Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: The next Democratic nominee for president needs to be a woman. [View all]JHan
(10,173 posts)31. I love those links...and particularly this bit:
The "Jill Robinson theory" of high-achieving, women Congress members
Another way legislators serve their constituents is by bringing programs and money to their districts securing more money to start a pre-K program, for example, or dollars to repave local roads.
All told, Congress allocated $20.8 trillion in federal outlays (excluding defense and military spending) from 1984 to 2004. Women, it turns out, did a better job at getting their share of that money. On average, female legislators sent 9 percent more funds back to their districts than their male colleagues. Districts represented by women received an additional $49 million annually on average compared to their male-represented counterparts.
Sarah Anzia, the author of this study, argues that this might reflect something particular about the type of women who run for Congress. Multiple studies have found that women underestimate their qualifications for office compared to men. When you look at a comparable group of lawyers, business leaders, and others likely to run for office, the men are significantly more likely to say that theyd make a good politician.
"One of the common jokes in this field is that every day, there are a million men who wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, and say 'Id be a great congressman,'" says Heidi Hartmann, an economist who runs the Institute for Womens Policy Research. "And there arent that many women who do that."
As such, Anzia hypothesizes that the women who do assess their qualifications positively are those who are actually overqualified for the job.
"If women underestimate their qualifications for office, then only the most qualified, politically ambitious females will emerge as candidates," Anzia writes. "The women who are elected to office will perform better, on average, than their male counterparts."
Anzia dubs this the "Jill Robinson effect" after Jackie Robinson, the first black baseball player who was also heralded as one of the top talents in the game. "Robinson had to be better than almost any white player in order to overcome the prejudice of owners, players, and fans," Anzia writes.
Another way legislators serve their constituents is by bringing programs and money to their districts securing more money to start a pre-K program, for example, or dollars to repave local roads.
All told, Congress allocated $20.8 trillion in federal outlays (excluding defense and military spending) from 1984 to 2004. Women, it turns out, did a better job at getting their share of that money. On average, female legislators sent 9 percent more funds back to their districts than their male colleagues. Districts represented by women received an additional $49 million annually on average compared to their male-represented counterparts.
Sarah Anzia, the author of this study, argues that this might reflect something particular about the type of women who run for Congress. Multiple studies have found that women underestimate their qualifications for office compared to men. When you look at a comparable group of lawyers, business leaders, and others likely to run for office, the men are significantly more likely to say that theyd make a good politician.
"One of the common jokes in this field is that every day, there are a million men who wake up in the morning, look in the mirror, and say 'Id be a great congressman,'" says Heidi Hartmann, an economist who runs the Institute for Womens Policy Research. "And there arent that many women who do that."
As such, Anzia hypothesizes that the women who do assess their qualifications positively are those who are actually overqualified for the job.
"If women underestimate their qualifications for office, then only the most qualified, politically ambitious females will emerge as candidates," Anzia writes. "The women who are elected to office will perform better, on average, than their male counterparts."
Anzia dubs this the "Jill Robinson effect" after Jackie Robinson, the first black baseball player who was also heralded as one of the top talents in the game. "Robinson had to be better than almost any white player in order to overcome the prejudice of owners, players, and fans," Anzia writes.
Another thing that occurred to me just now is how Presidents are a contrast to each other. Typically they run counter to who the opposing party nominates, and they come to symbolize a rejection of the predecessor.
Trump's anti-intellectualism, nativism, and vulgarity is a response to Obama's decency and his progressive vision of diversity. In '08 Obama's scholarly and cultured persona was a response to Bush's ignorance and evangelicalism. In 2000 Bush sold himself as a down to earth, family man with good Christian values, in response to Clinton's lascivious reputation as a result of the Lewinsky affair. Clinton sold himself as an outsider from the south who was approachable, a cool guy who can play the sax - in contrast to Bush Snr's "blue blood" background, elitism and patrician manner. Reagan sold himself as a cheerful sunny optimist in response to Carter's somber realism. And Carter sold himself as clean and honest in response to Nixon's toxic presidency and the corruption of Watergate. Nixon in some ways personified the backlash to the civil rights movement and Johnson, appealing to the "the silent majority". And so on.
So, who would we envision as being the opposite of Trump The Pussygrabber? Who is the anti-Trump? Who would be seen to restore America's standing in the world, heal relationships with allies, with a gift or at least some talent for diplomacy? What sort of person would attract the votes of those in the crosshairs of this administration? What sort of person would get the interest of women in the surburbs, POC, and represent a complete and total rejection of all that Trump stands for?
In the 2016 matchup, they managed to drag Clinton to Trump's level, with a massive disinformation campaign. Now that we are aware of the dynamics of 2016, the next nominee won't face a similar fate - hopefully.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
151 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
She's made it very clear on a number of occasions that she's not interested.
The Velveteen Ocelot
Sep 2018
#5
Wishful thinking, but wouldn't it be amazing if she filed on the last possible day
ecstatic
Sep 2018
#124
The next nominee needs to be someone who can win and be a good president.
The Velveteen Ocelot
Sep 2018
#4
I agree that they should be a good candidate and someone who would make a good president,
RDANGELO
Sep 2018
#7
Myself, I think President Clinton should get what she won. The Presidency.
Crutchez_CuiBono
Sep 2018
#108
I still have her yard sign and I want to put it out so bad. Sometimes I cram it in the window
Crutchez_CuiBono
Sep 2018
#119
I agree. Unfortunately, I think that misogyny is in full force in this country these days.
smirkymonkey
Sep 2018
#18
Thank you. You have just confirmed my suspicions that it was characterized wrong
still_one
Sep 2018
#20
That's how I feel about it. Now is not the time to be pulling out the wish list.
Chemisse
Sep 2018
#44
The OP in fact didn't mention any other factors, merely that the next candidate needed to be a woman
mythology
Sep 2018
#43
I agree GOP/RWers will do things to the 2020 D nominee which make Franken look like child's play
RockRaven
Sep 2018
#13
No theres no magic bullet. The gop is set to make everybodies life hell so what does it matter?
Crutchez_CuiBono
Sep 2018
#110
"What sort of person would get the interest of women in the surburbs, POC, and..."
Garrett78
Sep 2018
#71
progressive plank (don't forget facing up to full implications of climate crisis) AND WIN!
cloudythescribbler
Sep 2018
#118
A Republican challenger running as an independent would guarantee a Dem POTUS.
Garrett78
Sep 2018
#74
Is there a woman with tons of experience who you hope will toss her hat into the ring?
oberliner
Sep 2018
#42
I think a female VP would be a great way to ease into having the first woman president.
Chemisse
Sep 2018
#47
No, we don't need a gender litmus test. It's not a coronation. We need a FIGHTER.
LBM20
Sep 2018
#56
No. Nominate the best PERSON. No purity/litmus tests. Very bad idea. . . . nt
Bernardo de La Paz
Sep 2018
#65
the next nominee needs to be intelligent, witty, on top of facts, and unabashedly liberal PERIOD
Laura PourMeADrink
Sep 2018
#91
I get it that people need to be qualified, but, after don trum...the right wing has ZERO
Crutchez_CuiBono
Sep 2018
#111
The next nominee needs to be the best candidate, whether male or female.
highplainsdem
Sep 2018
#103