Gender and Politics: Connie Stokes

[pols-338-stokes]

How voters voted in Georgia, 2014

[pols-338-stokes]

Stoked on Stokes: A good campaign and a better candidate

Alas….Connie Stokes lost the race for Lt. Governor to Casey Cagel. This is not surprising. It would have taken an unprecidented amount of political saavy and manuevreing to overcome the obstacles Mrs. Stokes was facing. All obstacles, deeply connected to her status as a black women. Despite her status as a minority in a minority-majority district (which should have aided her, according to the CAWP) and running, from what I can tell, a comprehensive, well-oraganized, and highly visible campaign, I fear Connie Stokes could not overcome the legacy of almost exclusively white men holding office in Georgia.

            Although a descriptive representation of her district (and much of georgia) , I fear Mrs. Stokes was not substantively representative of Gerogia, or the highly conservative/republican air prevasive in much of the United States this election term. Georgia, voted like this [See "How Voters Voted" breakdown above], indicating that perhaps no democratic nominee could have overcome this republican tidal wave and perhaps Mrs. Stokes’ loss did not have gendered or racial undertones. And perhaps it didn't in the sense that she recieved 41.9% of the vote to Cagel’s 58.1%(not unimpressive when we look back at the map for how the state voted for governor). However, regardless of whether voters in the ballad box had the thought, “do I really want to vote for a black women?” it is impossible to define the myriads of pitfalls and backlash created by the structural violences of racism and sexisim. For instance, had Mrs. Stokes been as well funded as either her initial opponent for the democratic nominee, Mr. Carter, or her republican opponent Mr. Deal, would the election results have differed? Money and power in this country are consolidated in the hands of the male and caucasian, does this not have ties to Mrs. Stokes campaign, and the fact that she raised $87, 000 while Cagel backed his campaign with a whopping $2.5 million? Additionally, what does it say that in the black counties of DeKaulb and Fulton, Mrs. Stokes took an overwhelming majority vote (60%)? Although I believe it is too great a statement to say that Mrs. Stokes lost because of her blackness or femaleness, I do believe her campaign started off the race with a broken leg, then was admonished for not overcoming this inequality in candidates. Because as a runner, Mrs. Stokes killed it! Her approach was very community based, and she was constantly mingling with the public. Her overwhelming appearance at public events, debates and outreach events struck me as an attempt to rally the public behind a candidate that is majorly descriptively representative.

            The issue with Mrs. Stokes’ substantive representation, is that although she has the black vote, the female vote is divided in Georgia. I cant help but wish she wwere more like Kyrsten Sinema. Mrs. Sinema was able in her state, to underplay the divide in policy, and highlight the issues she advocated for in a manner that made her appealing to everyone, black, white, men, women etc. She is self-identified as part of the LGBTQ categorization, but she tactically chose to highlight other aspects of her campagin in order to cross voter categoriztions who neither identify nor “tolerate” this group. I wish Mrs. Stokes had used a little more skeevy political prowess to cut across voter identities because her campign platform was so neutral it could have fit either a democratic or republican platform: transportation increases, jobs for citizens, fixing the education system and the promotion of an open and honest government.

            Whatever was done with room for improvement or whatever hideous, unjust disadvantaged Mrs. Stokes may have faced, there is a light at the end of the tunnel. These 2014 elections had a record breaking FIVE black female candidates running for offices in Georgia. Perhaps next time, it will be six.

[pols-338-sinema]

Democrat incumbent Krysten Sinema is victorious once again in the 2014 election to represent Arizona’s 9th district in the House of Representatives. Although she is a democrat in a republican district, she won by a solid 54% majority against her main competitor, republican Wendy Rodgers. Her republican counterpart did not run a very strong campaign being that she would not bring the campaign to the live public. She refused to publicly debate Sinema and instead decided to attack her mostly through the use of commercials and other forms of media. Sinema is well known in her district and has many ties to the community through her advocacy for various groups she has supported throughout her previous terms; therefore, she was a shoe-in for re-election.

Certain aspects of Sinema’s platform fit nicely with the observations made by the CAWP and Reynolds articles.  For example, she started as a social worker and has the “protection of the family” as a sort of framework for her platform. Furthermore, she had a section of her campaign solely dedicated to women’s issues such as equal pay and the eradication of domestic violence. She uses her descriptive representation to it’s fullest potential when it benefits her to do so but also plays it down when it benefits her to do so. Although she is the first openly bi-sexual representative  in the House she tends to play this down as an unimportant factor so that the focus of her platform is more so about her substantive representation- how she, fights for the benefit of every member of the family (usually through financial issues) as oppose to a platform that is largely focused on LGBT rights a la Harvey Milk. Still, she aligns with Reynolds observation that just having the descriptive representation of an LGBT candidate in office means the substantive policies pushing LGBT rights will gain more support. For example, Sinema had a hand in the fight against a bill that would ban gay marriage in Arizona. She did not frame her argument in the sense that as a member of the LGBT community she felt that all people should have the same right to wed, but instead framed it around the arguments that deal with the issues of medical decision makers and tax law. In this sense she falls in line with reynolds argument but still keeps her substantive goals as the main focus.

In many respects Sinema breaks the mold when one recalls the typical factors a woman representative utilizes, according to the CAWP article, to get into office. One major aspect women candidates consider when running for office is whether or not it is a woman-friendly district. In Sinema’s case, she ran her 2012 campaign against a man as a democrat in a majority republican district and still won. Although she has shown support for “women’s issues” her substantive representation centers much more around financial benefits. In this way Sinema becomes much more representative of her district’s constituents and not just her descriptive agenda. Her rags to riches story, career as a social worker, and her connections to the military give her a lot of useful connections to center her focus on the financial stability of every member of the family. She often chooses to highlight her passed bill that advocated for more VA/veteran’s family benefits. Couple her substantive representation with her cross-cutting descriptive representation that both fit and break the mold of a typical woman candidate- White, woman, LGBT, ASU graduate, rags to riches, Iron Man competitor- and you have a candidate with the ability to represent a massive amount of the population. Congrats Krysten!!!

[pols-338-stokes]

This women has always stricken me as a great politician. I personally do not agree with her style of advocacy, but her tactics are working: in playing up what the public wants, and down what it doesn't, a female, bisexual, democrat has been elected twice. This raises the question, is it better to be loudly advocate for what you believe in, or to quiet down and achieve positions of power where good work can really be done? Is that in a way, tricking your contingency? I am not certain what Krysten will do, and this is not an accusation, I only wonder if as a very liberal person, she became a more conservative candidate with any of this in mind. Regardless, her political image and the politics she utilized in getting herself elected are impressive and I cant wait to see what she will do!

[pols-338-wdavis]

Wendy Davis lost to Greg Abbott on Tuesday by nearly sixteen percent of the vote. Wendy Davis’ loss does not come as a surprise in terms of the fact that Texas hasn’t had a Democratic governor since the 1990’s. According to Nia Malika Henderson from The Washington Post with Davis’ loss came the...

[pols-338-stokes]

For some reason, these election results, strikes me as the most unjust. You cite many different contributing factors in your analysis of why Davis lost, and it is important to pick them apart and analyse them for future campaigns, however, it seems to me that Wendy Davis lost simply because she was a women. Yes, things like a lack of personal funds are incorporated into that over arching net, but to criticize her for being overly moderate? She spoke out about her abortions!!!! She is unabashed in her femininity and her feminist values and I am deeply sorry she did not win. The only hopeful nugget I take from this election is how overwhelming her support was from minorities! (They'll be the majority by 2050, so she should keep trying...)

[pols-338-black]

Diane Black was re-elected to serve as representative for Tennessee’s 6th congressional district with 71.1% of the vote! Black’s victory over Democrat Amos Powers and Independent Mike Winton is no surprise. As a white, conservative Republican and incumbent Black has proved to be a reliable...

[pols-338-stokes]

As much as it pains me to say this, I have to hand it to Diane Black. I think that she has in fact stricken a perfect balance between adhering to Southern gender roles through her voting record and her political persona. She is sort of an anomale. Through her absolute disengagement of gender roles (shes a career politician, and highly absolved in her convictions, which she sets forth herself) she has a thriving political career and really is directing political traffic in her state. After following her entire collection, I have come to the conclusion that Diane Black, is in fact a feminist!

[pols-338-gagnier]

I am sad to say that Christina Gagnier did not win the congressional representative seat for District 35. She had a lot of obstacles stacked against her as her opponent Norma Torres represented the Inland Empire both substantively and descriptively better than Gagnier did and has several...

[pols-338-stokes]

I found the section where you discuss Gagnier's focus on women's issues interesting. It seems that highlighting this attribute of a female candidates campaign can either help or hurt them, so what makes the difference? It would be easy to say that it is simply a party issue, but I wonder, if in regions such as the Inland Empire, that can vote very conservatively (or have many immigrants of Catholic origin) if speaking about "women's rights" as a familial stabilizer wouldn't have worked better. It is similar to the approach of framing marriage equality as upholding family values in the US, both are democratic issues, however, in reality they stabilize a society, a goal that is both democratic and republican. 

[pols-338-black]

In the case of Diane Black it could be said that her representation of Tennesse’s sixth district is both substantive and descriptive. She is a white woman who represents and primarily white district as well as never swaying from her conservative views. The two articles most applicable to Black’s...

[pols-338-stokes]

I find Diane Black to be so fascinating because she is a identity dichotomy. On the one hand she is my least favorite type of conservative and campaigns for all of the issues I find to be completely detrimental to the fights towards women's social equality. On the other hand, she is a women in a position of power working towards a continuation of this power in order to push the positions she believes in. She is steadfast and radical in her opinions and follows through with intention and force. In a weird backwards way, she is leading women's rights through example (...not so much policy).

[pols-338-mendoza-deactivated201]

Substantive Representation

Read More

[pols-338-stokes]

I am surprised to find that our candidates are very similar. Connie Stokes also adheres to "traditional women's issues" but it is not her political identity. Neither is her racial minority status. I am proud of these women, as I think it is a difficult line to walk between playing the female or racial minority card to gain access to different identity groups and to become hyper focused on political issues and ignore your identity completely (Like Glo Smith) I think these women are working to be looked at as serious politicians without disowning their personal identities.

[pols-338-smith-blog]

The reading “Constituting Women’s Interests through Representative Claims” by Karen Celis et al. helped me better understand what “women’s issues” are. Previously, I was frustrated with some candidates, my own included, because I did not understand how a woman running for office could not support...

[pols-338-stokes]

I also found the quote “actors may converge on the importance of a policy area but may diverge in their interpretations regarding the course of action most beneficial to the group”to be helpful in thinking about female candidates and their actions regarding women's issues. This statement should be obvious to everyone. It is demeaning for anyone to assume that all women could unite behind a set of stratagems simple because they all are the same sex, yet I do it all the time. I suppose I have an expectation that overcoming adversity should be first and differences in political strategy about how to achieve social equality should fall to the wayside. This reading helped me see my own short-sidedness on the issue. 

[pols-338-fluke]

The readings this week, focused on substantive representation and descriptive representation and whether they can be interchangeable. I found that Mala Htun’s “Is Gender like Ethnicity? The Political Representation of Identity Groups” and “Constituting Women’s Interests Through Representative...

[pols-338-stokes]

I liked your point about how parties will utilize candidates to accrue minority or female votes, however I think your candidate breaks the mold to an extent. The above theory will only function if the candidate in question "behaves" meaning, if they also hold down the votes of the white male liberal population. This can only be done by beng palatable, or by not offending anyone. Your candidate could be considered offensive yet she is still in the running. I hope this is a sign that people are ready for the serious societal change Fluke represents. 

[pols-338-stokes]

Gender, Ethnicity and the Idea of "Advantage"

Quotas, which make space within an existing body, differ from Reservations, which incentivize the formation of specific peoples into a representative presence within a larger body. Both are tools used to break through our historically homogenous representation and allow for a greater divergence in representatives throughout the United States. Although numbers would still indicate a majority of positions of power in our country held by white males, the debate continues to swell in the United States surrounding the most prominent manifestation of this issue, Affirmative Action. As mentioned in---article, there has been considerable contestation of these plans (often by those groups not benefiting from it) on the basis of the potential lack of talent in those elected to positions for the major purpose of fulfilling a quota.

This might manifest in the shockingly ignorant statement that someone only holds the position they do because of their race or gender.

Connie Stokes has hit double jeopardy. As a black woman she occupies typically the lowest social status in the American Hierarchy. Women’s issues and her home state are obviously of the upmost importance for her, as demonstrated in her campaign priorities and history of involvement in women’s organizations. However, Mrs. Stokes is not leaning on her Black/Female identities in order to accrue votes. Instead she focuses on the Georgia economy, jobs, education and statewide transportation infrastructure.

When asked to “complete the following sentences” by online new source Rolling Out, Connie Stokes responded to the opener “I represent my constituents …” with  “Because their priorities are my priorities, and I am a good steward of creating responsible public policy and accountability in government.” She did not use her female-ness or her black-ness as a transparent political maneuver to “connect” with voters. Instead she gave an answer that should identify her as a politician and representative of her state. Unfortunately, we are not advanced enough as a society to see Connie Stokes first and foremost as a person doing their job…

  As a side note…To those intellectuals who think that Affirmative Action is a manner in which talentless people take jobs from the more qualified in the applicant pool because of an added “advantage”, I would ask that you read this article by Peggy McIntosh outlining some of the societal “advantages” we as white Americans may take for granted. Once it has been read, I would encourage you to apply a similar checklist for things applicable for only men as well…..

  Daily effects of white privilege (excerpt from Peggy McIntosh’s essay “White Privilege: Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack)

I decided to try to work on myself at least by identifying some of the daily effects of white privilege in my life. I have chosen those conditions that I think in my case attach somewhat more to skin-color privilege than to class, religion, ethnic status, or geographic location, though of course all these other factors are intricately intertwined. As far as I can tell, my African American coworkers, friends, and acquaintances with whom I come into daily or frequent contact in this particular time, place and time of work cannot count on most of these conditions.

1. I can if I wish arrange to be in the company of people of my race most of the time.

2. I can avoid spending time with people whom I was trained to mistrust and who have learned to mistrust my kind or me.

3. If I should need to move, I can be pretty sure of renting or purchasing housing in an area which I can afford and in which I would want to live.

4. I can be pretty sure that my neighbors in such a location will be neutral or pleasant to me.

5. I can go shopping alone most of the time, pretty well assured that I will not be followed or harassed.

6. I can turn on the television or open to the front page of the paper and see people of my race widely represented.

7. When I am told about our national heritage or about "civilization," I am shown that people of my color made it what it is.

8. I can be sure that my children will be given curricular materials that testify to the existence of their race.

9. If I want to, I can be pretty sure of finding a publisher for this piece on white privilege.

10. I can be pretty sure of having my voice heard in a group in which I am the only member of my race.

11. I can be casual about whether or not to listen to another person's voice in a group in which s/he is the only member of his/her race.

12. I can go into a music shop and count on finding the music of my race represented, into a supermarket and find the staple foods, which fit with my cultural traditions, into a hairdresser's shop and find someone who can cut my hair.

13. Whether I use checks, credit cards or cash, I can count on my skin color not to work against the appearance of financial reliability.

14. I can arrange to protect my children most of the time from people who might not like them.

15. I do not have to educate my children to be aware of systemic racism for their own daily physical protection.

16. I can be pretty sure that my children's teachers and employers will tolerate them if they fit school and workplace norms; my chief worries about them do not concern others' attitudes toward their race.

17. I can talk with my mouth full and not have people put this down to my color.

18. I can swear, or dress in second hand clothes, or not answer letters, without having people attribute these choices to the bad morals, the poverty or the illiteracy of my race.

19. I can speak in public to a powerful male group without putting my race on trial.

20. I can do well in a challenging situation without being called a credit to my race.

21. I am never asked to speak for all the people of my racial group.

22. I can remain oblivious of the language and customs of persons of color who constitute the world's majority without feeling in my culture any penalty for such oblivion.

23. I can criticize our government and talk about how much I fear its policies and behavior without being seen as a cultural outsider.

24. I can be pretty sure that if I ask to talk to the "person in charge", I will be facing a person of my race.

25. If a traffic cop pulls me over or if the IRS audits my tax return, I can be sure I haven't been singled out because of my race.

26. I can easily buy posters, post-cards, picture books, greeting cards, dolls, toys and children's magazines featuring people of my race.

27. I can go home from most meetings of organizations I belong to feeling somewhat tied in, rather than isolated, out-of-place, outnumbered, unheard, held at a distance or feared.

28. I can be pretty sure that an argument with a colleague of another race is more likely to jeopardize her/his chances for advancement than to jeopardize mine.

29. I can be pretty sure that if I argue for the promotion of a person of another race, or a program centering on race, this is not likely to cost me heavily within my present setting, even if my colleagues disagree with me.

30. If I declare there is a racial issue at hand, or there isn't a racial issue at hand, my race will lend me more credibility for either position than a person of color will have.

31. I can choose to ignore developments in minority writing and minority activist programs, or disparage them, or learn from them, but in any case, I can find ways to be more or less protected from negative consequences of any of these choices.

32. My culture gives me little fear about ignoring the perspectives and powers of people of other races.

33. I am not made acutely aware that my shape, bearing or body odor will be taken as a reflection on my race.

34. I can worry about racism without being seen as self-interested or self-seeking.

35. I can take a job with an affirmative action employer without having my co-workers on the job suspect that I got it because of my race.

36. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each negative episode or situation whether it had racial overtones.

37. I can be pretty sure of finding people who would be willing to talk with me and advise me about my next steps, professionally.

38. I can think over many options, social, political, imaginative or professional, without asking whether a person of my race would be accepted or allowed to do what I want to do.

39. I can be late to a meeting without having the lateness reflect on my race.

40. I can choose public accommodation without fearing that people of my race cannot get in or will be mistreated in the places I have chosen.

41. I can be sure that if I need legal or medical help, my race will not work against me.

42. I can arrange my activities so that I will never have to experience feelings of rejection owing to my race.

43. If I have low credibility as a leader I can be sure that my race is not the problem.

44. I can easily find academic courses and institutions, which give attention only to people of my race.

45. I can expect figurative language and imagery in all of the arts to testify to experiences of my race.

46. I can choose blemish cover or bandages in "flesh" color and have them more or less match my skin.

47. I can travel alone or with my spouse without expecting embarrassment or hostility in those who deal with us.

48. I have no difficulty finding neighborhoods where people approve of our household.

49. My children are given texts and classes which implicitly support our kind of family unit and do not turn them against my choice of domestic partnership.

50. I will feel welcomed and "normal" in the usual walks of public life, institutional and social.

[pols-338-chappellenadal]

Before we examine how Maria Chappelle-Nadal challenges or re-enforces our CAWP Inventory reading, I want to establish a basic profile of who she is as a politician. Maria Chappelle-Nadal is a mixed descent (Puerto Rican/African American) Democrat Senator for District 14 in the state of...

[pols-338-stokes]

I think the point you made about Chappelle-Nadal’s reaction post Furgeson is right on. She needs to be more careful than she would otherwise have to where she a white male. Unfortunately, if she chooses to communicate this way, her legitimate anger at injustice could be written off by many people as female hysteria.

[pols-338-gagnier]

Christina Gagnier is a small business owner and lawyer from Chino, California. She is currently campaigning for a seat in congress to represent District 35. District 35, also called the Inland Empire, is located in Southern California. Christina Gagnier both fits and challenges the...

[pols-338-stokes]

I cant imagine how difficult it would be to try to be taken seriously as a young blonde woman. I find it interesting that older women are more present in politics because our society has so many oppressive projections for young women in our society (the expectation that we are beautiful, sexy, friendly, sweet, mild mannered etc.) I dont know how one would begin to overcome the difficulties she must face daily. 

[pols-338-wdavis]

Section five of the reading references a 2008 study showed that a larger number of women in politics got their start in either the business or law field than in the past. Wendy Davis fits into both of these categories. She went to law school and spent much of her professional life owning a...

[pols-338-stokes]

I have to hand it to Wendy Davis, coming out about choices surrounding family planning to the public is as risky as it is emotionally charged. I would be very interested to learn more about that decision in context of her overall campaign strategy. Was it Mrs. Davis setting a positive example for the issues she believes in, or perhaps a move to connect with voters? Was she fearful the information would come out and negatively affect her campaign? Im proud of her, I never hear female public figures speak openly about these private decisions and courses of action. It normalizes it.

[pols-338-smith-blog]

The second half of the reading describes the different ways in which a female candidate’s background, political party, media coverage, and ethnicity effect their election. The evaluation of Smith’s campaign supports many of the different ideas outlined in the reading.

The CAWP research explains...

[pols-338-stokes]

I think this candidate is fascinating. She is intentionally placing herself in a most difficult position politically and it makes me want to believe that she trusts in her parties political positions above all other factors. She certainly did not choose this path because it would be easy. The vandalism is an interesting manifestation of the difficulty women and minorities must face in acting as a figurehead for a particular group as opposed to simply working as a politician. 

[pols-338-stokes]

Jason Carter and Connie Stokes

Lets start with the Voting Rights Act. In 1965 President Johnson signed legislation into law that shadowed the 15th amendment and enacted prohibitions on discriminatory practices which denied American citizens the right to vote. I find this so fascinating because it made a statement to the world that at this time in history, Americans desired to have a truly representational government. Today, we can see the effects (at least in a racial manner) in local government and districts in which many voters choose candidates that do reflect the best image of a community with specific racial/social/political/religious and ideological leanings. Despite our country teetering on nearly five decades of this “representational government” however, we still see a breakdown at the state wide and national levels. Minorities and women are grossly underrepresented in both parties, a pattern that cannot truly represent our nations variant life experiences.

  As previously mentioned Mrs. Stokes dropped out of the race for Governor in Georgia to run alongside Democratic candidate Jason Carter despite her extensive qualifications and experience in local and state politics. Why, for the 84th time, would a newly “Purple” majority-minority state such as Georgia, elect a white male? Why would Mrs. Stokes not follow through with her campaign for Governor?

  The Center for American Women and Politics states that “party leaders seek to replicate formulas that have worked in the past”. Well that is certainly true. 83 governors over the history of Georgia’s existence and not one has been a minority or a female? It is possible that both her own political party as well as an unwilling voting populous worked against her unfamiliarity and lead her to this decision?  Hope is out there for women of color in politics despite the historical bleakness. The CAWP states that female candidates of color often need to rely less on party recruitment and backing as their status (specifically African American) belonging to the minority community helps them circumvent some of the difficulties white females face.

  Perhaps it was the raising of sufficient funds that prevented Mrs. Stokes from continuing her campaign? Fundraising in campaigns can be more difficult for women then men for a number of reasons. Firstly, women perceive fundraising to be more difficult than their male counterparts. Secondly, female supporters have fewer resources than male supporters. All is not lost however as many are striving to bridge this gap through bi-partisan female fundraising organizations which The Research Inventory compiled by the CAWP describes as an important way in which “ to increase female representation”.

  It doesn’t help that her democratic opponent has none of these problems. Along with sidestepping the cultural barriers inherent to living in a white-privilaged and patriarchal society, Jason Carter is everything Mrs. Stokes is not. Jason Carter is former President Jimmy Carter’s grandson. This status slices through anxieties about a new candidate and washes away concern about funding a campaign (because he has amassed personal wealth, because his name will attract donations or perhaps both).

  While on Mrs. Stokes website I was surprised to read this:

 “State Senator Jason Carter’s announcement that he is running for governor in 2014 is already having a ripple effect on the ballot… University of Georgia political science professor Charles Bullock said Carter has a better shot at the gubernatorial campaign than Stokes because of the political legacy attached to his name….“Connie Stokes, while she’s been very active in DeKalb County politics [and] served in the state Senate, would not be known once you got very far away from DeKalb…Former state Senator Connie Stokes announced she will drop out of that race to make room for Carter’s campaign”.

  Not only does it outline what has been discussed above, but also the phraseology of Stokes dropping out in order to “make room” for an opposing candidate brings to mind images of subservience not in accordance with this woman’s political history. CAWP describes this unfortunate projection as female politicians “bumping up against cultural expectations of selflessness” and I cant help but feel that this article- on her own campaign website- details in the most eloquent political rhetoric the highly undemocratic political landscape of the United States.

  Will it be another 50 years before we have a truly representational government where candidates don’t have to deal with the burdens of fundraising, political “legacies” and their roots in the structurally violent systems of racism and sexism? I hope not…..

[pols-338-stokes]

Overview on Stokes

Senator Connie Stoke is the 2014 Democratic candidate for Lt. Governor for the state of Georgia. Mrs. Stokes has a great deal of experience as a public servant having worked in the senate for ten years and as a county commissioner for six. She has attended Georgia State University, J. Mack Robinson College of Business and the Art Institute of Atlanta. Her platforms for running as lieutenant governor are heavily focused on education, healthcare and transparency for the sake of ethicality in government.

  Mrs. Stokes is a female person of color in a state that is both majority-minority and imbued with a complex conservative/racial history. Stokes, along with the societal “double jeopardy” of being both a woman and of color, was born into poverty and raised by her grandmother in Atlanta’s proudly black Fourth Ward (best known for the Historic Martin Luther King Jr. site).  So how will this affect her campaign? According to the Center for American Women and Politics, African American females may actually benefit from their dual minority status in politics, as they are able to accrue voters from both the female and African American populace. On a surface level, this theory appears true, as Mrs. Stokes has won reelection in various positions in Dekalb Country over her sixteen plus years in government, a county which Wikipedia sites as 54% African American.

  So why Lieutenant Governor? What exactly does a Lieutenant Governor do? Their main purpose is to serve as the President of the Senate and naturally, to assume power if the Governor were ever unable to fulfill their duties. Initially Mrs. Stokes ran as the Democratic candidate for Governor, however two months into the race stepped down to run for Lt. Governor beside State Senator Jason Carter (a fascinating decision on her part, to be discussed in later posts….) In light of CAWP’s report, this move may have been safer for Mrs. Stokes than to run against Senator Carter for a few reasons.  Georgia is what is known as a “Purple State”; historically red the state is making a transition with fluctuating racial demographics. As a minority presence in the state increases, so do Democratic votes. However, Georgia is by no means a state transitioning from Purple to Blue and thus party pressure to unite the Democratic vote (especially the racial minority vote) may have influenced Mrs. Stokes’ decision.

  Tragically, CAWP also highlights the appalling deficit of women in “Commander-in-Chief” positions.  The inventory states, “Only six of the nations fifty governors in 2012 are women”. Six out of fifty??? That’s 12% of Governors in the United States who are women. This inevitably means that the pool for female Presidential candidates is pathetically underrepresented. Mrs. Stokes no doubt was fighting an uphill battle. She was not contesting for an open seat (in which women are shown to statistically fare better) but instead running against the current governor, white Republican male Nathan Deal.

  Just a quick recap: Mrs. Stokes in her run for Governor turned Lt. Governor is fighting gendered/ racial stereotypes of her electorate, abysmal underrepresentation of image likeness of those in power, and the disadvantage of non-incumbency? If I ever find myself in a bar-fight in Georgia, I hope Mrs. Stokes is on my side. I have no doubt the experience of her running as Lieutenant Governor will only strengthen her political career (regardless of the outcome) and arm her with some of the tools necessary to fight her uphill battles.