line with.
We see that in our own system.
(22:29):
Even that doesn't have quotas.
You know, like folks who arecritical and I want to be
careful not to like buy intothat critique.
But I think sometimes in somecountries where there is strong
power of a central person orparty, that that often happens.
So then this gets to thequestion of how do you ensure
that women retain theirindependence and power if you're
(22:50):
in a system where it's moreappointed than it is selected by
the general body?
But it's a great question, andI think we can think about other
ways to pressure parties andalso change voter thinking a
little bit about the importanceof representation in ways that
could lead to it's not quotas,but it could lead to more
(23:12):
emphasis on parity andrepresentation.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
I definitely appreciate what you're saying
around the party structure andsome of the challenges or
opportunities around parties inthe United States and I think
with younger generations inparticular, the party structure
is really becoming this verycumbersome.
I used to be part of theyounger generation.
(23:35):
I'm not anymore, but thatgeneration in general, you know,
really finds the partystructure really challenging and
has created sort of adisincentive for their
engagement, I think inparticular for this upcoming
election.
And I think we sort of all sawmaybe the outcome of party
influencing on women'sengagement in politics.
In the response from SenatorKatie Britt I saw Erica put that
(23:59):
in the chat.
She's the youngest Republicanwoman in the Senate.
We're certainly happy to haveher representation there, but I
wonder, does she reallyrepresent a common experience
among women number one?
And then how she ended up inthat role, if you look back
around that seat and how she gotthere, you know what role do
you think the party played inher being there and influencing
(24:22):
and facilitating or potentiallyhindering women's careers,
particularly from a nationalstandpoint?
I think there's some challengesthere.
Even when you look back around,you know Hillary Clinton's work
coming into the presidentialelection the last you know a
couple rounds, so just curiousif you have any thoughts there.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of directions to
go in, you know, on Katie Brittin particular, look, I think we
have to be able to hold a coupleof things at one time, which is
to say, like I'm going tocelebrate the fact that we have
a young Republican woman in theSenate, and that is a milestone.
(25:01):
Again, does she have a distinctlived experience?
She absolutely does.
Does she have the full power tobring that forth in the current
Senate?
Maybe not, but that's true ofDemocratic women as well.
Right, like that's not so muchlike being restrained by the
Republican Party, it's being ayoung new member.
(25:21):
I think, in the case of givingthe response, not to go too far
down that road.
But that is a you rarely win inthat position, right?
Most, I think, if you're apolitical practitioner, you
don't really necessarily wantyour member or your boss to be
(25:41):
in that role, because it doesn'tend too well for most anybody.
And I think what you saw in hercase was again this reaction of
like she was highly controlled,it was highly produced, it was
inconsistent with what we'veseen before, and so I don't
think there's any denying thatthere was influence beyond her
own in how she gave thatresponse.
(26:03):
What I do think it showed isand for any of you who haven't
seen it yet, rebecca Tracer hasa cover story out in New York
Magazine that came out like twodays ago about the challenges
for Republican women innavigating gender and candidate
representation in this moment,particularly in this kind of in
(26:25):
a Trump Republican Party.
I've been writing about thisfor like a decade, so so glad
that she wrote this and, ofcourse, she did it way better
than me and you know she comesfrom a real, she comes from a
partisan perspective, so likeacknowledge that she's a
Democrat and a progressive, soshe's highly critical.
(26:45):
But I think her points if youkind of step back from that are
very real, which is thatRepublican women are confronting
an electorate that hasparticularly staunch views
around gender.
So questions like society isbecoming too soft and feminine,
much higher numbers of Trumpsupporters, even of Republicans.
(27:08):
So I want to distinguish.
There's difference there.
Believe that, believe that menare being punished just for
being men, believe in moretraditional roles and
representations for women suchas the fact that she's sitting
in a kitchen in that responseand have firmer beliefs of what
(27:32):
we would call in the literature,hostile sexism.
This is things like feminismhas gone too far.
Women are asking for specialfavors, that kind of belief.
That's true among men and womenon the more conservative side
of the aisle.
So you're seeing these women inhighly powerful positions try
to cater to an electorate thatdoesn't necessarily align with
(27:57):
the belief that women should bein those positions.
And then also a presidentialcandidate nominee who's the head
of the party, who's highlymasculinized, right, so engages
in this very masculine I'm thetough guy, I'm the manliest man,
man, man.
So then masculinity becomes thestandard that's so important.
So what she writes about isit's like these women trying to
(28:21):
do all things.
I have to be super masculine,so let me get the gun out, let
me do the hunting and all ofthat.
But I also have to be reallyfeminine and aligned with those
expectations.
And what we saw with KatieBritt, I think, was more on that
side of the aisle.
But then you saw the like andthey're coming for you.
You know that really severelanguage.
So I feel a sort of sympathyfor that, because that is the
(28:44):
intersection of gender and partythat's creating a difficulty
for women on that side of theaisle, especially it happens for
Democratic women.
But the gender dynamics of theDemocratic Party have evolved in
ways that I think have made ita little less challenging to
circle those squares, or howeverwe want to talk about it.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Well, I think it's interesting when you, I think
when I, because I watched theresponse live and I agree,
anyone in the role of doing theresponse is already losing in
some ways, just from a politicalpoint of view.
One, it's really late,especially if you're on the East
Coast, and so it's challengingto have the right energy and to
bring that there.
But I was really reflecting andjuxtaposing her response to
(29:28):
Sarah Huckabee Sanders' response, because Sarah was really part
of the political machine too and, you know, came home to
Arkansas and played that rolevery differently, you know, in
her own response.
And so I think it's eveninteresting how we treat women
in particular roles, you know,in different ways across parties
, and I'm really I just I'm justgoing to put this here and we
(29:51):
can leave it later if we want.
But even the engagement betweenRepresentative Taylor Greene
and Crockett recently that kindof became this meme.
You know, while it was aninteresting and has and it made
me giggle a little bit, I alsofelt a little bit sad that it
happened between two women, youknow, in a very public space.
(30:12):
It just really I thought itreally engendered a lot of
stereotypes, right, and it callson a narrative that sometimes
men use when women are inexecutive roles.
That you know.
Not that men never argue,because I think we can pull up
lots and lots of congressionaltestimony where they argue among
(30:32):
themselves, but it felt reallytargeted in the way that it
played in the media was reallyinteresting.
So I think that also can bereally discouraging for women
who might be interested in doingthis but really just don't want
to engage in that kind ofbehavior generally, right Like,
but you're going to be insituations where you have to
tackle that and and reallyreflect on your own behavior,
(30:53):
because I'm not sure I wouldhave behaved any different in
that situation.
So we would all like to, butit's a very public situation.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
Just real quick, speak to that because I think
what it reflected to for me andI'm going to get a little
academic here, but, like it's,there is so much of this.
We talk about it as genderpower, like a balance of gender
power.
So how much do we kind of valuetraditional, like femininity,
value traditional masculinity,obviously recognizing these are
all stereotypes, they're allsocially constructed.
(31:21):
We know this, ok, but that'slike that's the balance, right.
And so women historically havesuffered because in these
institutions there's been thisemphasis on masculine traits,
expectations.
I mean, when Donald Trump saysyou don't have the presidential
look, it's pretty obvious whathe means.
Right, like you don't look likethe person who's been here
before.
That's the overt way, but thereare lots of less overt ways.
(31:44):
We criticize women and say theydon't fit the masculine
standard, so then we push womento behave in masculine ways and
prove their masculinecredentials.
What I really, what bothered meabout that moment, to your point
, is that both of the women wereplaying into those gendered
standards in ways that reinforcethem instead of what I really
(32:06):
hope we would do Right, which isdisrupt them.
That, like this, there isn'tlike disrupt that balance, that
your value is somehow based onyour femininity or your values
based on your masculinity?
Easy for me to say from anoutside place, but I think that
we see political practitionersthis goes back to Brit and how
(32:28):
all these women also are told tobehave.
Political practitioners arelike we need to win the next,
not even election, the nextpolitical moment.
And again, no shade topractitioners.
I get that that's how you win,but at the same point, there's a
longer term impact of thatbehavior which is changing our
minds as voters and observersabout what we expect and what we
(32:51):
value in these folks.
And so when I did an interviewwith a consultant this was about
10 years ago and we weretalking through some of this and
he was like well, I'm not asocial change agent, like that's
not my job, right, like I'mhere to win.
And I was like I get that right.
But how do we try to thinkabout some of the longer-term
impact of the work that folks inthe political sphere do when
(33:14):
they're crafting kind ofcandidate presentation strategy
and messaging?
Speaker 3 (33:20):
So I think that brings up a really good question
around when we're thinkingabout how we're going to vote
and engage in the upcomingelection.
I think I was really reflectingon an interview that you did
with FiveThirtyEight around thesoccer mom mentality in the
early 90s and how everyone waslike in this monolith of voting.
(33:43):
I think we all know that.
You know the post Roe era isreally a big narrative, but are
there any other narratives or doyou think Roe is going to be as
big as others are?
Are kind of portraying it to be.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
It's a really good question.
I think we don't have enoughinformation yet, but I but I do
think this question about Roe isimportant.
I think the media already islike that's the one thing,
that's the one thing women aregoing to vote for.
And I don't want to discountthe impact.
We saw the impacts of the fallof Roe in specific states,
(34:22):
particularly states that hadabortion on the ballot right.
So states that had abortionballot initiatives, absolutely,
if you look at the impact,particularly for Democratic
women.
So increase in registration,increase in turnout, things like
that, there was a notableimpact.
I think.
I say I think because that wasthe immediate, you know, kind of
(34:45):
we got the data, we gotimmediately.
I think it still needs to bekind of pushed through the more
rigorous kind of peer reviewedanalysis, but I think it's fair
to say Going into this election.
I was just because I saw, youknow we talked about a little
bit what we were talking about.
So I was looking at the MaristNPR poll that came out yesterday
(35:06):
.
So folks have probably likeheard about it because it got a
good amount of attention.
And this is just like the.
You know they cover a lot ofthings, including the horse race
.
But one of the things they askis what is the most important
issue to your vote, yourpresidential vote?
And they have a good, they havesome good crosstabs so you can
look at it by party and gender.
So just to give you a sense ofit 39% of Democratic women said
(35:28):
preserving democracy was the topissue influencing their vote.
So that was the plurality.
14% said abortion.
5% of Democratic men saidabortion, 6% for Republican
women, 2% for Republican men.
When it comes to independentwomen, obviously we're attentive
and practitioners are going tobe attentive to independent
(35:49):
women.
12% say abortion.
But again for that group, theplurality 33% said preserving
democracy.
So I think that we have to beclear-eyed.
That like yes, abortion is amobilizing issue.
It has been on the right inthis cycle because the threat is
to those who are looking forpreservation of reproductive
(36:11):
rights.
The threat will motivateengagement and that is why you
see Biden doing ads on abortionand get targeting them.
For those of you who get youknow targeted ads on your social
media, you're probably gettingthose ads based on your
demographics.
But I don't necessarily think Ithink we would lose out, miss
(36:35):
out on the bigger story by notpaying attention to these other
issues that are reallymotivating women.
And the last piece there I'd sayis I'd be paying much more
attention and the mediatypically, and campaigns as well
, have done a terrible job ofthis over time paying attention
to women of color broadly, butspecifically Latinas and Black
women voters here, and as wellas young women voters here,
(36:59):
those intersections in thoseparticular groups.
We need to know enthusiasm,turnout and, particularly for
Latinas, direction of support inorder to know what's going to
happen in November, especiallyin the presidential level, but
also in states where they'rechanging demographics.
And I say that particularly forLatinas, as well as Asian women
(37:20):
, for Black women you're reallytalking about.
There's not going to be thatmuch movement, despite what some
of the arguments are in thenews right now.
Not going to be that muchmovement in the percentage you
know, like how, the percentageof Black women 90 plus who are
going to vote for Joe Biden.
However, if that turnout isdown, those are the women who
have been the most critical partof the Democratic coalition,
(37:43):
the most critical part of theDemocratic coalition.
And so, if that turnout andenthusiasm, disillusionment is
high and you're speaking only toone issue and not the issues
that matter to those groups ofvoters which are going to be
different, then I think that'ssomething for the Democrats and
the Republicans to be concernedabout.
Speaker 3 (38:01):
One thing that I was thinking about as you were
talking was, yes, black women inthe last presidential election.
But I think even I followArizona politics really closely
because of the work that I do,and women, particularly Native
women, were very important inthat election for senatorial
race.
I think they're currently beingtargeted from what I can see on
(38:24):
the outside.
They're currently beingtargeted, um, from what I can
see on the outside, not havingnot living there um, uh, for the
upcoming kind of close racethat uh could change.
You know the dynamic of womenin the Senate and so, um, I
think it would be, um, it'sstill a good time to be a female
voter.
It's really important, um topay attention and and to make
decisions.
Um, and I and I agree with you,I think Oklahoma really thought
(38:46):
that we would have a morestronger democratic turnout or
our elections would lookdifferent when medical marijuana
was on the ballot a couple ofyears ago, and I don't know if
coattails things always worksout, that's.
I mean, that's kind of where weare, and so I hope we're not
over-relying on that, especiallyas women, who often manage the
(39:07):
finances in the home, are reallyclear about the economy too,
and I know this group you knowis really involved in the
economy and investment and sortof looking after our own
families.
You know, looking forward toNovember, now that we're through
the primaries here, there mightbe a couple of elections.
I know locally we will have atleast one more here in Oklahoma.
(39:28):
Are there any predictions forNovember?
Anything that we should bedoing as as women, you know,
working in our communities,preparing for the outcome of
2024 in any way, anything you'rethinking about?
Speaker 2 (39:41):
Yeah.
So I'll start with kind ofpredictions, which you know,
with all the necessary caveats.
Political scientists are reallybad at predicting things, but
for women office holders, as Imentioned before, I don't expect
that we're going to see biggains, and I think we need to be
ready for that, especially incommunities that are advocating
(40:02):
for that increase inrepresentation.
We have to be able to speak towhy and what to do differently
to ensure that we don't havethat stasis in every election
Again.
We're still underrepresented atevery level, and so, while I
don't think stasis is the signof impending doom, it's a
problem.
It's a problem because we'retoo far from parity and too far
(40:25):
from fair representation.
So at this point in the cycle,from what we know from primaries
, it looks like we'll see moregains for Democrats than
Republican women, at thecongressional level at the least
.
I'll get into a little morespecificity.
So, for context, women are 27%of all House candidates already
(40:47):
filed.
There's only four states leftto file, so that's a pretty.
That number probably won'tchange much.
That's really consistent withthe last three cycles in terms
of the percentage, with 61% ofHouse nominations decided, so we
have more of a ways to go there.
House nominations decided, sowe have a more of a ways to go
there.
Women are 29% of House nominees.
(41:07):
That's down from the last twocycles, so kind of making it
through to the next cycle.
Not hugely, but it is down Inraw numbers.
It looks like the numbers ofwomen candidates at the federal
level will fall short ofprevious highs.
It won't be a record year.
That's true for men as well,because we did look at that.
We were like is it just thatfewer people overall are running
(41:29):
?
I think that's part of thestory.
But we are seeing a slightlyhigher drop for women and a
highest drop for Republicanwomen, at least writ large.
It's hard with Republican womenbecause we're starting from
such a lower number.
So I want to be like all thenecessary caveats that like a
larger percentage drop is fewerin numbers.
(41:51):
But I do think it's important,like it's a keep our eyes on
that and why it's happening.
So then when we I'm going tofocus on the US House at the
Senate level, it's we almostknow what's going to focus on
the US House At the Senate level.
We almost know what's going tohappen.
I mean there are theseunpredictable kind of races, but
if things pan out, I think themost we can do is increase by
(42:13):
one for women in the Senate.
I think I have that right.
It's like one or two For theHouse.
This is a little morecomplicated math.
But we have to look at thewomen who are leaving.
13 women are leaving.
That gives us a 13-memberdeficit.
To start with, eight women, asof right now, are incumbents,
(42:33):
are in vulnerable seats, sothat's another eight deficit we
could have.
Then we have to look atpotential pickups.
So we look at non-incumbents.
Right now there are eight womenfavored, like eight women who
look like they're going to win.
So say they fell eight of those13 original slots.
There are seven more women incompetitive, non-incumbent women
(42:55):
in competitive contests.
Any of that, as of today, getsus to almost like equal right.
It doesn't get us to higher.
Now we've got 40% of Housenominations left to make.
So we have other opportunitiesthat will include vulnerable
incumbents but that will alsoinclude some potential pickups.
(43:16):
But this is why I'm saying likeI think we're at a year where
we're not going to see huge netgains in women's representation
at the congressional level.
It's hard for us to do this atthe state legislative level
because we can tell you how manynominees there are, we're
pretty sure again that that'snot going to be a record.
The one distinguishingcharacteristic at the state
level we put out a blog on this,like two weeks ago that I think
(43:39):
is notable is the only group atthe intersection of gender and
party, the only group that'sseeing an increase just in
overall state legislativecandidacies, are Democratic
women.
So something's going on.
Many people say to meimmediately it's abortion.
I don't know that it's abortionbecause for all the reasons I
(44:00):
just talked about, I don't thinkthat's the only issue
motivating women.
However, I think that isprobably among the things
because we know this ishappening in state legislatures
and so there may be both moreactive recruitment as well as
motivation among some womenrunning at those state
legislative levels.
But the proof's kind of in thepudding.
(44:21):
Do they get through to thenominee stage?
So we're paying attention tothat.
And then, just in terms ofprediction for the presidency, I
will just say thedisillusionment in the
electorate benefits Donald Trump?
Speaker 3 (44:36):
Just I want to.
There was a good question forMonica, but I'm going to take
liberty here and ask reallyquick around if there is a
generational difference in howin trends for women, because I
know we're talking a lot aboutrace and kind of party, but you
mentioned a little bit aboutyoung women, but I wasn't sure
if there was anything more therethat we wanted to tease out as
a group.
Speaker 2 (44:56):
Yeah.
So I mean, I think we areseeing so in terms of office,
holding a positive trend.
Not, you know, we don't haveall the data in 24 already about
the age of everybody, right,but even you can see it
anecdotally and then you can seeit kind of by concrete data in
the last three cycles youngerwomen being more willing and
(45:18):
able to run and be successful.
They're also the ones who arepushing boundaries on how women
run and present themselves.
You know, my favorite exampleof this is Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez in her first adwhich, by the way, she never had
to air because it went viral,so she never had to pay for it.
Um, the first line is womenlike me aren't, aren't supposed
(45:40):
to run for office.
And what she's doing in that ad, I would argue, is she's saying
the onus is on all of you tothink differently about who's
supposed to run and what amember of Congress is supposed
to look like, instead oftypically in campaigns, when we
put the onus on the candidate toadapt to the expectations,
right, to make her look like amember of Congress or a
(46:02):
candidate in a way that would bemore aligned.
So I think women, younger womenin particular, are pushing
boundaries.
I think we're seeing them run.
You talked about Katie Britt I'mtotally having a moment but the
Kate Kat Kamek in Florida.
So there are women on bothsides of the aisle that are
younger women who are cominginto these spaces.
(46:23):
I think we'll see more of thatthis cycle.
There are a couple of women Ican kind of see their faces on
the pickups that we might getthat are younger.
So we'll see some of thatgenerational change.
But on the flip side, thatdisillusionment is both
preventing some of the younger,more engaged women to decide to
run, and then also in theproject that we did, this
(46:47):
Rethinking Power project, whenwe were talking to a lot of
women officeholders and eventhose working in these fields,
when they get into officeespecially younger and more
progressive women or, on theRepublican side, arguably more
moderate women their base is notsticking with them once they're
in, and so the ability to stayis a real problem.
(47:10):
So on the progressive side yousee it most commonly it's like
an activist who, thankful tothem for like being willing to
run, they go into an institutionwhere they can't make the kind
of quick change that theirconstituencies want, and then
they're called traitors orsellouts or whatever, and I
think that's a real problem,because we're going to lose
(47:32):
women, and particularly youngand often more progressive women
who were willing to take it on,but then you know, either lost
or just decided not to run again.
Speaker 3 (47:46):
I think there was even risk of that with AOC early
in her term.
Right, there was really a pushfrom leadership in the house to
for her to assimilate for lackof a better word into operations
of the house and she hadsupport, you know, among her
peers and there was a group thatyou know then became very
stylized.
But I definitely agree andthere's some cause.
(48:08):
Oh, go ahead, yeah, go ahead.
I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (48:10):
No, I was going to change the subject.
Go ahead.
I was just going to say it getsto your question about what.
What we can all do on thepositive side, which is like you
can't just elect a woman andthen be like great she's in,
like folks have to be supportivewhen the party leadership
pushes against them, when othervoters come out to attack them,
when they're like you have to beable to stick with those women,
(48:32):
and sticking with those womenis not only voting, it's like
getting other people in that,explaining to other people why
they're doing what they're doing, cause I've been doing that
here.
Like we have a city councilmember who got elected our first
LGBT lesbian woman and my folksare like, oh, she's not doing
enough.
And I'm like, but here's whatshe's doing and the constraints
(48:53):
of what she can do and I needyou to stick with her.
Right, we can give money Likesome of us don't love that.
That's the way the politicalsystem works.
But money matters.
It's not only because itmatters for the campaign, it's
also an indicator of support.
So people use that as a way tosay like, oh well, she has money
.
I guess I could vote for herbecause she's going to win.
(49:14):
So we have power to do thosethings whatever is most
comfortable for you.
But, like, there are ways to getinvolved that go beyond the
vote.
I think that was one of thequestions you know and I would
say also for those, I thinkthere was some discussion of the
supermajority and the challengeof that.
I will say what I learned.
(49:34):
You all will know better, butwhat I learned in doing a lot of
interviews in Oklahoma was likethere are a lot of local levels
and different areas in thestate where you can have an
influence that maybe aren't thestate legislature but can make
policy, and there's a lot offoundational work going on as
well in Oklahoma that's pushingpolicy outside of governmental
(49:56):
structures.
So I think there are stillthese places to exercise what I
would still call political powerand influence.
It just may not be in the styleor target of place that you
think.
Speaker 3 (50:08):
Now that's a really great point and I appreciate you
picking up, because that's kindof where I was going was like,
what do we do?
Because I think everyone youknow, post primary there's a
little fatigue always after theday of voting and a lot of door.
There was a lot of doorknocking in my neighborhood.
I don't know about everywhereelse, but it was just a little
bit of fatigue.
So you know, we have a couple,we can get a day of rest maybe,
(50:28):
but you know how do we getrecharged and and what are some
tips, kind of moving into thenext cycle.
Speaker 2 (50:35):
Yeah, I mean, I think some of the things I mentioned
is, you know, obviously,supporting candidates
financially, volunteering, wordof mouth, all the things you're
talking about and we talkedabout making the case to other
people, about why it's importantthat they participate, like
making it real.
Or you all probably have morestories about like things you've
worked on.
You know, whether you're anadvocate, whether you're in
(50:55):
business, you know in alldifferent areas of like how that
was affected by government.
I think making that real topeople who feel like it's they
just want to throw in the towelcan make a difference.
Or the folks who are like I'mnot voting because the
presidential is so oh, I justreally don't like these old
white guys.
Cool, like fine, but there's alot of other things you need to
(51:17):
vote for.
I would still argue you need tovote for them too, but like
kind of, really, there's alittle bit of education that
those of us who maybe are moreengaged could do.
Doesn't always work, but it'sworth it.
I think I would also say like wehave a responsibility not to
rely on our own echo chambers.
It is if you only follow yourTikTok, if you only follow your
(51:40):
Instagram feed, like some of youare going to think like this
party's winning and it's a shoein.
Some of you are going to thinkthis party's going to win every
like, or you think every theworld's going to end tomorrow.
That's, I feel, like what myfeed is.
But like I have to activelymyself be like, okay, I'm not
looking at that Right.
(52:01):
Like I have to look at moretangible, if you will like, kind
of measures of how things arelooking.
I worry about polls.
Like you have to filter theinformation that we're all
taking in to keep us engaged,and sometimes it also means you
have to, as you mentioned, takea break, and so I've been
(52:22):
reading a lot of books that havenothing to do with politics so
that I can refuel, to kind of beengaged when I need to be
engaged.
So I think that's a blanketthing that I'm sure we've all
tried to think about.
What are the ways that we canrefuel and pull back so that we
can be energized, especially aswe go into November, to
(52:42):
participate in whatever way wethink we can?
Hey everyone, this is Erica Lucas, your host and
founding member of Vest, anorganization connecting women
across industries, regions andcareer levels so that together
we can expedite the pipeline ofmore women in positions of power
and influence.
Welcome to another episode ofthe Vestor podcast, where we
(00:23):
explore the invisible barriersholding women back in the
workplace and share stories ofwomen building power
collectively.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
For women in politics specifically, I'm worried we're
not keeping our eye as well asour efforts and investment on
the ball when it comes torecruitment and support for
women candidates.
Often what happens is you havea great year for women, so in
2018, it was a great year forDemocrats.
In 2020, it was a pretty darngood year for Republican women,
relatively speaking.
(00:59):
And I think then folks partyleaders, donors, et cetera go
like OK, we did it In theproject that we did, this
Rethinking Power project, whenwe were talking to a lot of
women officeholders and eventhose working in these fields.
When they get into officeespecially younger and more
progressive women or, on theRepublican side, arguably more
(01:19):
moderate women their base is notsticking with them once they're
in, and so the ability to stayis a real problem.
They go into an institutionwhere they can't make the kind
of quick change that theirconstituencies want, and then
they're called traitors orsellouts or whatever, and I
think that's a real problembecause we're going to lose
(01:42):
women.
You can't just elect a woman andthen be like great she's in,
like folks have to be supportivewhen the party leadership
pushes against them, when othervoters come out to attack them.
Sticking with those women isnot only voting.
It's like getting other peoplein that, explaining to other
people why they're doing whatthey're doing.
(02:03):
We can give money.
Some of us don't love that.
That's the way the politicalsystem works.
But money matters.
It's not only because itmatters for the campaign, it's
also an indicator of support.
So we have power to do thosethings whatever is most
comfortable for you.
But like there are ways to getinvolved that go beyond the vote
, like there are ways to getinvolved that go beyond the vote
(02:28):
.
Speaker 1 (02:32):
In this episode, vest member Tara Branson-Thomas,
senior policy advisor at KlossLaw and former secretary of the
nation for the Muskogee CreekNation, talks to Kelly Dudmart,
associate professor of politicalscience at Rutgers University
and director of research at theCenter for American Women in
Politics at Eagleton Instituteof Politics.
Kelly is a published author inthe field of gender and politics
and she's also an influentialexpert in the field,
(02:52):
contributing to publicationslike Forbes Women and serving as
commentator for various mediaoutlets.
For our guests' full bios andshow notes, go to wwwbestherco.
Forward slash podcast.
If you enjoy the episode, sharewith a friend and don't forget
to leave us a review.
This episode is brought to youby Vest Her Ventures, a peer
(03:13):
network of professional womenand investment fund for women
led companies in the careeconomy and future of work.
To learn more, go towwwvestherco.
This episode was part of a moreintimate coaching session with
Vest members and has beenrepurposed to accommodate this
episode.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
I think I'll just start off and ask you kind of
what you're excited about inthis season.
I know it's a presidential year, but just wondering what you're
excited about and then whatyou're worried about, I think we
all have some concerns.
But just wondering what you'reexcited about and then what
you're worried about, I think weall have some concerns.
There's a lot of initiativesout in the world and everyone's
thinking about those as they goto the ballot box.
So it'd be great to hear fromyou and get your perspective.
Great.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
Thanks, tara, thanks for doing this, thank you, erica
and the team for organizing itand having me back so I didn't
mess up too bad last time, and Ialso am just really grateful
for the work that BEST is doing.
I mean, this is part of I'mgoing to talk about, I'm sure
throughout the conversation, themost recent project we did at
the Center for American Women inPolitics, which is called
Rethinking Women's PoliticalPower.
(04:16):
Erica spoke to me, formerSenator Griffin spoke to us for
that and really that project waslooking at how we need to build
political power, not just inofficeholders but in all of
these spaces, and that I know isso important to the work that
you all are doing and will leadto that increase of power.
So thank you and let me talk.
So I don't think you want toknow all my worries because they
(04:40):
are too numerous, but I'm goingto just talk to a few things
about excited, a few thingsabout worried, and keep the
conversation going, but happy toelaborate on anything.
In terms of what I'm excitedabout, in terms of the election,
this is both excited andworried that the stakes are
really high, right, and so whenthe stakes are really high,
women already play a major rolein determining outcomes in
(05:02):
elections, but it will mattereven more right, and so the
stakes for women, the role thatwomen can have in this election,
is huge.
As you probably already know,women outnumber and outvote men.
They've been doing so for over40 years.
Women, of course, are notmonolithic in their voting or in
their policy priorities orpositions, but they are more
(05:24):
likely across the board to atleast consider and raise issues
around gender equality, even ifthey have very different
positions on how to resolve them.
They are also more likely, orwe've seen, at least recently,
that women are more likely to bemobilized by particular threats
on issues around gender orgender equality, like those felt
(05:44):
after the 2016 election andagain with the fall of Roe
versus Wade, as well as issueslike gun violence and
environmental degradation allthings, unfortunately, that we
are really dealing with in anacute way.
So when we talk about the roleof women in this election, there
is also an urgency that I thinkwe're seeing among a lot of
(06:07):
women about their participation.
And the last thing in terms ofexciting and related to that, I
would say, young women,especially young women of color,
have been at the forefront,especially in recent years.
I have a colleague namedMelissa Deckman who's doing some
really important work here onGen Z and mobilization and
advocacy and really pointing tothe gender difference where
(06:30):
young women and again at thatintersection of race and gender
are highly mobilized.
Now the important part isgetting them to vote, because
there's mobilization in theseother spaces but there's also a
disillusionment with formalinstitutions.
But I think there's so muchpotential there and again I hope
that leads to my worry.
(06:50):
I'm worried that not enoughyoung people, including those
most engaged, will choose tovote, disillusioned by the major
party presidential nominees,what's being offered.
But again, I don't think that'sa lack of interest or
engagement, in fact in somecases the opposite.
I don't think that's a lack ofinterest or engagement.
In fact in some cases theopposite.
Right is that we're highlyengaged and see these other
(07:11):
opportunities for influencewhich are also important.
Again, not only an issue withyoung people, also true across
parties and gender folks who arejust turned off by the
negativity and toxicity ofpolitics that they see.
For women in politicsspecifically, I'm worried we're
not keeping our eye, as well asour efforts and investment, on
(07:33):
the ball when it comes torecruitment and support for
women candidates.
I think often what happens isyou have a great year for women.
So in 2018, it was a great yearfor Democrats.
In 2020, it was a great yearfor Democrats.
In 2020, it was a pretty darngood year for Republican women,
relatively speaking.
And I think then folks partyleaders, donors, et cetera go
(07:54):
like, okay, we did it.
And so I think we're seeingthat.
So this year already and I cantalk more about the numbers
we're not seeing record levelsof women running writ large,
we're not seeing record levelsof nominations and probably
won't see huge gains for womenacross the board.
So I will stop there.
(08:15):
But those are some of theworries, but also the prospects
for potential, you know,influence and success.
Speaker 3 (08:22):
That's a really great point, I think, as I was
reflecting on the Oklahomaprimaries and I live in a rural
county in Oklahoma and therejust weren't a lot of female
options, whether you know, nomatter what your party was,
there wasn't a lot of folks onthe ballot to really consider.
And so it's interesting, youknow, when you talk about we
might be in a lull right wherethere's support kind of broadly
(08:45):
from political parties.
Can you talk a little bit aboutyour research year over year
and tell us about the trendmaybe going into 2024?
And if you make any predictionsI know not everyone does
predictions, but if you'rethinking you know abroad if
there are anything we shouldexpect to see or where we still
have an opportunity to influencethe outcome.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
Sure, yeah, I'll talk about the numbers first.
So, for those who might not befamiliar, the Center for
American Women in Politics oneof the things we kind of pride
ourselves in and are known forkeeping track of data of women
officeholders as well as womencandidates.
So our website, which I'llshare the link before we get off
, you know, has access to thisand data sets that you can look
(09:26):
at over time to get to thesetrends and also just to know
where things stand.
So I'll give you the shortoverview.
So right now, women are 28.2%of members of Congress, 31.9% of
statewide elected executivesgovernors, attorneys general, et
cetera executives, governors,attorneys general, et cetera
32.9% just less than a third ofstate legislators nationwide.
(09:50):
And then 34% of mayors of thetop 100 largest cities about
25.8% when you expand it tocities over 30,000 in terms of
mayors For Congress, statewideand state legislative levels.
Those are all record highs.
So this is one of those momentswhere you go like we're at
records, but we're far below 50%.
(10:11):
Obviously, those trends havebeen up.
The biggest jumps, again, as Imentioned, were after 2018 for
Democratic women and after 2020for Republican women, pretty
consistently across levels interms of those trends, and then
in 2022, we had a relativelystace this year.
(10:31):
Again some increases, but notsignificant, and I would expect
we're going to see that againthis year.
You know, for those interested,obviously state by state, happy
to talk a little bit more aboutOklahoma or Texas.
I mean, I think in Oklahoma,just to say you know, still 45th
in the nation in terms ofwomen's representation in the
(10:52):
state legislature.
One of seven in thecongressional delegation.
Doesn't look like that's goingto change per the elections
yesterday.
And then about 27 percent ofthe statewide offices, and then
(11:21):
about 27 percent of thestatewide offices.
One trend that is different inOklahoma than in Texas and or
any state.
Many states across the countryis that the representation of
women is dominated, isdominantly Republican.
Across the country, the trendis that Democrats far outnumber
Republicans among womenofficeholders.
Took a lot of reasons why thatis.
Certainly some of those areactive efforts by those within
the party structure, whether itbe electorally incentivized,
(11:43):
which I think is a big part ofit in the Democratic side of the
aisle, or values based effortsto to try to increase women's
representation.
But when we think about thatand even in the case I'm going
to use Oklahoma as an example Ijust think it's a good, a good
case.
We also have to be cognizant ofthe trends in terms of women as
(12:04):
a percentage of their party andin that case, even in Oklahoma,
women are 11 percent of theirparty's office holders in the
state legislative level.
On the Republican side, theyare 53 percent of Democratic
office holders.
So we have to look at the datain ways to kind of think about
power and influence withinpartisan caucuses, especially in
(12:25):
supermajority states.
So again, that is true.
Unfortunately, in terms ofRepublican women's power and
influence and representation,that's pretty true across the
country, we see very few stateswhere Republican women have a
high percentage ofrepresentation.
We've also seen growth in theracial and ethnic diversity of
women office holders, again,especially since 2018.
(12:47):
You can find all thosebreakdowns on our website.
We have a page specificallydedicated to looking at women by
race and ethnicity, but there'sa lot of work to do there.
So again, I'll just hit a fewpoints.
So in the US House, we saw anincrease in that level of racial
and ethnic diversity, but westill just have one Black woman,
(13:07):
one Latina and two Asian womenthat serve among 25 women in the
Senate.
When we look at statewideoffices, that's where the
starkest racial and ethnicdisparities are for women.
Just four Asian American women,11 Black and eight Latina.
Just four Asian American women,11 black and eight Latina, zero
(13:29):
MENA, one native woman acrossthe whole country serving
statewide elective executiveoffices.
That's about 23 of 99 womenserving.
And then again, I'm going touse Oklahoma as an example, just
because what we have on ourwebsite is you can compare the
percentage of women in thepopulation by race and ethnicity
and gender to where it standsin the state.
So you look at Oklahoma.
Native women are about 7.2% ofthe population, 2% of state
(13:52):
legislators.
Latinas are 5.8% of thepopulation, 1.3% of members.
Black women are 4.8%.
Right, we could go down thelist and it's 1% or 0.7%.
So those disparities inrepresentation at those
intersections do persist and Ithink that's something to pay
closer attention to.
I'm going to pause therebecause I have more to say about
(14:13):
24, but I want to give you thechance, tara, to stop me from
talking too much.
Speaker 3 (14:19):
No, I definitely appreciate the commentary about
our representation, you know, inthe general population versus
maybe in the areas wheredecisions are being made about
us, and I wanted to talk alittle bit or ask you about how
that might be impacting ourexperience with politics,
whether that be, you know, fromthe outside just being engaged
(14:40):
or finding someone who mightshare a narrative with us, right
, and then if that creates abarrier to entry for folks who
might be interested in thelong-term, maybe running for
office or serving in some kindof public, if you have done any
research or have any notesaround how those impact, you
(15:00):
know where we get startedbasically.
Speaker 2 (15:02):
Absolutely.
I think this gets to.
You know, we use throw around aphrase, and I'm sure in this
crew, to like representationmatters, but we don't always
explain like why and how.
And I think when we don'texplain we leave it open to the
type of attacks Erica youalluded to at the start of this
conversation, the kind ofanti-DEI, the anti-DEI and the
(15:26):
anti-representation kind of likeattacks are.
You're just checking a boxright, like it's just you're
just doing this because youthink X number of you know women
need to be in these positionsbut we are choosing on merit and
so the undermining, I think, ofefforts to increase
(15:47):
representation along axes ofdemographic identities like
gender, like race, like sexualorientation, can be dismissed if
we don't fully explain what wemean by why representation
matters matters.
And I think for me youmentioned one of them, right.
(16:07):
So representation matters.
I would argue for simplefairness, supposed to be a
representative democracy andit's not.
Yeah, I will say people aren'tsold by that argument, but like
we should use it, it'sabsolutely true.
But then there are symbolic andsubstantive reasons why it
matters.
Symbolically it matters, and Iwould say it's both symbolic and
substantively for the reasonyou mentioned Tara.
(16:29):
We know from research that ifyou see an institution in which
your group, whatever that may beagain, it may be various
intersections of race andethnicity, of age and gender if
you don't see people like you inthat position, you are less
likely to consider that you cando it or you want to do it,
(16:52):
because it's not always like Idon't think I could do it.
It's like I don't want to gointo a toxic institution where
nobody's going to be welcomingto me.
When we interviewed nowminority leader Munson right,
she's now current the minorityleader when we interviewed her
for this project, she talkedabout how lonely it can be woman
(17:20):
in this legislature and thelack of understanding among her
peers and in fact, even theaggression to say things like oh
, you keep talking about raceand ethnicity, right, and really
pushing back against anyopportunity to use that unique
voice and perspective.
So we know that those things domatter for influencing whether
(17:44):
or not people make decisionsstrong.
On the flip side, it's alsoinspirational, right.
So there can be a mixed effectbecause you look at that and you
look at somebody like theminority leader and say like,
well, maybe I too can do that,even though the numbers are
small.
Then, when we get to furthersubstantive, of course,
conversations.
It's about how does it changethe conversation in these spaces
(18:07):
?
And we have a million examples.
I'm sure everybody in this roomhas a million examples of how
it matters when there aredifferent voices at the table,
but those voices are not.
It's not about your demographiccheckbox, it's the idea that
that demographic identity orthat intersection of identities
(18:28):
creates distinct livedexperiences and perspectives.
And for those who really pushback on me on this, I say well,
when a veteran runs for Congress, we hear all around like oh
well, they're a veteran, theymust know about national defense
.
And like this is no shade toveterans, I agree, right.
Like this around like oh well,they're a veteran, they must
(18:49):
know about national defense.
And like this is no shade toveterans, I agree, right.
Like this is like there's anexperience, there's a lived
experience and perspective thatthey're going to bring that is
unique.
You have a distinct experience.
We know, across all measures ofeducation, access to resources,
engagement with police,whatever it may be, we know that
(19:11):
those experiences are different.
Those two matter inpolicymaking because all of
those issues are also beinglegislated.
No-transcript.
Speaker 3 (19:29):
Yeah, and I think Monica asked a really good
question in the chat around, youknow.
Are there any thoughts aboutquotas for women, especially in
the legislative bodies?
There must be some examples ina few Latin American countries
where quotas have helped womenprogress through their
legislative and representativeprocess.
Is it a strategy that maybe weshould look at or consider?
(19:52):
Even if it's not something wecan formally put into place,
maybe it's something that weaspire to.
Speaker 2 (19:57):
Yeah, I mean, there are always these questions and
there's a organization calledRepresent Women that is really
focused on structural solutions,right, like how can we change
rules and processes in order toincrease women's representation?
And so they will raise this attimes.
I will admit that I am oftenlike a kind of not critic, but I
(20:18):
am dubious that that ispossible in our system just
because it's a constitutionalchange.
So, as you all know, like tomake a change like that to move
from what would be so quoted asalmost no universally really
occur in places that are notcandidate-centered.
So they're proportional systemsof representation, and I just
(20:43):
find it I couldn't imagine ourcurrent elected leaders allowing
any move to not acandidate-centered system.
But the ways around that thenare do you create?
So?
In other countries they'vecreated party quotas.
Again, that doesn't work here,because we choose the party,
doesn't choose the nominees.
(21:04):
We, as voters, choose thenominees.
So the one place that we havedone it, or some states I think
it's only like two now but thathave done it, are create some
level of quotas in appointees,and then we have tried to do
that in informally when, like agovernor's elected, you'll see
these efforts.
They're often called women'sappointments projects.
(21:26):
I don't know if they'veoccurred in the states that you
all are from, but whereorganizations have come together
.
In fact it would be great forthis group because it's like and
they give what Mitt Romney gotin trouble for the binders
versus full of women.
That's actually not a bad thing.
I like defend Mitt Romney onthis one, because that's what
the Women's Appointments Projectwould do.
(21:47):
It would say here are all thesequalified women.
We are asking you to commit tochoosing 50% women in these
appointed positions.
So we've seen some minorsuccess of that level of quota
at that level of political power.
But I think electorally it'shard.
And then the last thing I'llsay on that is it is how
effective it's been across theworld.
(22:09):
There's a lot of studies onthat.
I think mixed questions.
It depends on the type ofquotas, because sometimes what's
happening is certainly likeplaceholder positions, right?
So the critique of it is oh,they're choosing these women who
just will vote in line with.
We see that in our own system.
(22:29):
Even that doesn't have quotas.
You know, like folks who arecritical and I want to be
careful not to like buy intothat critique.
But I think sometimes in somecountries where there is strong
power of a central person orparty, that that often happens.
So then this gets to thequestion of how do you ensure
that women retain theirindependence and power if you're
(22:50):
in a system where it's moreappointed than it is selected by
the general body?
But it's a great question, andI think we can think about other
ways to pressure parties andalso change voter thinking a
little bit about the importanceof representation in ways that
could lead to it's not quotas,but it could lead to more
(23:12):
emphasis on parity andrepresentation.
Speaker 3 (23:15):
I definitely appreciate what you're saying
around the party structure andsome of the challenges or
opportunities around parties inthe United States and I think
with younger generations inparticular, the party structure
is really becoming this verycumbersome.
I used to be part of theyounger generation.
(23:35):
I'm not anymore, but thatgeneration in general, you know,
really finds the partystructure really challenging and
has created sort of adisincentive for their
engagement, I think inparticular for this upcoming
election.
And I think we sort of all sawmaybe the outcome of party
influencing on women'sengagement in politics.
In the response from SenatorKatie Britt I saw Erica put that
(23:59):
in the chat.
She's the youngest Republicanwoman in the Senate.
We're certainly happy to haveher representation there, but I
wonder, does she reallyrepresent a common experience
among women number one?
And then how she ended up inthat role, if you look back
around that seat and how she gotthere, you know what role do
you think the party played inher being there and influencing
(24:22):
and facilitating or potentiallyhindering women's careers,
particularly from a nationalstandpoint?
I think there's some challengesthere.
Even when you look back around,you know Hillary Clinton's work
coming into the presidentialelection the last you know a
couple rounds, so just curiousif you have any thoughts there.
Speaker 2 (24:41):
Yeah, I mean, I think there's a lot of directions to
go in, you know, on Katie Brittin particular, look, I think we
have to be able to hold a coupleof things at one time, which is
to say, like I'm going tocelebrate the fact that we have
a young Republican woman in theSenate, and that is a milestone.
(25:01):
Again, does she have a distinctlived experience?
She absolutely does.
Does she have the full power tobring that forth in the current
Senate?
Maybe not, but that's true ofDemocratic women as well.
Right, like that's not so muchlike being restrained by the
Republican Party, it's being ayoung new member.
(25:21):
I think, in the case of givingthe response, not to go too far
down that road.
But that is a you rarely win inthat position, right?
Most, I think, if you're apolitical practitioner, you
don't really necessarily wantyour member or your boss to be
(25:41):
in that role, because it doesn'tend too well for most anybody.
And I think what you saw in hercase was again this reaction of
like she was highly controlled,it was highly produced, it was
inconsistent with what we'veseen before, and so I don't
think there's any denying thatthere was influence beyond her
own in how she gave thatresponse.
(26:03):
What I do think it showed isand for any of you who haven't
seen it yet, rebecca Tracer hasa cover story out in New York
Magazine that came out like twodays ago about the challenges
for Republican women innavigating gender and candidate
representation in this moment,particularly in this kind of in
(26:25):
a Trump Republican Party.
I've been writing about thisfor like a decade, so so glad
that she wrote this and, ofcourse, she did it way better
than me and you know she comesfrom a real, she comes from a
partisan perspective, so likeacknowledge that she's a
Democrat and a progressive, soshe's highly critical.
(26:45):
But I think her points if youkind of step back from that are
very real, which is thatRepublican women are confronting
an electorate that hasparticularly staunch views
around gender.
So questions like society isbecoming too soft and feminine,
much higher numbers of Trumpsupporters, even of Republicans.
(27:08):
So I want to distinguish.
There's difference there.
Believe that, believe that menare being punished just for
being men, believe in moretraditional roles and
representations for women suchas the fact that she's sitting
in a kitchen in that responseand have firmer beliefs of what
(27:32):
we would call in the literature,hostile sexism.
This is things like feminismhas gone too far.
Women are asking for specialfavors, that kind of belief.
That's true among men and womenon the more conservative side
of the aisle.
So you're seeing these women inhighly powerful positions try
to cater to an electorate thatdoesn't necessarily align with
(27:57):
the belief that women should bein those positions.
And then also a presidentialcandidate nominee who's the head
of the party, who's highlymasculinized, right, so engages
in this very masculine I'm thetough guy, I'm the manliest man,
man, man.
So then masculinity becomes thestandard that's so important.
So what she writes about isit's like these women trying to
(28:21):
do all things.
I have to be super masculine,so let me get the gun out, let
me do the hunting and all ofthat.
But I also have to be reallyfeminine and aligned with those
expectations.
And what we saw with KatieBritt, I think, was more on that
side of the aisle.
But then you saw the like andthey're coming for you.
You know that really severelanguage.
So I feel a sort of sympathyfor that, because that is the
(28:44):
intersection of gender and partythat's creating a difficulty
for women on that side of theaisle, especially it happens for
Democratic women.
But the gender dynamics of theDemocratic Party have evolved in
ways that I think have made ita little less challenging to
circle those squares, or howeverwe want to talk about it.
Speaker 3 (29:05):
Well, I think it's interesting when you, I think
when I, because I watched theresponse live and I agree,
anyone in the role of doing theresponse is already losing in
some ways, just from a politicalpoint of view.
One, it's really late,especially if you're on the East
Coast, and so it's challengingto have the right energy and to
bring that there.
But I was really reflecting andjuxtaposing her response to
(29:28):
Sarah Huckabee Sanders' response, because Sarah was really part
of the political machine too and, you know, came home to
Arkansas and played that rolevery differently, you know, in
her own response.
And so I think it's eveninteresting how we treat women
in particular roles, you know,in different ways across parties
, and I'm really I just I'm justgoing to put this here and we
(29:51):
can leave it later if we want.
But even the engagement betweenRepresentative Taylor Greene
and Crockett recently that kindof became this meme.
You know, while it was aninteresting and has and it made
me giggle a little bit, I alsofelt a little bit sad that it
happened between two women, youknow, in a very public space.
(30:12):
It just really I thought itreally engendered a lot of
stereotypes, right, and it callson a narrative that sometimes
men use when women are inexecutive roles.
That you know.
Not that men never argue,because I think we can pull up
lots and lots of congressionaltestimony where they argue among
(30:32):
themselves, but it felt reallytargeted in the way that it
played in the media was reallyinteresting.
So I think that also can bereally discouraging for women
who might be interested in doingthis but really just don't want
to engage in that kind ofbehavior generally, right Like,
but you're going to be insituations where you have to
tackle that and and reallyreflect on your own behavior,
(30:53):
because I'm not sure I wouldhave behaved any different in
that situation.
So we would all like to, butit's a very public situation.
Speaker 2 (31:00):
Just real quick, speak to that because I think
what it reflected to for me andI'm going to get a little
academic here, but, like it's,there is so much of this.
We talk about it as genderpower, like a balance of gender
power.
So how much do we kind of valuetraditional, like femininity,
value traditional masculinity,obviously recognizing these are
all stereotypes, they're allsocially constructed.
(31:21):
We know this, ok, but that'slike that's the balance, right.
And so women historically havesuffered because in these
institutions there's been thisemphasis on masculine traits,
expectations.
I mean, when Donald Trump saysyou don't have the presidential
look, it's pretty obvious whathe means.
Right, like you don't look likethe person who's been here
before.
That's the overt way, but thereare lots of less overt ways.
(31:44):
We criticize women and say theydon't fit the masculine
standard, so then we push womento behave in masculine ways and
prove their masculinecredentials.
What I really, what bothered meabout that moment, to your point
, is that both of the women wereplaying into those gendered
standards in ways that reinforcethem instead of what I really
(32:06):
hope we would do Right, which isdisrupt them.
That, like this, there isn'tlike disrupt that balance, that
your value is somehow based onyour femininity or your values
based on your masculinity?
Easy for me to say from anoutside place, but I think that
we see political practitionersthis goes back to Brit and how
(32:28):
all these women also are told tobehave.
Political practitioners arelike we need to win the next,
not even election, the nextpolitical moment.
And again, no shade topractitioners.
I get that that's how you win,but at the same point, there's a
longer term impact of thatbehavior which is changing our
minds as voters and observersabout what we expect and what we
(32:51):
value in these folks.
And so when I did an interviewwith a consultant this was about
10 years ago and we weretalking through some of this and
he was like well, I'm not asocial change agent, like that's
not my job, right, like I'mhere to win.
And I was like I get that right.
But how do we try to thinkabout some of the longer-term
impact of the work that folks inthe political sphere do when
(33:14):
they're crafting kind ofcandidate presentation strategy
and messaging?
Speaker 3 (33:20):
So I think that brings up a really good question
around when we're thinkingabout how we're going to vote
and engage in the upcomingelection.
I think I was really reflectingon an interview that you did
with FiveThirtyEight around thesoccer mom mentality in the
early 90s and how everyone waslike in this monolith of voting.
(33:43):
I think we all know that.
You know the post Roe era isreally a big narrative, but are
there any other narratives or doyou think Roe is going to be as
big as others are?
Are kind of portraying it to be.
Speaker 2 (34:00):
It's a really good question.
I think we don't have enoughinformation yet, but I but I do
think this question about Roe isimportant.
I think the media already islike that's the one thing,
that's the one thing women aregoing to vote for.
And I don't want to discountthe impact.
We saw the impacts of the fallof Roe in specific states,
(34:22):
particularly states that hadabortion on the ballot right.
So states that had abortionballot initiatives, absolutely,
if you look at the impact,particularly for Democratic
women.
So increase in registration,increase in turnout, things like
that, there was a notableimpact.
I think.
I say I think because that wasthe immediate, you know, kind of
(34:45):
we got the data, we gotimmediately.
I think it still needs to bekind of pushed through the more
rigorous kind of peer reviewedanalysis, but I think it's fair
to say Going into this election.
I was just because I saw, youknow we talked about a little
bit what we were talking about.
So I was looking at the MaristNPR poll that came out yesterday
(35:06):
.
So folks have probably likeheard about it because it got a
good amount of attention.
And this is just like the.
You know they cover a lot ofthings, including the horse race
.
But one of the things they askis what is the most important
issue to your vote, yourpresidential vote?
And they have a good, they havesome good crosstabs so you can
look at it by party and gender.
So just to give you a sense ofit 39% of Democratic women said
(35:28):
preserving democracy was the topissue influencing their vote.
So that was the plurality.
14% said abortion.
5% of Democratic men saidabortion, 6% for Republican
women, 2% for Republican men.
When it comes to independentwomen, obviously we're attentive
and practitioners are going tobe attentive to independent
(35:49):
women.
12% say abortion.
But again for that group, theplurality 33% said preserving
democracy.
So I think that we have to beclear-eyed.
That like yes, abortion is amobilizing issue.
It has been on the right inthis cycle because the threat is
to those who are looking forpreservation of reproductive
(36:11):
rights.
The threat will motivateengagement and that is why you
see Biden doing ads on abortionand get targeting them.
For those of you who get youknow targeted ads on your social
media, you're probably gettingthose ads based on your
demographics.
But I don't necessarily think Ithink we would lose out, miss
(36:35):
out on the bigger story by notpaying attention to these other
issues that are reallymotivating women.
And the last piece there I'd sayis I'd be paying much more
attention and the mediatypically, and campaigns as well
, have done a terrible job ofthis over time paying attention
to women of color broadly, butspecifically Latinas and Black
women voters here, and as wellas young women voters here,
(36:59):
those intersections in thoseparticular groups.
We need to know enthusiasm,turnout and, particularly for
Latinas, direction of support inorder to know what's going to
happen in November, especiallyin the presidential level, but
also in states where they'rechanging demographics.
And I say that particularly forLatinas, as well as Asian women
(37:20):
, for Black women you're reallytalking about.
There's not going to be thatmuch movement, despite what some
of the arguments are in thenews right now.
Not going to be that muchmovement in the percentage you
know, like how, the percentageof Black women 90 plus who are
going to vote for Joe Biden.
However, if that turnout isdown, those are the women who
have been the most critical partof the Democratic coalition,
(37:43):
the most critical part of theDemocratic coalition.
And so, if that turnout andenthusiasm, disillusionment is
high and you're speaking only toone issue and not the issues
that matter to those groups ofvoters which are going to be
different, then I think that'ssomething for the Democrats and
the Republicans to be concernedabout.
Speaker 3 (38:01):
One thing that I was thinking about as you were
talking was, yes, black women inthe last presidential election.
But I think even I followArizona politics really closely
because of the work that I do,and women, particularly Native
women, were very important inthat election for senatorial
race.
I think they're currently beingtargeted from what I can see on
(38:24):
the outside.
They're currently beingtargeted, um, from what I can
see on the outside, not havingnot living there um, uh, for the
upcoming kind of close racethat uh could change.
You know the dynamic of womenin the Senate and so, um, I
think it would be, um, it'sstill a good time to be a female
voter.
It's really important, um topay attention and and to make
decisions.
Um, and I and I agree with you,I think Oklahoma really thought
(38:46):
that we would have a morestronger democratic turnout or
our elections would lookdifferent when medical marijuana
was on the ballot a couple ofyears ago, and I don't know if
coattails things always worksout, that's.
I mean, that's kind of where weare, and so I hope we're not
over-relying on that, especiallyas women, who often manage the
(39:07):
finances in the home, are reallyclear about the economy too,
and I know this group you knowis really involved in the
economy and investment and sortof looking after our own
families.
You know, looking forward toNovember, now that we're through
the primaries here, there mightbe a couple of elections.
I know locally we will have atleast one more here in Oklahoma.
(39:28):
Are there any predictions forNovember?
Anything that we should bedoing as as women, you know,
working in our communities,preparing for the outcome of
2024 in any way, anything you'rethinking about?
Speaker 2 (39:41):
Yeah.
So I'll start with kind ofpredictions, which you know,
with all the necessary caveats.
Political scientists are reallybad at predicting things, but
for women office holders, as Imentioned before, I don't expect
that we're going to see biggains, and I think we need to be
ready for that, especially incommunities that are advocating
(40:02):
for that increase inrepresentation.
We have to be able to speak towhy and what to do differently
to ensure that we don't havethat stasis in every election
Again.
We're still underrepresented atevery level, and so, while I
don't think stasis is the signof impending doom, it's a
problem.
It's a problem because we'retoo far from parity and too far
(40:25):
from fair representation.
So at this point in the cycle,from what we know from primaries
, it looks like we'll see moregains for Democrats than
Republican women, at thecongressional level at the least
.
I'll get into a little morespecificity.
So, for context, women are 27%of all House candidates already
(40:47):
filed.
There's only four states leftto file, so that's a pretty.
That number probably won'tchange much.
That's really consistent withthe last three cycles in terms
of the percentage, with 61% ofHouse nominations decided, so we
have more of a ways to go there.
House nominations decided, sowe have a more of a ways to go
there.
Women are 29% of House nominees.
(41:07):
That's down from the last twocycles, so kind of making it
through to the next cycle.
Not hugely, but it is down Inraw numbers.
It looks like the numbers ofwomen candidates at the federal
level will fall short ofprevious highs.
It won't be a record year.
That's true for men as well,because we did look at that.
We were like is it just thatfewer people overall are running
(41:29):
?
I think that's part of thestory.
But we are seeing a slightlyhigher drop for women and a
highest drop for Republicanwomen, at least writ large.
It's hard with Republican womenbecause we're starting from
such a lower number.
So I want to be like all thenecessary caveats that like a
larger percentage drop is fewerin numbers.
(41:51):
But I do think it's important,like it's a keep our eyes on
that and why it's happening.
So then when we I'm going tofocus on the US House at the
Senate level, it's we almostknow what's going to focus on
the US House At the Senate level.
We almost know what's going tohappen.
I mean there are theseunpredictable kind of races, but
if things pan out, I think themost we can do is increase by
(42:13):
one for women in the Senate.
I think I have that right.
It's like one or two For theHouse.
This is a little morecomplicated math.
But we have to look at thewomen who are leaving.
13 women are leaving.
That gives us a 13-memberdeficit.
To start with, eight women, asof right now, are incumbents,
(42:33):
are in vulnerable seats, sothat's another eight deficit we
could have.
Then we have to look atpotential pickups.
So we look at non-incumbents.
Right now there are eight womenfavored, like eight women who
look like they're going to win.
So say they fell eight of those13 original slots.
There are seven more women incompetitive, non-incumbent women
(42:55):
in competitive contests.
Any of that, as of today, getsus to almost like equal right.
It doesn't get us to higher.
Now we've got 40% of Housenominations left to make.
So we have other opportunitiesthat will include vulnerable
incumbents but that will alsoinclude some potential pickups.
(43:16):
But this is why I'm saying likeI think we're at a year where
we're not going to see huge netgains in women's representation
at the congressional level.
It's hard for us to do this atthe state legislative level
because we can tell you how manynominees there are, we're
pretty sure again that that'snot going to be a record.
The one distinguishingcharacteristic at the state
level we put out a blog on this,like two weeks ago that I think
(43:39):
is notable is the only group atthe intersection of gender and
party, the only group that'sseeing an increase just in
overall state legislativecandidacies, are Democratic
women.
So something's going on.
Many people say to meimmediately it's abortion.
I don't know that it's abortionbecause for all the reasons I
(44:00):
just talked about, I don't thinkthat's the only issue
motivating women.
However, I think that isprobably among the things
because we know this ishappening in state legislatures
and so there may be both moreactive recruitment as well as
motivation among some womenrunning at those state
legislative levels.
But the proof's kind of in thepudding.
(44:21):
Do they get through to thenominee stage?
So we're paying attention tothat.
And then, just in terms ofprediction for the presidency, I
will just say thedisillusionment in the
electorate benefits Donald Trump?
Speaker 3 (44:36):
Just I want to.
There was a good question forMonica, but I'm going to take
liberty here and ask reallyquick around if there is a
generational difference in howin trends for women, because I
know we're talking a lot aboutrace and kind of party, but you
mentioned a little bit aboutyoung women, but I wasn't sure
if there was anything more therethat we wanted to tease out as
a group.
Speaker 2 (44:56):
Yeah.
So I mean, I think we areseeing so in terms of office,
holding a positive trend.
Not, you know, we don't haveall the data in 24 already about
the age of everybody, right,but even you can see it
anecdotally and then you can seeit kind of by concrete data in
the last three cycles youngerwomen being more willing and
(45:18):
able to run and be successful.
They're also the ones who arepushing boundaries on how women
run and present themselves.
You know, my favorite exampleof this is Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez in her first adwhich, by the way, she never had
to air because it went viral,so she never had to pay for it.
Um, the first line is womenlike me aren't, aren't supposed
(45:40):
to run for office.
And what she's doing in that ad, I would argue, is she's saying
the onus is on all of you tothink differently about who's
supposed to run and what amember of Congress is supposed
to look like, instead oftypically in campaigns, when we
put the onus on the candidate toadapt to the expectations,
right, to make her look like amember of Congress or a
(46:02):
candidate in a way that would bemore aligned.
So I think women, younger womenin particular, are pushing
boundaries.
I think we're seeing them run.
You talked about Katie Britt I'mtotally having a moment but the
Kate Kat Kamek in Florida.
So there are women on bothsides of the aisle that are
younger women who are cominginto these spaces.
(46:23):
I think we'll see more of thatthis cycle.
There are a couple of women Ican kind of see their faces on
the pickups that we might getthat are younger.
So we'll see some of thatgenerational change.
But on the flip side, thatdisillusionment is both
preventing some of the younger,more engaged women to decide to
run, and then also in theproject that we did, this
(46:47):
Rethinking Power project, whenwe were talking to a lot of
women officeholders and eventhose working in these fields,
when they get into officeespecially younger and more
progressive women or, on theRepublican side, arguably more
moderate women their base is notsticking with them once they're
in, and so the ability to stayis a real problem.
(47:10):
So on the progressive side yousee it most commonly it's like
an activist who, thankful tothem for like being willing to
run, they go into an institutionwhere they can't make the kind
of quick change that theirconstituencies want, and then
they're called traitors orsellouts or whatever, and I
think that's a real problem,because we're going to lose
(47:32):
women, and particularly youngand often more progressive women
who were willing to take it on,but then you know, either lost
or just decided not to run again.
Speaker 3 (47:46):
I think there was even risk of that with AOC early
in her term.
Right, there was really a pushfrom leadership in the house to
for her to assimilate for lackof a better word into operations
of the house and she hadsupport, you know, among her
peers and there was a group thatyou know then became very
stylized.
But I definitely agree andthere's some cause.
(48:08):
Oh, go ahead, yeah, go ahead.
I'm sorry.
Speaker 2 (48:10):
No, I was going to change the subject.
Go ahead.
I was just going to say it getsto your question about what.
What we can all do on thepositive side, which is like you
can't just elect a woman andthen be like great she's in,
like folks have to be supportivewhen the party leadership
pushes against them, when othervoters come out to attack them,
when they're like you have to beable to stick with those women,
(48:32):
and sticking with those womenis not only voting, it's like
getting other people in that,explaining to other people why
they're doing what they're doing, cause I've been doing that
here.
Like we have a city councilmember who got elected our first
LGBT lesbian woman and my folksare like, oh, she's not doing
enough.
And I'm like, but here's whatshe's doing and the constraints
(48:53):
of what she can do and I needyou to stick with her.
Right, we can give money Likesome of us don't love that.
That's the way the politicalsystem works.
But money matters.
It's not only because itmatters for the campaign, it's
also an indicator of support.
So people use that as a way tosay like, oh well, she has money
.
I guess I could vote for herbecause she's going to win.
(49:14):
So we have power to do thosethings whatever is most
comfortable for you.
But, like, there are ways to getinvolved that go beyond the
vote.
I think that was one of thequestions you know and I would
say also for those, I thinkthere was some discussion of the
supermajority and the challengeof that.
I will say what I learned.
(49:34):
You all will know better, butwhat I learned in doing a lot of
interviews in Oklahoma was likethere are a lot of local levels
and different areas in thestate where you can have an
influence that maybe aren't thestate legislature but can make
policy, and there's a lot offoundational work going on as
well in Oklahoma that's pushingpolicy outside of governmental
(49:56):
structures.
So I think there are stillthese places to exercise what I
would still call political powerand influence.
It just may not be in the styleor target of place that you
think.
Speaker 3 (50:08):
Now that's a really great point and I appreciate you
picking up, because that's kindof where I was going was like,
what do we do?
Because I think everyone youknow, post primary there's a
little fatigue always after theday of voting and a lot of door.
There was a lot of doorknocking in my neighborhood.
I don't know about everywhereelse, but it was just a little
bit of fatigue.
So you know, we have a couple,we can get a day of rest maybe,
(50:28):
but you know how do we getrecharged and and what are some
tips, kind of moving into thenext cycle.
Speaker 2 (50:35):
Yeah, I mean, I think some of the things I mentioned
is, you know, obviously,supporting candidates
financially, volunteering, wordof mouth, all the things you're
talking about and we talkedabout making the case to other
people, about why it's importantthat they participate, like
making it real.
Or you all probably have morestories about like things you've
worked on.
You know, whether you're anadvocate, whether you're in
(50:55):
business, you know in alldifferent areas of like how that
was affected by government.
I think making that real topeople who feel like it's they
just want to throw in the towelcan make a difference.
Or the folks who are like I'mnot voting because the
presidential is so oh, I justreally don't like these old
white guys.
Cool, like fine, but there's alot of other things you need to
(51:17):
vote for.
I would still argue you need tovote for them too, but like
kind of, really, there's alittle bit of education that
those of us who maybe are moreengaged could do.
Doesn't always work, but it'sworth it.
I think I would also say like wehave a responsibility not to
rely on our own echo chambers.
It is if you only follow yourTikTok, if you only follow your
(51:40):
Instagram feed, like some of youare going to think like this
party's winning and it's a shoein.
Some of you are going to thinkthis party's going to win every
like, or you think every theworld's going to end tomorrow.
That's, I feel, like what myfeed is.
But like I have to activelymyself be like, okay, I'm not
looking at that Right.
(52:01):
Like I have to look at moretangible, if you will like, kind
of measures of how things arelooking.
I worry about polls.
Like you have to filter theinformation that we're all
taking in to keep us engaged,and sometimes it also means you
have to, as you mentioned, takea break, and so I've been
(52:22):
reading a lot of books that havenothing to do with politics so
that I can refuel, to kind of beengaged when I need to be
engaged.
So I think that's a blanketthing that I'm sure we've all
tried to think about.
What are the ways that we canrefuel and pull back so that we
can be energized, especially aswe go into November, to
(52:42):
participate in whatever way wethink we can?
Popular Podcasts
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.