She Persisted: Gender, Electoral Loss, and the Decision to Run Again

• Author: Julie Dolan,Paru Shah
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912920934869
• Published date: 01 December 2020
• Date: 01 December 2020

934869PRQXXX10.1177/1065912920934869Political Research QuarterlyDolan and Shah
research-article2020
Mini-Symposium: The Role of Gender in the 2018 Midterm Elections
Political Research Quarterly
2020, Vol. 73(4) 957 –966
She Persisted: Gender, Electoral
© 2020 University of Utah
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Loss, and the Decision to Run Again
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912920934869
DOI: 10.1177/1065912920934869
journals.sagepub.com/home/prq
Julie Dolan1 and Paru Shah2
Abstract
Losing elections is a political reality for most candidates. While much fanfare was made of the historic number of
women who won in 2018, three times as many women ran and lost. And although we know much about the reasons
that motivate women to run in the first, far less is known about the decision-making processes of women who lose
and run again. How do women who were once motivated rebound for another campaign and election? We address
this question, working with a unique, exploratory data set of interviews with women who ran for Congress in 2018
and lost. Our analysis offers some important insights on how women who rebound think about their loss, and their
decision-making processes. We find compelling evidence that women’s paths to office continue to differ from men’s,
reminding us of the shortcomings of a one-size-fits-all model for candidate emergence or reemergence. We conclude
with the foundation of a gendered theory of electoral persistence.
Keywords
candidate persistence, women candidates, congressional elections
I’ll be back. I’ve heard that you’re not truly a politician until
Sanbonmatsu 2013; Palmer and Simon 2012; Pearson
you lose. Because I’ll tell what what—there’s a lot more
and McGhee 2013). Given most women are unsuccessful,
lessons in losing than there are in the [campaign] process.
we know little about how they view their initial run, their
thoughts about running again, or how this influences their
—Female congressional candidate who lost her 2018
paths to office.
primary.
Below, we begin with a review of the literature on can-
didate persistence and identify a number of theoretical
Losing elections is a political reality for most candidates.
possibilities for predicting which women will decide to
While much fanfare was made of the historic number of
run again after losing and which women are less likely to
women who won in 2018, three times as many women ran
do so. We then turn to an analysis of in-depth qualitative
and lost. And although we know much about the reasons that
interviews with 53 women who lost in 2018 to tease
motivate women to run in the first place—policy concerns
out some key distinctions between these two groups of
(Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013; Schneider et al. 2016);
women. Given the limitations of our data, our conclu-
positive role models (Silva and Skulley 2019); someone
sions are suggestive, but lead us to development of a
asked her (Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013)—far less is
theory of gendered electoral persistence that we will con-
known about the decision-making processes of women who
tinue to refine as we move on to the 2020 elections.
lose and run again. How do women who were once moti-
vated rebound for another campaign and election?
We address this question, working with a unique,
Literature Review
exploratory data set of interviews with women who ran
An extensive literature compares political ambition
for Congress in 2018 and lost. Our focus on losing candi-
between men and women and either concludes that under
dates is important for building a more complete picture of
women’s experiences on the campaign trail. We argue
that scholarship that focuses solely on the winners poten-
1Macalester College, St. Paul, MN, USA
tially paints a skewed portrait of female candidates’ per-
2University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee, USA
spectives and experiences. Just about everything we
know about female candidates comes from analyzing
Corresponding Author:
Paru Shah, Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin–
those who won or through making inferences about the
Milwaukee, P.O. Box 413, Milwaukee, WI 53211, USA.
qualities of those who emerged victorious (Carroll and
Email: shahp@uwm.edu

---

958
Political Research Quarterly 73(4)
certain circumstances women are less politically ambitious
effects of competition and loss. A number of articles have
than men (Bledsoe and Herring 1990; Costantini 1990;
examined gender differences in experimental settings and
Fulton et al. 2006), or that gender has little effect on candi-
labor markets. For example, Buser (2016) looks at the
date ambition (Carroll 1985). The literature on candidate
gender differences in winner-take-all experiments, which
emergence, on the other hand, concludes that women per-
he argues mimics situations like competitive job searches
ceive themselves to be less ready, less qualified, and less
and promotions, where there are clear winners and losers.
likely to win office (Fox and Lawless 2004, 2011).
Buser (2016) finds that after facing a setback in these
Little is known about how electoral loss influences
types of competitions, men react by picking a more chal-
political ambition, and even less is known about women
lenging target, while women react by setting their sights
who lose elections. Extrapolating from previous research
lower. Gill and Prowse (2014) similarly find that women
in political science, behavioral economics, and psychol-
and men react differently to winning and losing during
ogy, however, we identify three potential models for
competition. Women in particular are more likely to react
explaining when women might bounce back and run for
negatively when forced to compete, and when they
office after an initial loss. Given the scarcity of models
encounter random setbacks unrelated to performance.
that focus on women who decide to run again after an
They conclude that this risk aversion may explain why
electoral loss, a priori we do not presume to differentiate
women enter into competitions less often and why women
between the three theories offered above, nor do we posit
may be less inclined to pursue careers that involve multi-
the theories are mutually exclusive. Rather, we employ
ple rounds of competition for advancement.
the models to probe multiple components of women’s
Recent research by Wasserman (2018) and Vallejo
campaigns and develop a more nuanced understanding of
(2019) find some support for this psychological model in
the woman who loses and decides to run again.
electoral settings. In her quantitative analysis of local
and state offices in California, Wasserman (2018) con-
Rational Choice Model
cludes that losing has a depressive effect on women’s
electoral persistence and theorizes that the differential
The first model follows rational choice theories of political
discouragement women receive from external feed-
ambition—a simple cost/benefit analysis of the election,
back—That is, other’s questioning their qualifications—
and an assessment of her likelihood of winning (e.g., see
is particularly detrimental. Vallejo (2019) examines
Jacobson and Kernell 1983; Taylor and Boatright 2005).
Brazilian municipal elections and finds losing has a neg-
This model suggests an objective assessment of the first
ative effect on political ambition regardless of gender,
loss when potential candidates look at the objective data—
but that the effect is stronger for women, positing that
Was I out-fundraised? Were the margins of loss close? Was
“women tend to attribute failure to internal factors . . .
2018 a unique opportunity not soon to be repeated? Can I
and success to external factors, while men tend to do the
capitalize on the momentum I created in the first race?
opposite” (Vallejo 2019, 4).
There are a few scholarly examples of testing the
In this paper, we focus on the role of doubt in particu-
rational choice model as it affects electoral persistence.
lar. Research on candidate emergence finds many
Carsey et al. (2003) do not examine gender as an explana-
would-be candidates doubt their ability to run and win
tory variable but find that repeat candidates are more
and are labeled weaker candidates by others (Fox and
likely to have been serious contenders in the first race,
Lawless 2004). Rebound candidates, however, may
and value the seat. More recently, Thomsen (2018) inves-
experience this doubt differently. On the one hand, we
tigates gender differences specifically and finds little evi-
know they overcame this doubt the first time they ran;
dence of a depressive effect of loss when the electoral
on the other hand, those feelings of doubt may have
context—vote margins, open seats, fundraising—is taken
been confirmed—they lost. We posit, however, that
into account.
women who decide to run again will conceptualize that
Together, these works provide some evidence of an
doubt differently than those who are less willing. In par-
objective assessment of likelihood of winning to be sugges-
ticular, we expect women who entertain another run will
tive of a future run. We expect women who performed
be more likely to attribute their loss to external rather
“well” in their first run—were successful in fundraising,
than internal factors.
came close to winning the primary, outperformed their party
in the general election—will be more likely to run again.
Relationally Embedded Model
Psychological Model
Our...