I was reading Gingrich for that matter). Santorum is easily as wacky as Bachmann, and I think probably a less genuine person. Regardless of whether Bachmann was mistreated (and I think the author is persuasive that she was), I don’t think there is any question that it would be harder for a female to seek office. So what is it going to take to get a serious run out of a female presidential candidate?
I fear that the reason that Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann might get worse treatment is that a successful female candidate is going to need a “hook.” Even worse it seems like the hooks are going to have to be extremity. The thinking seems to be: If I wanted a middle of the road candidate with mainstream views, there are plenty of boring men I can vote for. If you want my attention as a female, you’re going to have to be out in the weeds somewhere. The implication is of course that by default we’d rather vote for a man and you’re going to need something special to move us from that position.
As an aside, I do subscribe to the notion that Santorum’s lack of qualifications as a candidate played to his advantage in Iowa. He was so bad that he didn’t get the spotlight until it was too late for the public to realize how unappealing of a candidate he was. Those desperate to vote for someone who wasn’t Romney jumped on the bus without checking it out too closely. In a week they may very well regret that decision, but for the moment they just wanted to vote for someone who wasn’t Romney.
We can only hope that a viable female candidate will get her due in a manner similar to Barack Obama –Charisma and gravitas. I only hope that she uses it a little more judiciously if she gets there.
7 Comments
I'm sorry, but
I fear that the reason that Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann might get worse treatment is that a successful female candidate is going to need a “hook.” Even worse it seems like the hooks are going to have to be extremity. The thinking seems to be: If I wanted a middle of the road candidate with mainstream views, there are plenty of boring men I can vote for. If you want my attention as a female, you’re going to have to be out in the weeds somewhere.
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say or what this is based on.
albert Thu 5 Jan 8:39 PM
Simply suggesting
Simply suggesting that for a typical voter their default position is going to be that they should vote for a male. You may need something “more” as a female.
kelly Thu 5 Jan 9:14 PM
but why would the "more"
tend to be extremism? In Iowa’s Senate district 18 special election, the “more” for Liz Mathis was very high name recognition and favorable impressions based on her career in broadcasting.
desmoinesdem Thu 5 Jan 9:27 PM
I take the opposite view,
There isn’t much data. We’ve had three women candidates for president: Shirley Chisholm in 1972, Hillary Clinton and Michele Bachmann. I consider them all to have been serious candidates. Sarah Palin did not run an independent campaign for president or even for vice-president.
Sure, in 2008, numerous polls indicated that a significant, but not insurmountable, nr of Americans were uncomfortable w/ voting for a woman. However, I would say the trend today is that all candidates, male or female, indulge in a “hook,” or some gimmick to stand out in the crowd. I think pointing out that Santorum, Gingrich, Paul, Perry etc were just as extreme supports this. Here in IA, it was a manifestation of trying to appeal to a significant voting bloc — social conservatives.
I take the opposite view. It’s not hard to conclude that accessing the socon bloc means engagement with a large number of gatekeepers, from organizations like Family Leader to pastor networks. One area where Bachmann tripped up was in assuming that she had equal access and opportunity here.
My point in comments to the original diary was that non-traditional candidates should not expect to enjoy benefits from institutions established to assist status quo interests. Obama realized this right away and instead appealed to constituencies unassociated with gatekeepers.
Shirley Chisholm’s “hook” was “unbought and unbossed.” This was actually a Bachmann’s strength, IMO. She also “presents” well, especially to suburbanites. Time and time again I would read how people simply liked her after a brief encounter. Pandering to socons did nothing for her.
I think a more successful path may have been to dial back the extremism and target suburban voters; appeal to youth voters who do not in general have issues with non-traditional candidates; and just pick up a slice of the socon vote instead of trying to maximize it. Out of the gate, she’d have picked up a larger share of socons than Romney would.
The bottom line is that no, I would not advocate for a gimmick, and particularly not extremism. I think women candidates should be realistic about the terrain and properly identify advantages and disadvantages. Sometimes you make your own luck. Compelling positions and hard work still rule the day.
albert Thu 5 Jan 10:23 PM
Shirley Chisholm
= awesome.
Agree, Bachmann should have done more to present herself as unafraid to challenge even her own party’s leaders. She did this to some extent by emphasizing her uncompromising fights against Obamacare, etc., but she could have done more.
desmoinesdem Fri 6 Jan 10:27 AM
no doubt
the “name five people you admire” type questions are trite, but Shirley Chisholm would be in my top 5.
Kweisi Mfume ran an “unbought and unbossed” campaign for real in 2006, which is why I volunteered for his campaign. I still can’t get over the loss. It was very close.
I suppose Margaret Chase Smith should be included in a list of women presidential candidates, but she didn’t campaign, so no.
albert Fri 6 Jan 4:05 PM
a large proportion of women
who have served in Congress started out as political spouses or were born into dynasty families. That “hook” has launched many successful careers in politics for women.
desmoinesdem Thu 5 Jan 8:55 PM