Running as a Woman? Candidate Presentation in the 2018 Midterms

AuthorMaura McDonald,Rachel Porter,Sarah A. Treul
Date01 December 2020
Published date01 December 2020
DOI10.1177/1065912920915787
Subject MatterMini-Symposium: The Role of Gender in the 2018 Midterm Elections
/tmp/tmp-18o5DvJAKE9bt2/input 915787PRQXXX10.1177/1065912920915787Political Research QuarterlyMcDonald et al.
research-article2020
Mini-Symposium: The Role of Gender in the 2018 Midterm Elections
Political Research Quarterly
2020, Vol. 73(4) 967 –987
Running as a Woman? Candidate
© 2020 University of Utah
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Presentation in the 2018 Midterms
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920915787
DOI: 10.1177/1065912920915787
journals.sagepub.com/home/prq
Maura McDonald1, Rachel Porter1, and Sarah A. Treul1
Abstract
The record high number of women who ran for the U.S. Congress during the midterm elections led many journalists
to proclaim 2018 as another “Year of the Woman.” Although not every female candidate was successful, this large
number of women running for office provides the opportunity to advance our understanding of the ways in which
women present themselves to their voters. Using the “Biography” pages of more than 1,500 2018 congressional
campaign websites, we use a structural topic model to examine how these candidates present themselves to their
constituencies. In doing this, we find great variance in the presentation styles of women running for Congress in 2018.
We also find that prior political experience, more so than gender, is the primary driver in influencing how candidates
(both men and women) present themselves. Experienced candidates use similar styles that highlight their past political
work while amateur candidates are more likely to use “values-driven” language.
Keywords
congressional elections, gender, women in politics, primaries
Introduction
An increasingly crowded field of women illustrates
the necessity for women to develop distinctive self-pre-
The 2018 midterm elections marked a historic occasion
sentation strategies as a way to distinguish themselves
for female representation in the United States. Since
from one another and to attract support from voters,
1992, a mere 160 female candidates, on average, ran for
donors, and party elites. This is particularly true in pri-
the House in any given election cycle. However, in
mary elections, where voters are not able to use party as a
2018, a record-breaking 476 women ran for the House
cue. This need for distinctiveness raises important ques-
of Representatives, and thirty-six women were newly
tions about what candidates choose to emphasize and de-
elected to office. The year was also unique as women’s
emphasize over the course of a campaign. Do women
issues, such as gender equality and workplace harass-
choose to highlight their gender in similar ways, creating
ment, were frequently at the forefront, spurred by the
a homogeneous presentation style that is unique to female
Women’s March and the #MeToo movement. Taken
candidates? Or, given that many of the factors that tradi-
together, this increase in female candidate emergence
tionally influence elections do so “regardless of the sex of
and the centrality of gender issues on the national stage
the candidates” (Dolan 2014), is it more likely that
provide us with a unique opportunity to study the role of
women, like men, are heterogeneous in their presentation
gender in how a candidate presents herself to voters
styles? Should we then expect to see more homogeneity
(i.e., the candidate’s “presentation of self”; Fenno 1978).
between men and women who share other characteristics
In particular, the presence of a large number of female
(i.e., Democratic women are more similar to Democratic
candidates allows us to examine how women may differ,
men than they are to Republican women). If so, how do
not only from men, but also from other women as they
differences in party and previous experience in elected
develop a style that determines how they tailor commu-
office influence what candidates choose to emphasize?
nication toward their voters and potential constituents.
Emphasizing one’s gender by running “as a woman”
seems like a highly advantaged strategy in a year that
1The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, USA
many called another “year of the woman.” Therefore, if
there ever was an election to expect pronounced differ-
Corresponding Author:
Sarah A. Treul, Department of Political Science, The University of
ences in gendered self-presentation, it would be in this
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-3265, USA.
election.
Email: streul@unc.edu

968
Political Research Quarterly 73(4)
To answer these questions, we turn to campaign web-
the role that gender plays in modern-day elections. Although
sites. Throughout the course of 2018, we collected the
women make up 51 percent of the national population, they
text from the “About” pages of all candidates who ran in
still are significantly underrepresented in Congress. Much of
the 2018 primary elections—totaling 1,510 candidate
the past literature surrounding female candidate emergence
biographies of which 24 percent were women.1 The
and success suggests that this is not because women cannot
“About” pages of candidate websites are the ideal place
be successful at the ballot box. On the contrary, men and
to examine self-presentation. According to Druckman,
women are elected at comparable rates.3 What is likely more
Kifer, and Parkin (2009, 345), candidate campaign web-
responsible for the dearth of women running is that women
sites are a uniquely ideal form of data for studying cam-
are more likely to wait to run until they have accrued a sub-
paign communication because they are “unmediated (i.e.,
stantial amount of experience in elected office, passing some
directly from the campaign), complete (i.e., covering a
“quality threshold,” often making them more qualified than
full range of rhetorical strategies), and representative of
their male counterparts once they decide to run (Fulton
the population of campaigns.” In addition, Sulkin, 2012). Reinforcing this theory, Pearson and McGhee (2013)
Moriarty, and Hefner (2007) find that the typical candi-
demonstrate that women are even more likely to hold elected
date presents a campaign agenda on her website that cov-
office before seeking a House seat, showcasing their per-
ers nearly twice as many issues when compared with her
ceived need for previous experience before running for
advertisements, indicating that these websites contain a
Congress. Relatedly, Lawless and Fox (2010) argue that
more comprehensive view of a candidate’s positions,
women are underrepresented because they do not run as
containing information that likely shows up throughout
often as men do, in part, because they are less likely to
the campaign. Because candidates are not limited to the
receive early encouragement to run for office and are more
same time and space restrictions they might be in cam-
likely to put off running due to family considerations. In
paign advertisements, press releases, or social media
summary, there are fewer women running because they, as a
posts, they can emphasize everything that they think
group, are unconvinced that they are ready to run—let alone
might be important to potential supporters, including
ready to win.
copies of advertisements or links to speeches or articles
This personal decision-making, combined with an
(Druckman, Kifer, and Parkin 2009; Schneider 2014).
uneven electoral playing field, leads women to believe
Although the audiences for these websites are more
that they must be extraordinarily qualified candidates to
homogeneous than those for campaign ads (Sulkin,
run for Congress. As a result, women, regardless of previ-
Moriarty, and Hefner 2007), we expect that candidates
ous elected office experience, party, or race type, are
use these websites to present a strategic picture of them-
likely to focus on and play up their experience, in what-
selves. The “About” page of a candidate’s website is a
ever form they have, as they tend to have a lot of it, and it
picture of the candidate as she wishes to be seen by voters
provides the foundation for their sense of qualification. It
and how she hopes the media will portray her.
is here that we expect to see a gendered difference in
Thus, the campaign websites provide us with an unme-
campaign presentation. Women will be more likely than
diated snapshot of the candidate, or “the aggregation of
men to emphasize their political and other types of expe-
campaign communications that reflect a campaign’s over-
rience as a function of proving their qualifications to their
all rhetorical strategy” (Druckman, Kifer, and Parkin 2009,
potential voters and donors.
345). In this paper, we specifically focus on the candidate’s
Turning to the campaign environment, many studies
biographies or “About” pages.2 These pages are more than
find that women receive unequal media coverage, with
just a place for candidates to paste their résumés. Candidates
more attention paid to their appearance and personality
use these pages to make a case for why they are the best for
traits than their qualifications (Duerst-Lahti 2006; Kahn
the job—we think of them as “Why Me” pages. These
1996). This likely encourages women to play up their
“Why Me” pages are a place where “different aspects of
experience even more to counterbalance this uncontrol-
personal history are adjusted in accordance with a strategic
lable media coverage. In addition, women must be more
plan,” making them an ideal place to investigate how can-
strategic about...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT