How women voted in the midterms might surprise you.
đ
Not today Justin

#extradirty

No title available

No title available

oozey mess
ojovivo
The Bright Sessions
occasionally subtle

tannertan36

ellievsbear
Phantogram Three
2025 on Tumblr: Trends That Defined the Year
let's talk about Bridgerton tea, my ask is open
Sade Olutola
The Bowery Presents
Fai_Ryy

izzy's playlists!
One Nice Bug Per Day
Cosmic Funnies
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Israel
seen from Ukraine

seen from T1
seen from United States
seen from Colombia
seen from United Kingdom
seen from United States
seen from Brazil
seen from China

seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from United States
seen from United States

seen from Finland
@pols-338-wdavis
How women voted in the midterms might surprise you.
Diane Black was re-elected to serve as representative for Tennesseeâs 6th congressional district with 71.1% of the vote! Blackâs 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...
I too am not surprised that Black was reelected. She seems to represent the quintessential conservative views that her constituents can identify with. I find it interesting that she believes that she represents women's issues though she does blatantly clash with the feminist agenda. I think if she truly represented women's issues she would be a little more open minded and less restrictive.
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...
Gagnier and Davis both were at distinct disadvantages in terms of fundraising. It was frustrating to see how much of a role that played in how the campaigns were run as well as how they concluded. I also loved that Gagnier was so grassroots in her approach and that she was so active on social media although I wish it had been more effective.Â
Democrat incumbent Krysten Sinema is victorious once again in the 2014 election to represent Arizonaâs 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 Sinemaâs platform fit nicely with the observations made by the CAWP and Reynolds articles.  For example, she started as a social worker and has the âprotection of the familyâ as a sort of framework for her platform. Furthermore, she had a section of her campaign solely dedicated to womenâs issues such as equal pay and the eradication of domestic violence. She uses her descriptive representation to itâs 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 Sinemaâs 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 âwomenâs issuesâ her substantive representation centers much more around financial benefits. In this way Sinema becomes much more representative of her districtâs 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/veteranâs 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!!!
I love how Sinema advocates for a myriad of issues and not just the 'women's issues' that female candidates are expected to work for. She was a fascinating candidate to learn about because she has such a complex persona. I do find it interesting that she downplays her identity in the LGBT community though it was probably beneficial in some cases especially due to the conservative climate of Arizona.
AlasâŚ.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...
With my candidate I did also speculate about the monetary aspect. Wendy Davis raised so much less than her male opponent and I wonder how the race would've been different if the campaign funds had been equal. I also love how community centered Stokes was (also similar to Davis) I do wish that our candidates had faired better because I believe that they would've had positive impacts on their constituents.Â
Election Analysis and Candidate Discussion
Wendy Davis lost to Greg Abbott on Tuesday by nearly sixteen percent of the vote. Wendy Davisâ loss does not come as a surprise in terms of the fact that Texas hasnât had a  Democratic governor since the 1990âs. According to Nia Malika Henderson from The Washington Post with Davisâ loss came the sad realization that âDavis's brand of working-class feminism failed to win the majority of women voters. Her opponent, Greg Abbott, got 54 percent of the women's vote, to Davis's 45 percent.â This realization also comes with surprise that Wendy Davis did not win over women voters as a broad category, the demographic that she was expected to be wildly successful with. Wendy did do well with women of color. In fact, 94 percent of black women and 61 percent of Latinas voted for her while Only 32 percent of white women did.
 In âConstituting Womenâs Interests through Representative Claimsâ by Celis et. al, the authors reference an essay by Wendy Smooth which âextends the theme of diversity among women, arguing that when speaking about âwomenâs interests,â it is imperative to ask, âwhich womenâs interests?â (2011, 437). In contrast to
Beckwith, Smooth highlights the problematic nature of using social movements to define âwomenâs interests,â pointing out that advocacy groups typically have to simplify â read: homogenize â their groupâs interests in order to make a case for policy attention, in the process amplifying the most privileged womenâs voices.â Â Jenny Kutner asserts that there is a âcrisis of empathyâ in white Texas communities which can lead to these voices drowning out other marginalized groups who have different needs from others in their demographic.
 One theory as to why Wendy Davis lost was due to the fact that her opponent raised much more money than she did and used those funds to create many attack ads that Davis could not afford to refute. The CAWP Research Inventory noted that âWomen generally have fewer personal resources than men, and their social and professional networks are less likely to include individuals who give regularly to campaigns.â This is evident in the Davis/Abbott race because Abbott was backed heavily by corporate sponsors such as the Koch brothers and this left Davis at a distinct disadvantage.
In the post-election analysis there is naturally emphasis on what went wrong in her campaign. Amanda Marcotte noted that âThere were many problems with the Davis campaign, but the biggest was Davisâs fear of defining herself or taking a strong, clear stand on the issues. Was she an Ann Richards progressive? A good ol' gal moderate? Did she run away from Obama? Toward him?â This is just another example of the balancing act that women politicians are expected to take part of. According to the CAWP Research Inventory, A plurality of consultants of both major parties see âstrength/toughnessâ as a more effective theme for men while a majority of both partiesâ consultants view âcompassionâ as a more effective theme for female candidates.â Being too decisive and taking a definitive stand on issues would perhaps make her seen too strong or even masculine.
Jenny Kutner noted that, âTime and time again, people of color have stood up for reproductive rights, for affordable health care, for immigrant communitiesâ This is what Wendy Davis did and added to her appeal in with those voters. Additionally this is likely why she lost by a landslide because as Jenny Kutner noted âVoting in Texas isnât about parties. Itâs about priorities. As a recent history of conservative leadership has shown what Abbottâs impending conservative leadership promises to bring: life-altering disparities and inequality as the norm. Healthcare for some. Good schools for some. Reproductive autonomy for some.â Wendy Davis advocated for the benefit of everyone and the fact that this was going against the conservative norm of Texas politics led to her defeat and the perpetuation of Republican leadership in the state.
In the case of Diane Black it could be said that her representation of Tennesseâs 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 Blackâs...
Reading your analysis reminded me that not every woman, in politics or not, is going to think the same issues are as important as I do. Black is the perfect example of this. I disagree with her stance on women's issues but it is important that she is representing women who have more conservative views. I also like what you said about there not being a cause in Congress that unites women on both sides of the aisle. Thinking about that is quite disheartening but understandable given the divisiveness of a majority of current women's issues.
This weekâs readings concentrated on the importance of substantive representation. The first reading that directly related to my candidate, Christina Gagnier, was the article, âConstituting Womenâs Interests through Representative Claims.â In the article Hanna Pitkin describes substantive...
It is very interesting to me to see which women's issues Gagnier advocates for. Women's safety online and encouraging women to work in technological fields are not issues that come to mind when I think about women's interests. This goes to show that women's issues are so broad and diverse, making complete representation of them very difficult.Â
The readings this week, focused on substantive representation and descriptive representation and whether they can be interchangeable. I found that Mala Htunâs âIs Gender like Ethnicity? The Political Representation of Identity Groupsâ and âConstituting Womenâs Interests Through Representative...
I find it very interesting that Fluke offers both descriptive and substantive representation to her constituency. She is in a unique position and has a lot of avenues to effect change for the people she represents. I though your concluding statement that "The definition of âwomenâs issuesâ is relative to each womanâs needs and her life experiences" summed up readings quite nicely. Women's issues are not homogenous because the demographic is so complex and unique.
Substantive Representation
In Htunâs article she notes that gender is âa unique form of social differenceâ and âunlike ethnicity, race, and religion, which are socially constructed and changeable categories, sex is universal and permanent.â According to Sylvia Agacinski, âsexual duality is the only universal difference within humanity.â
This fundamental difference within humanity is very divisive but it his does not mean that all women are homogenous in their beliefs. Wendy Davisâ stances on womenâs issues are a perfect example of this. She has received criticism for her pro-choice views from both men and women. This perspective on womenâs role in humanity is helpful for understanding the role that female politicians have. They have the responsibility to represent a huge demographic and take into account the needs and opinions of a diverse female constituency.
According to Celis, there are four types of representation: âformalistic, the formal bestowing of authority onto a person to act for another; descriptive, the correspondence between the characteristics of the representatives and the represented; symbolic, the more diffuse âmeaningâ of representation that resides in the attitude and beliefs of the represented; and substantive, described as âacting forâ representation.â The representation that women in office, like Wendy Davis, offer is substantive.
Pitkin believes that substantive representation âdeserves to be privileged above all other because it captures a relationship between the represented and the representative in which the represented are âlogically priorâ. In order for this type of representation to be effective, âRepresentatives must be responsive to the represented and not the other way around.â Davis has proven that she is responding to women by fighting against the inequality that they face in their every day lives. By electing a candidate to office, âthe represented may empower a representative to act on their behalf, enabling the representative to act as an independent trustee.â
I think itâs important that Celis differentiated between womenâs interests. They have been theorized along three lines: âwomenâs traditional roles within patriarchal societies, as shaped by their bodies, sexuality, and possibility of giving birth; womenâs participation in the labor market; and womenâs opportunities to transform their roles to attain greater gender equality.â Wendy Davis came into the public eye by fighting for womenâs autonomy over their bodies, the first âlineâ of theorizing womenâs issues. On her website she lists the issues that she is passionate about. One category is titled âWorking for Womenâ. The subcategories are Fighting Against Closure of Womenâs Health Centers; Empowering Rape Survivors, Cracking Down on Rapists; Ending Sexual Violence; and Fighting for Equal Pay. The variety in her interests shows that she is working for all aspects of the well being of women in United States. According to Celis, there is contention among scholars regarding âwhether to emphasize âpracticalâ versus âstrategicâ interests, stressing womenâs every day needs or more abstract feminist goals.â Wendy Davisâ actions have been in support of the practical issues, from getting women access to health care to working for equal pay.
The Celis reading was more helpful for me in regard to understanding Wendy Davis. Breaking down the complexity of womenâs issues made me gain respect for representatives and all they have to deal with.
Donât let anyone dismiss what youâre doing today as womenâs work. Donât let anyone send you back to the sidelines.
Hillary Rodham Clinton, 9/19/2014 (via ppaction)
Weâre thrilled to announce that Team Wendy has raised more than $12.2 million from 71,843 individual contributors so far. They said it couldnât be done, but thanks to your incredible support we outraised our opponent by $700K! Tell Wendy that youâre in it till November.
In the second half of the CAWP Research Inventory it talks about how political parties, pathways to election, media coverage, and race can affect women who run for elective office. The Inventoryâs findings suggest that Gagnier is at a disadvantage when compared to the other candidate running for...
I appreciate the fact that Gagnier acknowledges the stereotypes that come with her appearance and gender. It shows a sense of humility and self awareness that is refreshing in the political sphere. I think her younger age will breathe some new life into this election. She seems to have a lot stacked against her, especially in terms of fundraising. I can't imagine how daunting it would be to go up against another Democratic candidate who is endorsed by the party. It's going to be interesting to see how things turn out!
Candidate Recruitment and Womenâs Routes to Elective Office
Unlike the normal backgrounds that women have who seek office (health and education), Brenda Lawrence earned her Bachelor of Science degree in Community Development from Central Michigan University. Lawrence concentrated on studying...
I think that Lawrence's background in Community Development is interesting and I wonder how that area of study has influenced her politically. And the fact that she chose to emphasis her family life and downplay her education is a choice that I see quite often among female candidates. I think she strives to appear approachable and relatable to her constituency. It's also refreshing to see a candidate that doesn't rely so heavily on social media!
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...
I love that she is so outspoken especially on social media. With politicians there's a level of censorship that seems a bit contrived so it is really refreshing to see someone speak their mind so openly. I can see how the tweets can be viewed in a negative way but I hope that this won't affect her adversely. The fact that the tweets were in response to events in Ferguson really resonated with me. It is heartening to see people in powerful positions as enraged as regular citizens.
Descriptive Representation (1)
Sameena Karmally is an Indian-born American citizen running to represent House District 89 in Northern Texas. Her family moved to Texas from India when she was a toddler, and sheâs spent most of her life immersed in her home state - living, working, attending university, and starting her own young family in Texas. After years of practicing law, she is running as a challenger to the current assemblywoman, Jodie Laubenberg. Laubenberg is a Republican woman who has held her seat since 2002, in the time authoring and co-authoring many bills related to abortion restrictions, sexual education restrictions, and more. Against Laubenberg, Karmally seems to face a few disadvantages as a challenging Democrat woman of color in a largely white, republican district. Her opponent, on the other hand, has the advantage of her stateâs politics on her side as well as being an incumbent. However, according to the Center for American Women in Politics (CAWP), there is a trend in American politics in which women tend to run either against fellow women or for an open seat due to the fact that these elections tend to have a more favorable outcome for placing women into legislatures. According to this, Karmally faces fewer disadvantages than she would if she were running against a man.
   According to the CAWP women in politics are often compartmentalized into legislating for what are considered âwomenâs issuesâ - health care, childcare and childrenâs rights, education, and matters considered to be in the interest of women. Predominantly white male politicians often overlook these particular issues (whether through ignorance, over thought, or a feeling that these issues are unimportant) and as a result of this lack of fair representation in American legislatures, these issues often fall into the hands of our elected women. Whether this hand dealt for women in politics is a fair representation of what female leaders want to be legislating on or not, it appears to be what Sameena Karmally has built her ticket on. In this way, she follows very closely what the CAWP has found to be typical patterns for women in politics. Her websiteâs âAbout Meâ sections outlines her education, her work experience in practicing law, and her family life. Here, however, she strays from what the CAWP says is common of women in politics. Whereas the CAWP claims that women often feel that they must emphasize their accomplishments and leadership experience while downplaying their home life and more âfeminineâ qualities in order to appear equally qualified to their male counterparts, Karmally seems to do the opposite. Though she is highly qualified and lists her degrees (a BA, MA, and JD) and law experience, her emphasis is put largely on her home life and family. She explains her choice to switch from her full time law practice to being a full time stay-at-home mother and the charities and organizations she participates in - many of them in the realm of childrenâs interests and health care.
   This choice is an interesting one, especially once you consider the demographics of her district, her state, and her region. Itâs no secret that the socioeconomic politics of the south tend to side with the more traditional and the more conservative. Though this pattern is changing and there are certainly exceptions, a large part of the culture of the south remains based in social roles and tradition. Karmallyâs choice to emphasis her role as a mother and a caretaker in the face of a politically conservative region of the Greater Dallas area is one that, by design, avoids party lines. Instead of emphasizing her position as a Democrat in a red district, and a woman of color in a majority Caucasian district, she focuses on something that is a common experience for many - family and their well being. Whether Republican or Democrat, family is a common thread between both sides of the aisle.
I find the choice to emphasize family life rather than professional accomplishments was a very interesting choice for your candidate to make. Playing into the essentialist view of what being a woman means is undoubtedly going to benefit her in a largely traditional state like Texas. With most female candidates it seems as though they must strike a delicate balance between female and male characteristics. I think it was wise for her to focus on her family life because it is a very relatable subject and I hope it works to her advantage!
Descriptive Representation 2
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 business in Fort Worth.
 According to an article in the Washington Post, âTexas is conservative and deeply red in its voting patterns. Democrats havenât won a statewide race in two decades.â The reading references a quote that seems pertinent in this instance. They state âa quote by a Democratic party leader encapsulates the historic orientation of party leaders towards women: âThe only time to run a woman is when things look so bad that your only chance is to do something dramatic.â Wendy Davis is viewed by the party as someone who can be the catalyst who has the potential to change Texas from a red to blue state.
Media coverage was also discussed in the reading. It states that female candidates generally get less coverage than their male counterparts.
âWith so few women in decision-making positions, there is still often no one to raise a red flag when egregious sexism appears in news stories.â Media coverage has been quite slanderous toward Wendy Davis. She has been called an âAbortion Barbieâ because she is a classically pretty woman who also happens to be pro choice. She has also been referred to as a âsugar babyâ because her ex-husband helped pay for her law school tuition. Additionally she has been called a prostitute and whore. Her parenting skills have been called into question because her then-husband cared for their children while Davis was in law school. This is a particularly salient example of the double standard in media coverage. If a male candidate had gone to law school while his wife stayed at home with their children, no one would bat an eyelash. She has been said to be too ambitious. According to the reading, âone of the most consistentâand persistentâfindings to emerge from studies is that women candidates receive more attention to appearance personality, and family compared to men.â Wendy Davis recently revealed that she has had two abortions in her life. This personal admission is very powerful and emotional. However when her name is googled, nearly all of the search results revolve around her abortions. This is further proof that media focuses disproportionately on the personal lives of female candidates rather than other aspects of their campaigns.
 The article also discusses campaign financing. In a study that surveyed state representatives â56% of women state representatives compared with 9% of men
state representatives said they believe it is more difficult for women candidates to raise money; in contrast, 44% of women state representatives and 90% of men state representatives believe it is equally hard for men and women.12 Among the women state representatives who believe it is harder for women to fundraise, 41% believe the single most important reason it is harder is because women lack the networks that men have; the second most common reason given was that women are less comfortable asking for money for themselves.â According to the reading, a reason that women are more hesitant than men to ask for campaign donations is because, âCultural expectations about womenâs selflessness can make women candidates feel awkward about seeking campaign contributions.â Societal expectations of women permeate all aspects of a female politicians campaign. Wendy Davis does not seem to have an issue asking for campaign contributions. She emails her supporters frequently asking for small donations in order to reach her goal. She has raised significantly less money than her opponent because he has wealthy corporate backers. Only time will tell if her grassroots tactics will have efficacy in surpassing the funds of her opponent.