LEA CHITTENDEN: Hi, my
name is Lea Chittenden.

I'm with the Center for the
Study of Politics and Governance

here at the Humphrey
School of Public Affairs.

I'd like to welcome you today.

Before we get started, I have
a couple housekeeping items.

First, please make sure your
cell phones are silenced,

and we will be incorporating
questions into the conversation

later on.

So if you have questions,
we'll be passing these around,

fill them out, and we'll
collect them later.

I also wanted to let you know
about our last event coming up

this semester.

It's on December 10.

We'll have Noam Levey here.

He'll be talking about Medicare
for all and health care

affordability.

You can find more information
about that on our website.

And now, on to today's program
on women running for office,

I'm very pleased to introduce
our moderator today, Kathryn

Pearson.

She's a professor in the
political science department

here at the University
of Minnesota.

She specializes in
American politics,

and her research focuses
on United States Congress,

congressional elections,
political parties,

and women in politics.

Please, join me in
welcoming Kathryn Pearson.

[APPLAUSE]

KATHRYN PEARSON: Great.

Thank you, Lea.

And thank you for the center
for hosting today's event.

You'll hear from me
a little bit later.

But my main job right now is to
introduce our guest, Professor

Kelly Dittmar, who is
an assistant professor

of political science at Rutgers
University-Camden and a scholar

at the Center for American
Women and Politics

at the Eagleton
Institute of Politics.

Professor Dittmar
is the co-author

of A Seat at the Table,
Congresswomen's Perspectives

on Why Their Representation
Matters, which was just

published by Oxford
University Press in 2018,

and she is the author of
Navigating Gendered Terrain,

Stereotypes and Strategy
in Political Campaigns,

published in 2015.

Her research focuses on
gender and American political

institutions.

She is also most recently the
author of Unfinished Business,

Women Running in
2018 and Beyond.

And today, she's
going to give us

her perspectives on what
happened in the 2018 elections

and significantly, what to
expect as the 2020 nominating

contest and presidential
elections are heating up.

So we'll start off
this program by having

Professor Dittmar speak
for about 15 minutes

up here from the podium, and
then the two of us will chat,

but I'll be informed
by all of the questions

that you fill out in writing
as Professor Dittmar speaks.

So please fill out
those cards, so

that I'll have plenty
of questions to ask her.

I also want to
recognize the fact

that we have former
legislator Phyllis Kahn here

in our audience, and
former Secretary of State

Joan Growe in the audience.

So not only do we have a star
scholar of women in politics.

But we have former women
elected officials as well.

So everyone, welcome.

And please, welcome,
Professor Kelly Dittmar.

[APPLAUSE]

KELLY DITMAR: So
thank you so much.

So basically, the
folks in the audience

could just come up and
speak and tell this story.

But I'm glad to be
here, and thanks

to the institute for giving me
this opportunity to talk about,

in particular, this report
that we wrote about 2018,

but also more broadly
about the questions we have

and the day-to-day realities
that face women in politics

in this particular era.

So those of you who
are up late last night

watching the debate, who
are watching the impeachment

inquiry, all of
this stuff, there

are many ways in which gender
is playing out in politics.

And I hope we'll get to talk
about some of that as well.

So I want to start 28 years
ago, when the then director

of the Center for American
Women and Politics, Ruth Mandel,

and scholar Irwin Gertzog,
prefaced what was a newsletter

that we would put out at
COP with a quote, unquote,

"note of caution" about
characterizing 1992 as the year

of the woman.

And this is what they wrote.

The matter of parity for women
and men in high public office

is not a project of a
single year, or even

a single generation.

After all, we are
talking about rearranging

an ancient pattern, namely men's
leadership of the public world.

That takes time.

Over 2 and 1/2 decades later,
Ruth and Irwin were proven

right.

While women's congressional
representation

tripled from the fall of 1992 to
2018, women were still just 20%

of the members of Congress, as
we went into the 2018 election.

At the time, there
were 11 states

that had no women's
representation in Congress.

And if you look down different
levels of office, of course,

those gender disparities were
pervasive, again, even in 2018,

so that time that they said it
would take was still continuing

and is still today.

In the spring of 2018,
my boss, Debbie Walsh,

is the director of COP, and
I issued a similar statement

of caution that we published in
Huffington Post about the 2018

election, in which we
urged, particularly,

practitioners and advocates
for women in politics to quote,

unquote, "underpromise
and overdeliver."

We were seeing the narrative
of the wave and the surge,

and it was going to be the
biggest year for women.

And we're concerned that
we were putting ourselves

in the same box as
what happened in 1992.

We also make the case or made
the case that identifying any

single year as a quote,
unquote, "year of the woman"

is problematic by focusing on an
unlikely confluence of factors

as necessary to yield victory or
progress for women candidates,

we risk perpetuating the idea
that women's political success

is an anomaly.

We also risk masking the
long-term structural factors

that impede widespread
short-term access

or success for women
across election cycles.

And so that's what we
did throughout the cycle

repeatedly, being the wet
blanket when media called us

to say yes, it's a good year.

But here are the challenges.

And I think, ultimately, it
was a smart strategy for us,

because we did
and women did over

deliver based on what our
baseline thoughts about what

could happen for women were.

But our caution and our lens of
caution to understand 2018 also

allowed us to see that
the results from 2018

did not mean that the job was
done in terms of gender parity

in politics.

And so we were
able to take 2018,

look at it with a critical lens.

And that's really
the vision and lens

with which I wrote this
report, Unfinished Business.

And from the title alone, you
can get the takeaway from it.

I should say that I'm proud
of this, that the report is

a microsite, that's
very interactive

at womenrun.rutgers.edu.

So I hope you'll check it out.

So I'm just going to point to
a couple of top line findings,

try not to talk too long because
I do want to get to the Q&A

with another expert.

And so let me just hit
on a couple of pieces

that are from the
report, but that take us

from what happened
in 2018, and how

then does that
inform our thinking

about 2020 and the questions
we might want to raise?

So one, women made history
in the 2018 election.

But-- there's lots
of buts in this talk.

But have not achieved parity
with men in electoral politics.

So a couple of data points that
you're probably all aware of.

A record number of women ran for
congressional and gubernatorial

posts in 2018, but women
remain less than 25%

of candidates on
primary ballots in 2018,

and they were less than
a third of candidates

on general election ballots.

So the story in the media,
record numbers, but we

forgot the denominator
in many cases.

In terms of win
rates, it was also

a really good story for women.

So they were winning, at
least, in a blunt measure

at higher rates than men.

And they also, on
the Democratic side,

were responsible for over
50% of flipped seats.

So the seats that went from
Republican to Democrat,

not only in the House, but
also in gubernatorial seats

nationwide.

So you might say that women
are electable in that vein.

And also a record
number of women

serve, obviously,
in Congress today.

So the outcomes of
the 2018 election

were that we do have
more women in Congress

and state legislatures.

But while women are over
50% of the population,

they still are less than a
third of elected officials

across these levels of office.

So the first numbers
are important.

Secondly, the gender story of
2018 was not a singular one.

Here, especially
in regard to who

and which women were successful.

So contrary to the wave and
surge rhetoric of the 2018

election, the gains for
women in election 2018

were concentrated entirely
among Democratic women

at every level of office.

The number of Republican women
declined in the US House,

among governors, among statewide
elected executive officials,

and in state legislatures
nationwide between 2018

and 2019.

Probably the most stark
piece in which we see more

regularly is that in the
House, Republican women went

from 23 members to just 13.

There are 435 members in the
House, just to check you there.

And already, two
of those women have

said they're not running
for re-election in 2020.

I should also note, if you're
watching the impeachment

hearings, that there's a
lot of attention to Elise

Stefanik for a lot of reasons.

But one of those
reasons may be that she

is the only Republican
woman on this committee.

So that's because we
have these numbers that

are quite low in the House.

The gender story in
and as a result of 2018

is also intersectional, with
different successes and hurdles

for women coming from different
racial and ethnic backgrounds,

something that I
think also sometimes

got lost in the storytelling.

So women of color,
again, success overall,

if we look as a group.

Women of color serve
in record numbers

in Congress today and statewide
elected executive offices

and in state legislatures.

We saw the first ever women
of color elected to Congress

from states like Minnesota,
Massachusetts, Connecticut,

and Kansas.

But at the same
time, as of 2019,

26 states have never sent a
woman of color to Congress.

We also saw three states elect
their first women governors,

including the first Democratic
women of color ever elected

governor in the United
States, in New Mexico.

And just to give you one other
data point that demonstrates

what I would talk about as
the recent history for women

of color and progress
in American politics,

that is different,
if we're telling

a story about white
women or women generally,

is that in all of US history,
we have had 50 women of color

serve in statewide
elected executive offices.

So these are 311 offices,
attorneys general,

Secretary of State, et cetera,
throughout the country, 50.

Today, 220 men serve in
those positions currently.

So again, to give
you context of where

we're at in terms of the
progress for women, far

from a point of parity.

And then I should note
one other positive thing

about this intersectional
story that gets lost,

if you're not looking at the
intersection of race and gender,

which is that about 40% of
the new women of color elected

to the US House were
represented or were elected,

excuse me, in majority
white districts.

This matters because one of the
challenges for women of color

in politics has been political
practitioners who say,

you can't win in that district,
or you can't win in a statewide,

or you can't win a
presidential race

because you have to appeal to
a majority white electorate.

These women, unlike--
these are numbers

different than what we've
seen historically, demonstrate

and disrupt that
argument that in some way

they're not electable
because of their racial

and ethnic identities.

And then one of the last points
I want to make about 2018

is that the story of women's
political success in 2018

goes beyond the numbers.

So we spent a lot of
time at the center

that I work at collecting the
numbers, crunching the numbers.

But certainly, when we're
thinking about gender,

and power, and elections, we
have to think beyond who's there

and the demographic differences.

It's also important to look at
the diversity in women's paths

to office.

Why did they run?

What motivated them?

And I'm not going to get into
this, but I'm just going to say,

and I think we'll
talk about it probably

in Q&A, which is that there
is also not a single story.

All women did not wake up
after election day, and all

of a sudden, decide they wanted
to run for political office.

The media would have
had you believe that.

That is not the case.

There may have been
some of those women.

And there were certainly
women who spoke to media

and said that, but that
was not the majority.

And also, we want to look
at how women run for office.

And this is a subject
of my first book.

So I could talk way too
long about this, but what

are the ways in which they're
engaging and navigating

gender and race, and the
intersection of both in how they

campaign for office.

So it can be from
challenging stereotypes.

How do they use gender
as an electoral asset,

instead of a
liability to overcome?

We saw that done quite
effectively in 2018.

Are they waiting to run?

We saw women running at
younger ages with young kids.

And how did they, in doing that,
disrupt the institutional norms

or what we expect to see in
candidates and officeholders?

And I should add here as well,
that men play an important role

in that disruption too.

So they're also playing
into gender stereotypes.

You could look at our
president in terms

of the performance
of masculinity

and how that is maintained,
as well as some men and male

candidates who are
disruptive of that approach.

So what does this
all mean for 2020?

So first, I want to be clear
that the success of women

in 2018 didn't fully append the
entrenched institutional norms

and structures
that have put women

at an electoral
disadvantage in the US.

So I'll just direct
you to the report here.

But, again, assume we'll talk
about some of these things.

But some of the topics
in the report that we

talk about in terms
of persistent barriers

are women having to work harder
to achieve the same result.

Maybe women in the room
may understand that.

Stereotypical biases,
both of gender

and candidacy, violence,
and harassment,

which is often of
a different form,

when directed at women,
gatekeeping by political parties

and those who control them.

Media biases, both who covers
politics and in what ways.

And we can point to plentiful
examples of these barriers

already in 2020, if we
are watching, at least,

at the presidential level.

Last week, we also had
elections in a number of states,

particularly at the
state legislative level.

We had four state elections.

So a few notable numbers
perhaps from that.

Not that they predict
much about 2020,

but I think it's important to
see how these numbers are not

necessarily continually
upward for women.

So yes, women were a greater
proportion of all state, House,

and Senate nominees in these
past state elections than they

were in previous cycles.

That's a good sign that
we're seeing an upward trend.

But Republican women were less
than 30% of Republican nominees

in these races, while Democratic
women were more than 30%

of their nominees.

The point being that Democratic
women were much better

represented among
their partisans

in terms of candidates.

In fact, in one state, they
were over 50% of the candidates

running for office.

So some progress,
as well as some

of the same persistent patterns.

We also saw women make
gains across these states,

but they were really minimal.

In other words,
none of these states

jumped up significantly
in women's representation.

The gains were also more
equal among Democrats

and Republican women than they
were in 2017 or previous cycles,

so that bodes slightly better,
perhaps for Republican women.

But we are talking about
states like Mississippi,

in particular, Louisiana
states in which

the partisan differences
are leaning Republican.

And then one other thing,
in Virginia in 2017,

that was a state in
which it actually

did prove in some way to
be a harbinger of what

was going to happen for women at
the Congressional level in 2018.

So we saw a number of women
challengers defeat incumbents

at a higher rate than the
men and in higher numbers,

and help to--

I have been talking
about as phase

I of taking over the Virginia
legislature for Democrats.

This year, all those women
won reelection, but basically,

no new women.

I think there was
one or two women

challengers on the Democratic
side who were successful.

So that story about oh, we're
going to continue to take over

was not the case in Virginia.

I don't know that that's a
harbinger of anything in 2020.

But something to watch for.

And then as we look to 2020,
in terms of the potential women

house candidates, a
couple of trends there.

We are seeing a slightly
higher number this year.

So we could break
the record again

of number of women running,
although it's really early.

So women will drop out.

So there's no clear sign
that we're definitively

going to break
that record that we

set in 2018 for just the number
of women running for the House.

We also are seeing some
closing of the partisan gap,

and this is expected.

So when the Democrats
are in power,

there are fewer
Democrats that run.

And so there are
more Republican women

running this time as challengers
to Democratic incumbents.

And so they've closed
the gap a little bit.

Democrats are still about 65% of
the women potential candidates.

But you are seeing more
Republicans than last time.

And then one last
piece on the numbers

is that we're also watching.

There are a lot more Democratic
women challenging members

of their own party in
the US House, which

you may refer to as the AOC
or Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

effect, which is women who
are like, hey, she won.

I wonder if I could
do it as well.

I would just remind everybody
that there were only two

of those women who actually won
in 2000 who were challengers

within their own party, who
won, her and Ayanna Pressley.

So I'm not sure how that
bodes for all these women

who are running.

But certainly, that number
seems to be high right now.

And so I'll finish
there because I've

thrown out way too much in
terms of data and topics

we could cover.

But I do want to also just
commend you to the report

itself for some
thoughts about, what

are the questions we want
to look forward to in 2020?

What are these trends that
we might watch for and track?

And we'll be doing that at
the Center for American Women

and Politics.

So certainly, stay
tuned to our center.

And also we're bringing in some
other voices, expert voices,

to try to weigh in
on these questions

as well as we get into 2020.

So thank you.

[APPLAUSE]

KATHRYN PEARSON: Great.

Thank you, Professor Dittmar,
for an excellent presentation

that evokes a lot of questions.

Hopefully, you're all
filling out your note cards,

but I want to start
with a question

that I think is on everyone's
mind thinking about the 2020

nominating contest.

And that is electability.

And I just want to repeat
something that you said.

You noted that
not only did women

win at the same rate as
men, as they typically do,

women actually, Democratic
women, won at a higher rate

than non-incumbent
Democratic men.

And so I think that's
really important

because among academics
and women's groups,

it's long been known that women
and men win at the same rate,

but not very many women run.

A lot of women ran,
still underrepresented.

And the women who ran
won at higher rates

than similarly situated men.

And so if you could
talk a little bit more

about that in the
context of 2018,

but then also talk about,
given that evidence,

why is electability such a
problem or a potential problem

or a perceived problem for
women candidates in 2020?

KELLY DITMAR: Yeah.

So this is the data point
that I continually go back

to when the reporters
call and say like.

there's still this
question of electability.

And I said, sure,
but we actually

have empirical evidence
that this should not

be the question perhaps
that folks are making it.

So certainly, the win rates in
and of themselves are important.

I think, specifically, where
these women flipped seats

and where they won
is really important.

So women were responsible
for flipping the house

from Republican to Democrat.

You can look at the number
of seats that were flipped

and where they were.

These were women in
competitive purple,

if you will, districts,
that if you're

thinking about a presidential
race would be quite important.

So the question always is, well,
can they win in the Midwest?

Can they win in these-- well,
that's where these women won.

Cindy Axne and Abby Finkenauer,
and Abigail Spanberger,

and in Michigan, Haley--

you have all these
cases in which

you saw these women run
and win effectively.

I think there was
something about 2018

that we can't quite
as scholars pinpoint

about a potential
gender advantage.

And I'm not one to say
that there is proof

that women had an advantage.

But I do think women effectively
leveraged a moment in which they

could talk about the distinct
value of having more gender

diversity and experiential
diversity in office,

in a way that perhaps
in previous cycles

had not been valued by voters.

# And I say that in the
context of #MeToo.

So there is a bit of questioning
the imbalance of power

in our institutions and
saying like, well, maybe

that hasn't gotten us
where we need to get.

And there were
some women, not all

of these women in
swing districts

were using that argument,
but certainly some women

who are saying, yeah, we should
also apply that to politics.

So as we think about
electability in 2020,

I think that it is
pointing to those numbers.

It's pointing to the fact that
a woman won the popular vote

in 2016.

I understand the
electoral college.

But also, the idea
that a woman can't

win over voters, which is at
the root of an electability

question.

It's less about the
electoral college.

It's more about, will voters
actually vote for a woman?

Well, they did.

So that, we shouldn't
actually have to talk about.

The other piece
of this, which is

broken record, I'm sure
you all is electability

is determined by
who you vote for.

So preordained electability
based on who won in the past

will perpetually
discriminate against those

who have not been in power,
which is, obviously, illogical.

I'm not saying anything
too enlightening,

but reminding people of
that, I think, is important.

So playing into the
presumption that somehow women

aren't electable at this
level is basically, saying,

because they have not been
elected, they cannot be elected.

And any young person
who tries to get a job,

and they say like, well,
you need experience.

And you're like, but
I need a first job.

We need a first woman
president to push back

against some of those claims.

So I did have in my note.

So better than I, I
think, Kamala Harris

in her conversation
about electability,

has made it clear and better.

And I think an argument
that is effective.

And I should just say
before noting the quote,

that I do think we have
to also pay attention

to the additional labor
that women candidates have

to do in simply answering
questions about electability.

And that in and of
itself is demonstrative

of the different terrain
that they navigate.

So she's been asked about this.

And you may have seen this clip,
where she's like, this is not

a new conversation for me.

I'm going to talk about this.

And she said, I have faith
in the American people

to know that we will
never be burdened

by the assumptions of who can do
what based on who historically

has done it.

I know the American
people enough

to know that we have the ability
to believe and see and have

faith to believe and see, and
be unburdened by what has been.

And so I think really
pointing to that,

what are the roots
of electability

is especially important in
debunking the question itself.

KATHRYN PEARSON: Thank you.

I want to talk about
candidate emergence.

You made the point that 2018
wasn't just about women waking

up the day after
the 2016 election

and being upset about Trump.

That played into it.

But there were a lot
of factors and a lot

of structural factors involved.

But could you talk about
women's candidate emergence

and how it may differ from
men's, and how it is also

changing as more women
are in electoral office,

and there are more examples
of different types of women?

KELLY DITMAR: Absolutely.

So there's a lot of
great research on this

that I have not done, but that
I have certainly drawn from.

And then I'll talk a little
bit about how that informed

our thinking about 2018.

So my colleagues at the Center
for American Women and Politics

did a large study of
women state legislators.

And this was in 2008.

Jeez, it's a long
time ago, but still, I

think, really
influential in thinking

about how we talk
about candidate

emergence and the challenges
that women face differently

than men.

And they also have some
important intersectional

findings which find, for
example, that women of color

are more likely to be
discouraged from running.

So we asked about,
are you likely to be

encouraged from who?

How important is that
in your decision making?

And finding that
women of color are

more likely to be
discouraged, but still run.

So I always say like the
counter to that is like,

imagine if that
barrier wasn't there.

And so in addition,
we find, and this

is consistent with other
literature, not just that study,

that encouragement
matters more for women.

That is not to say
simply asking women

to run for office
gets them to run.

It's a little pet peeve of mine.

Certainly, you need to ask women
and tell women they should run.

But when we say
encouragement matters,

it is showing women the
path to be successful.

So I am going to ask
you to run and also

help you to navigate
this institution, which

all women know has been
biased against them.

So them saying, I
don't want to run.

It's not just like I
don't think I can do it.

It's like, I know that
there are actual barriers

in this institution,
and I want to make sure

that it's possible for
me to be successful.

So encouragement from
political officials,

from folks, from women
who've been in office

is very influential to say,
I can help you navigate this,

I can help you raise
money, all of those things.

And the last piece, in
terms of their findings,

is around relationally
embedded decision making.

So I make decisions
about running for office.

Women are more likely
to make decisions

about running for office based
on how it affects and engages

those around them.

This is not surprising
to most folks.

So I'm concerned about how
it will affect my family.

I'm concerned about how it
might affect people at my job.

Whereas, the men
that we asked were

less likely to be concerned
about what their wives thought

about their candidacy or
those sorts of dynamics.

And then the last thing in
motivation, they said, we asked,

what motivated you
most to run for office?

And they had to
choose a top choice.

Top choice for men, it
wasn't the majority,

but it was the
top, the plurality

said, because I always wanted
to be an elected official.

So the office.

For women, it was
because I wanted

to make public policy change.

So this showing being men run
for office to be somebody, women

run for office, to do
something, is actually

borne out not only in our
data but also in interviews

and things that we've done.

So this all gets us to 2018,
which is how does that tell us

why more women ran in 2018?

And we tried to look
into this by doing

an analysis of websites,
why women said in media

and on their websites,
why they ran for office.

And you see a lot of
that same argument.

And it's not surprising
when you're out in public

and you're saying why
you ran for office.

It should be largely
about policy.

You're not like, I
just want the power.

So that was consistent.

So most of them are
talking about policy.

But the other thing they're
talking about a lot in 2018

was that there is some
emotional piece to this,

that emotion matters
in terms of perception

of threats and urgency.

So Democratic women were
certainly using that language

around 2016.

So when I say they didn't wake
up and decide to run, sure.

But the 2016 election
and the emotions

it may have evoked certainly
seemed to influence some women.

I found in that analysis that
there was racial differences,

and I think this makes sense.

I can't fully explain it without
talking to women directly,

but Black women were the least
likely to publicly express

a perception of threat
as the motivating

force for why they ran.

And I have two hypotheses based
on the literature on that.

One is that the perception
of threat was not new.

So we think about emotion
as influencing candidacy.

It's the change.

It's the like, oh, my gosh,
I now have this feeling,

and I have to do something.

It can be activating.

Black women have not
had the privilege

of feeling free of
threat from government

and political institutions.

So I think that's part of it.

And then I think the other
part is the policing of women

of color broadly, but
Black and Latino women

specifically on how they
express emotion publicly.

So I was looking at public
statements of emotion.

And so it may be that
Shirley felt this,

but we're not going to
use it as a justification.

So what we learned,
I think, from 2018,

to the extent that we know
exactly why women ran, is,

obviously, there
are diverse stories.

But in there, we have to
parse out the role of emotion,

the role of thinking
about other folks,

and the role of also seeing
political opportunity

in this moment and being
quite strategic about running

for office.

And I should say, I borrowed
from Julie Dolan's research

on this as well, of women
who ran in 2018, looking

as well at Trump and the
impetus for women running,

which I think you
guys effectively

find as well in your research.

So it's not to say
that it didn't matter.

It's just, was it
a singular story?

No, it was one of many factors.

KATHRYN PEARSON: Great.

Thank you.

KELLY DITMAR: I'll give
shorter answers, I promise.

Sorry.

KATHRYN PEARSON: Prior to the
1992 elections, the first time

we had a purported
year of the woman,

the share of Democratic and
Republican women in each party's

caucus in Congress was,
obviously, very low,

but the share was
about the same.

The 1992 elections
opened up a gap.

It was primarily, if
we're going to use

that terminology, the year
of the Democratic woman.

And although the share of both
Republican and Democratic women

has increased in
the House since,

as you noted, between the last
Congress and this Congress,

the number of Republican women
in the House of Representatives

went from 23 to 13.

Whereas, of course, the share
of Democratic women increased.

And so beyond the gender gap in
the electorate, which we know

was between somewhere
between 10 and 12 points,

by which women in the
electorate in the mass public

are more likely to identify
as Democrats than Republicans.

The gap in Congress is,
obviously, much, much bigger.

What explains that,
thinking about parties,

women's groups, candidate
emergence, party ideology?

Shed some light on it for us.

KELLY DITMAR: I'm going
to give an answer.

And then I'm going to
pitch a little back to you

on this because you're
the expert on this.

But I think, look,
in the work we do,

and we're looking, obviously,
at these trends, where

the center that I work at
is non-partisan center.

So we always are making
the case that if we

want to get to gender
parity in politics,

you're not going to do it
on one side of the aisle.

It's not going to happen.

And so we do value
trying to identify both

what the issue is in
the Republican Party

and how we can address it.

To me, the biggest
takeaway is the disparities

in support infrastructure,
what I would term

support infrastructure for
women in the Democratic Party

versus the Republican Party.

And what is inclusive
in there is,

are there organizations
or resources

that are money targeted
recruitment, meaning,

the recruitment specifically
of women, and support for them

once they decide
to run, so support

throughout the campaign,
training programs, all

of those things that we do.

The training programs and all of
that, we run one at the center,

they matter.

And one of the reasons we know
they matter slightly differently

for women is, again, because
women are questioning like,

well, do I have to navigate
a different system?

Do I have specific challenges?

I want to be prepared.

And as well, we know women
have to be more prepared,

so they want to have
these support systems.

At least, that's what we
have found historically.

So there's disparities
in those in Republican.

The Republican, for
example, the Lugar series,

which is some of
you may be familiar

with a year-long training
for Republican women, which

actually mirrors what is now
emerge on the Democratic side.

The Lugar series
came out before.

But the number of states that
now have that different series,

they had different
names and different

has dwindled for
Republican women.

Republican women's PACs
raised nowhere near the amount

that EMILY's List, which
supports Democratic women's

race.

And then when you get
to party leadership,

and you ask about
targeted recruitment,

you have Republican
leadership, saying,

we don't play identity politics.

Identity politics is bad.

And so it's really hard to
reconcile a targeted effort

towards recruiting
and supporting

women with the ideological point
that has been made in the party

that we don't want
to get into that.

We want to just choose
the best candidate.

And you've seen women within
the Republican Party, who

have wanted to advocate for
more women have to push back

against some of those claims.

So to me, those things
all are the confluence

of factors that create a system
in which Democratic women are

just more supported in terms
of the recruitment and support.

And I should say,
Democratic Party

doesn't get the credit
here for they do it out

of the goodness of their hearts.

They see the electoral
value in doing it.

case in point,

EMILY's List is not giving
to a male candidate.

So if they're going to put a
million dollars into a Senate

race, the Democratic Party is
incentivized to support a woman

candidate, if they need that
additional financial support.

So there are real brass
tacks politics reasons

why the Democrats and also in
terms of voters and the gender

gap might be more likely to
support women candidates.

I think those speak to
some of the bigger issues

that we're seeing.

And increasingly,
the polarization

on issues and losing women
voters is part of it.

But we know that women
don't just vote for women.

So I try to avoid that
as the explainer issue.

Did you want to add
anything to this?

I'm putting you on the spot.

KATHRYN PEARSON: No, I
mean, one of the things that

is interesting, and I
think contrary to both

some stereotypes and
conventional wisdom,

and, perhaps, how things
operated in the past,

is that women in Congress,
women in state legislatures,

they are just as
partisan as men.

So although we read
these headlines

about the gang of
eight, the gang of 16,

all these gangs in the
Senate working together,

there's some special
institutional rules

in the US Senate that
facilitate that compromise,

needing to get 60 votes for
most legislation, et cetera.

Whereas, in the House
of Representatives

and, in most state
legislatures, women

are just as partisan,
if not more so,

than their male
colleagues, as they

try to prove their
partisan credentials.

These phenomenons are happening
within two very distinct

parties, and women are
navigating different barriers

within each party.

But I want to ask a
broader question, taken

in part from one of the
insightful questions

from the audience.

But turning to inside the
legislature, inside Congress,

inside the White House, and if
you could just speak generally

to what your research
says about the value

of electing women to office.

KELLY DITMAR: Sure, absolutely.

So to follow up on
what you were just

saying in terms of
partisanship, this

is an interesting piece
in the book we did.

So the book, A Seat at the Table
is based on interviews with 83

of the women in
the 114th Congress.

So two congresses
ago, 83 of the women.

If you do the math, we did over
3/4 of the women actually spoke

with us, which was pretty cool
for any one period of time.

One thing that they did say to
us, which if you look at voting

will be contrary, is we're more
likely to try to work together.

Now, they did say, at the end
of the day, we're partisans.

And this was a struggle
for us in writing it

because you're like, OK, you're
saying your approach is this.

But we know in
terms of the votes

that you're not really
any less partisan.

But I do think there's a little
bit of a distinction here.

Perhaps I'm grabbing at straws.

But I think that when I talked
about what motivates women

to run in the first place,
getting things done,

that was the repeated, at
least, if we're going to say,

line in response from the
women about why it matters.

We asked explicitly, why does
it matter that you're here?

And they said, look, we're here.

We worked too hard to get
here to not get things done.

In other words, they all
noted that actually one

of the most gendered story or
gendered piece that came to them

was the gender struggles
or hurdles that they

faced on the campaign trail.

So we face those.

We got through them.

We're here.

We're not here now
to not do anything.

And so that there
was a motivation.

We talk about in the
book as achievement

over ego, trying
to get things done,

and that that motivation may,
in moments, push them to be more

likely to seek out possibilities
for potential bipartisanship,

but that it's not bipartisanship
or camaraderie in and of itself

that motivates them.

It's like, can I
get a bill passed?

And also, because
I'm going to be

held accountable
for getting bills

passed when I go back
to my constituency.

So that was one of
the big takeaways.

And then, of course,
in all the literature

on the impact of
women in politics,

we talk about substantive
and symbolic representation,

substantive
representation being what

sorts of experiences
and perspectives

are brought to the table that
wouldn't otherwise be there?

Were those women not
in the conversation?

And so we have a number of
examples in the book of that.

But you could ask
any of the women

in here, any of
the elected women

in the audience to also
look to those stories of one

of the cases.

For example, in the
Congressional Black Caucus,

one of the congresswomen
said to us,

there's a lot of
conversations, of course,

around criminal justice reform
and the high incarceration

rates of Black men.

And obviously,
this is a concern,

and we're trying
to deal with it.

But too often, the
conversation forgets

both the increasingly high rates
of incarceration of Black women,

as well as how high
incarceration rates of Black men

economically affect women, and
Black women, in particular,

and families.

So bringing a perspective that
may, again, otherwise, not

be there.

And then symbolically, thinking
about the role modeling effects,

why does it matter?

And we know in the
political science research

that there's mixed findings
about role model effects.

But then everybody you
ask is like, it matters.

So I think it's hard to have a
tangible measure of role model

effects.

So I always just point to--

many of you probably
know this photo

of Barack Obama in
the Oval Office.

And there's a
young Black boy who

he leans down and touches his
hair, and, basically, is saying,

somebody like me who has hair
like mine is in this office.

A lot of the women we speak
to not only for the book,

but broadly speaking, that we
work with note the same thing,

that there is a value in
young people, especially boys

and girls, seeing women
in public leadership.

So that we don't
get to the point

where they are doubting whether
or not a woman is electable

in public office, that
it becomes, in some ways,

normalized to see women
in public leadership.

And we actually have a project
called Teach a Girl to Lead,

poorly named because it's
really to teach girls and boys

that women can lead
and do the work

to try to hit young people
earlier with these examples.

And the women in
office talk to us

a lot about their
commitment to doing that,

because they see the long-term
institutional change that's

needed.

KATHRYN PEARSON: Great.

Thank you.

Reflecting on both
working harder

and thinking about
research on Congress,

women actually literally
give more speeches,

introduce more bills, bring
more federal money back

to their districts, are more
legislatively effective,

according to some
political science measures.

At some level, it's
not surprising,

given that in most
election cycles,

women have more experience
coming into Congress.

But this leads me to a great
question from our audience.

Senator Klobuchar
said last night

that if Pete Buttigieg
were a woman,

his experience would not be
enough to be on the stage.

What is your take?

KELLY DITMAR: Yes, of course.

I might be wrong, but we were
talking about this last night.

And I was like,
well, every woman

when they read that
was like, uh-huh.

It's sometimes hard.

I feel sympathetic
to the senator

for having to then explain it
because I think for women, it's

like, yes, we know that
we have to work harder.

It's hard to pinpoint
the measurement

in that specific instance
because it is so pervasive,

I will say one of the
pieces of research

that I cite all the
time on this because it

is really tangible and easier
to grapple with is our colleague

Tessa Ditonto, who's done
some experimental work looking

at-- so she sets up a
campaign simulation.

And then folks who
are the participants

get these scenarios of
here are the candidates

you're looking at.

And she'll vary the
gender, obviously.

And she says, here's all the
information you can choose from

to learn about this candidate.

And what she finds is that
voters, men and women alike,

are participants,
potential voters,

are more likely to
seek out and click

on competency-related
information about women

than they are for men.

And what this indicates is
that voters are holding women

to that higher
standard of like, you

need to prove to me that you
are competent for this level

of office.

There is more of an
assumption of competency

for the male candidates.

And I think that
certainly speaks to

in an empirical way, what
Senator Klobuchar is talking

about, which is that the bar for
which we have to prove that we

can do this job is higher.

And I would add that when Pete
Buttigieg at the previous debate

said about Elizabeth
Warren, he said don't really

have a plan for this yet.

You haven't told us your plan.

This was the same person
who, for the first two

months of his campaign,
said, we shouldn't

be talking about plans.

We should be talking about
our Democratic values.

He's not wrong.

But there's no way I would
add that I don't believe

there is a way that a woman
candidate could have said,

we just need to
talk about values.

The closest we've come to that
is Senator Harris, who has said,

I'm not an ideologue, or
we need to study that.

And she's been
repeatedly criticized

for not having a
concrete policy plan.

I think the root of
that is about doubts

about women's ability, in
part because we haven't seen

enough women in these roles.

KATHRYN PEARSON: Thank you.

How is the political
landscape changed

for white male candidates,
both in the Democratic Party

and in the Republican
Party in the wake of 2016,

# in the wake of 2018, the
#MeToo Movement, just in 2019,

going into 2020.

KELLY DITMAR: I think these
are different partisan stories.

One of the things I
tried to track in 2018

was the male
candidates who had been

accused of some sexual
misconduct or harassment

and continued to run and
win and were successful.

And there was evidence of that
on both sides of the aisle.

So even though we were
in this moment, where

it was like we're holding
people to account,

they were getting reelected.

And I had some
reporters call me and be

like, how does that happen?

And I was like, partly because
voters aren't paying attention.

At state legislative
level, you might not

know that this was a scandal
or that it didn't even raised

to the point of a scandal
because unfortunately, this

is normalized.

This is all to say
that there were

some of that negative,
I think, example of,

if I'm talking about
disruption of gender

in positive ways
in our institution,

we also saw the
perpetuation of like,

no, these guys are
still able to win.

This behavior still wasn't
penalized as disqualifying

for holding elected office.

On the plus side,
I think, and I will

say again, the partisan
disparity, the accountability

was less so on the
Republican side.

So you had Roy Moore
and Donald Trump

as the most notable examples
in recent elections,

but certainly some at
the sub level as well.

And we could get into public
opinion on Republican voters

and Democratic voters on
sexual harassment, which

helps to explain that
thinking that it's

an institutional problem
versus an individual problem.

But on the positive side,
what we're seeing, especially

in 2020, are men who have to
actually answer for their gender

and race in a way that they
have not had to before, in which

women candidates and
candidates of color

have always had to answer for.

So when the men are
asked like, well,

is it really a good
year for a white guy?

And they're like, I don't
know how to respond to that,

because I have
never had to think

about the privilege
of my race and gender

as influencing my
electoral prospects.

I just assumed it was all me
that was getting to that point.

And so I actually think there's
been real value in hearing

them have to talk about that.

And I also think
it's changed how

they talk about some
issues on the campaign

trail and the pressure
that they feel

to speak to gender and racial
equality, largely speaking,

but also in politics.

And I think some have done
better and some have done worse.

So I think the
case, for example,

with Beto O'Rourke,
who got a lot of slack

throughout the
election for having

this white male privilege.

And I don't doubt it at all.

But he at least spoke about it.

Kirsten Gillibrand spoke about
her racial privilege in a way

that most candidates
previously had not.

I think, Joe Biden struggling
with how to grapple

with how to talk about that.

And you see that hurting him
among some voters, especially

younger voters who are
saying, I get your point.

You didn't intend
to offend women.

But you have to be able to
understand the position of power

from which you act.

And so I actually think the
gender story and the race story

and the intersectional story
for the white male candidates

in this election is
really important for us

to understand how gender and
race are at play in elections.

So pay attention
to how they behave

and how they navigate
this, not only

at the presidential level,
but the sub presidential too.

KATHRYN PEARSON: Thank you.

We have some questions
about various rules, reforms

that affect all candidates,
but wondering if there

are disparate gender effects.

And so we have one
question asking about

whether or not lowering
the voting age to 16

would help women and
women candidates.

We have another question
about congressional district

gerrymandering
and whether or not

that would hurt or help
women, and then also

campaign finance and
the gendered effects

on campaign finance.

We know that women
congressional candidates

raise as much or
more money than men.

Yet, every time you talk
to women candidates,

they always talk about the fact
that it is harder for women

to raise money.

And I think both of those things
can be true at the same time.

But just your thoughts on
these rules of the game.

KELLY DITMAR: Yeah.

KATHRYN PEARSON: And their
effect on women, in particular.

KELLY DITMAR: I'm
going to go backwards.

So money, I think, is
certainly the piece

that folks smarter than I
have done really good research

to demonstrate that even if
the outcomes are the same, that

getting there is
different for women.

So whether it be raising less,
that each individual donation is

less, that it takes more
asks, whatever it may be,

that the work the labor to
achieve the same outcome.

So I would say the gendered
work to achieve gender

neutral outcomes is different.

And that is true of
campaigns generally.

It is, I think, true I
would argue in finance.

And then again,
there is an even more

distinguishing characteristics
for women of color

in some of the
research, actually,

that your graduate
students have done.

Really helpful work.

So campaign finance, though,
doesn't actually be--

this is like tweeting
my unpopular opinion.

I'm not sure that we can pin
our hopes on campaign finance

reform for women.

And I say that because one of
the most significant, I would

argue, factors to increasing
women's representation,

especially at the congressional
level in recent decades,

has been EMILY's List.

And so one way is to play
the rules of the game

to master the rules of
the game as they are.

And in doing that in finance,
women have been able to leverage

that financial power to
get the Democratic Party

to support women candidates and
also to elect women candidates.

So you take away that
potential advantage,

and you might take away some
of the barriers on one hand,

and particularly, again,
for women of color,

EMILY's List has not
had a great track record

in terms of the diversity of
the racial and ethnic diversity

of women candidates.

So I think we're talking about
maybe different stories here.

But it is not a slam dunk.

When you take away money,
it should expand the pool

broadly of candidates who can
run and who can be successful.

And because of economic
disparities of women over time,

it makes sense to think
that would benefit women.

I'm just less sure,
because in the states that

have done public financing,
the academic research

is mixed on whether or not
there's a gender effect.

The other two-- I see I
filibustered on the first one

because I have less
on the other two.

Gerrymandering-- we tried to
look at this in New Jersey

in terms of redistricting,
because we certainly

saw women get pushed out more.

I think for us,
it was who's on--

we have a commission.

So who's on the commission?

It might matter just who are
they willing to sacrifice.

But it's a very
state-specific story.

So I'm not sure writ
large what that means.

I don't have a good
answer to that one.

And then on age, I really
don't have a good answer.

What we know is young people
are more likely to be Democrats.

That should benefit
women, overall,

because women are
running as Democrats.

But in terms of specific support
for like gendered support

among young voters, are they
more likely to support women

party being equal?

I don't think we have evidence
that demonstrates that per se.

So I think like
with much of this,

it's a partisan story, too.

So if you benefit
Democrats, will that

increase the number
of women in office?

Probably.

And so in that case, you
might argue for the lowering

of the voting age.

But, again, we
don't have a good--

I don't think we have good
data to prove either way.

But really good questions.

I'm going to go home and
think about gerrymandering

a little more.

KATHRYN PEARSON: Thank you.

Could you tell us
a little bit more

about the voting
behavior of women?

And after the 2016
election, some commentators

expressed surprise
that 53% of white women

voted for Donald Trump, even
as Hillary Clinton benefited

from the largest gender gap that
a presidential candidate has

seen, which was,
of course, fueled

by women voters of
color and women voters

with college degrees.

So could you talk
a little bit more

about how women
in the electorate

are not a monolithic
group, and what that

means for women's candidacies?

KELLY DITMAR: Absolutely.

So let me repeat that.

Women voters are not
a monolithic group.

We allow for-- and
I would say this

for both voters and candidates.

We allow men to have diverse
opinions, beliefs, behaviors,

identities, even how they
look and present themselves.

We allow that diversity
even within the same party.

And I think, oftentimes,
we don't allow it

or don't expect it from women.

And so I think part
of this conversation,

especially with voters,
is always saying like,

yes, women are not monolithic.

Yes, we might be interested in
why not, and how they differ,

but we should be just
as interested in that

as we are among
men and not shocked

when they don't
all vote the same.

The squad don't all
support the same things.

So in terms of 2018 and
women voters, historically,

obviously this gender gap in
terms of women's greater support

for Democratic candidates
and the Democratic party

has been persistent
since about 1980,

even before a little bit,
depending on the measure

you're using.

So overall, women are
supporting the Democrat.

But we also know
this is a race story.

And so it was not surprising
to any of us who study this

that white women voted
in higher numbers

for the Republican candidate.

This has been the trend.

This was not new to
2018 or excuse me, 2016.

What was different that got
a little less attention was

that college educated
white women who

had voted in a six-point
advantage among that group

for Mitt Romney
in 2012, actually

flipped and voted as a
six-point of advantage

for Hillary Clinton in 2016.

And so there was
movement in white ladies.

But there was movement in
the Democratic direction.

And there was simultaneously, I
don't know if entrenchment's not

the right word, but a
sort of strengthening

of ties among non-college
educated white women,

and the Republican Party with
Donald Trump and Republicans

writ large.

So noticing the
importance of looking

at educational background,
my colleagues who've done

work on hostile sexism, measures
of public opinion around gender.

So I'm being very simplified in
the explanation of this measure.

But to say, things like
feminism has gone too far,

if we want to give
the tagline from maybe

some of those measures,
there are just as many.

That party is the indicator
of that versus gender.

In other words, there
are just as many women,

who have that same sense
and perception of gender.

And so that is going to
inform the type of candidates

they support, what they will
tolerate in a candidate.

In terms of Donald Trump,
being able to say like,

well, yes, he said some things.

But, ultimately, at
the end of the day,

that's not what I'm worried
about in a president.

And the last thing
I think as well

is thinking about the
importance of policy issues

is going to guide behavior
for most of these women.

And so if it is about choice
or pro-life positions,

that's going to guide
women in very strong ways

on both sides of this
issue, whether it

be your financial liability.

And one thing we know from
really great work from Lori

Frazier Oakley and Jane
Junn and folks in our field

who are looking really at white
women and racial privilege

is you've benefited.

It is, in fact, in the interest
of some of these white women

voters to vote for
this candidate,

if you believe that is going
to be good for white people.

And you are less
concerned, perhaps,

about what is good for
quote, unquote, "women,"

because you don't see
yourself in that identity,

sort of primarily
in that identity.

So all of those
questions we have

to be thinking
about to not simply

just go like, I
can't understand.

There's just no way
that they believe this.

There are actually
explanations that

make sense institutionally
on why women

would have voted that way.

KATHRYN PEARSON: Thank you.

I want to turn to the campaign
trail and specifically campaign

advertisements by women, against
women, and on television,

social media.

And if you could, both
from your own research

in then your observations
from 2018 and 2020,

talk a little bit about
gender differences

in campaign coverage,
campaign advertisements,

and social media.

KELLY DITMAR: Awesome.

So I love this area, because
one of the things we have

to think about in terms of
changing perspectives of how

people see elected leaders, is
that candidates and their media

consultants and their
campaign strategists

can actually play
a significant role

in being disruptive
and challenging

our conceptions of what it looks
like to be a candidate, what

things you value, how
you present yourself.

So for so long, in a very,
very white, male dominated

area of political consultancy,
which would be media consulting,

you would have certain
conceptions of what women

needed to do to run as women.

And in many cases, it was
just neutralize gender,

don't make gender a thing
because it might hurt you.

What we saw in 2018,
and I would argue

it certainly started before.

There have been women
who've been doing this

not just recently, but more
so in a more concerted way.

2016 and 2018 were women
presenting themselves

vis-a-vis ads, social media,
et cetera, in ways that really

directly said, I am a woman.

And this is the value added that
brings to my public service.

And Hillary Clinton said
in 2016, unlike in 2018,

one of the quotes I
often use is, she said,

I'm not asking you to vote
for me because I'm a woman.

I'm asking you to vote
for me on the merits.

But one of those merits
is that I'm a woman.

That was very different
than what she said in 2008.

And I would add, we could go
back to Mark Penn's strategy

memos in 2008, where he
said the country is not

ready for the first
mama president.

They're ready for the first
father president that's a woman.

Basically, saying,
just prove yourself

as man enough for the job.

And you see that in 2008
in her strategy very much.

2016, Mark Penn, out the door.

Other folks come in.

She runs a different strategy,
very much more inclusive

of her experiences as a woman
talking about discrimination,

talking about being a
mother, juggling, just

talking about what that
brings and how that

might inform her policy making.

So again, not to say I'm
a woman, vote for me.

I'm a woman.

Here's how that affects
how I view the world

and how I view politics.

So the ads we saw some of
the most blatant ones in 2018

that you saw in the news, where
women breastfeeding in ads.

So we had two prominent
gubernatorial candidates

who had their babies in
the ads, and one who--

I think Kelda Roys in Wisconsin.

I think maybe perhaps
did it a bit more

effectively in
saying, the reason why

I'm showing this visual
is because it was having

a baby that made me work
on legislation against BPA

in bottles, in
concerns about policy.

So making that
connection very clear.

I'm not sure how
effective it was.

It's hard to gauge, but
certainly was willing to do it.

You had women be
more overt in saying

that gender could be a
challenge, but I've overcome it.

So my toughness comes
from an area that is less

stereotypically masculine.

So in Alexandria
Ocasio-Cortez's opening ad,

the first line is
women like me aren't

supposed to run for office.

So let me just, right
now, point to your bias.

Let me just call it
out and then move on.

And so we saw women do that
both on the campaign trail

and in campaign ads.

And then one thing that was
distinct, I think, to 2018

# was women telling
their #MeToo stories

and doing that in some ads.

So Sol Flores, who ran
for the house in Illinois

has a really of powerful ad
that actually got challenged

in terms of being on TV,
which when you see it,

you're kind of, really?

But it tells us more
about our culture

and how uncomfortable we
are with sexual abuse.

But she talks about being
sexually abused as a child,

and really flips
the story to say,

again, this is demonstrative of
my resilience and my toughness,

and toughness is a measure
by which we've often

evaluated male candidates
and women candidates.

But on the brute
strength, my stamina.

What did Biden say last night?

Like, punch it out, punch
it, punch at it, punch at it.

But using that rhetoric,
but in a different way.

And Sharice Davids,
who ran in Kansas,

also did that, talked about
being a lesbian woman,

being a tribal woman,
being somebody who

struggled in terms of poverty.

And that that was
what brought her

the skills and perspective that
would be valuable in office.

So I think all of those are
really positive examples

and methods by
which women offered

a new route or new routes
towards running for office.

KATHRYN PEARSON: Great.

Thank you.

In addition to some
former elected officials

here, we have some young women.

What advice would you
give to anyone thinking

about running for office, either
soon or 10 years down the road?

KELLY DITMAR: I think
what we're seeing

and what you should
take from 2018,

and I think 2020 is
to not be dissuaded

by the underrepresentation
overall.

So you see the
system and you say,

OK, there's a lot of folks
who don't necessarily

look like me in these positions
still, even though we've

seen an increase, but
the data that we have

and the environment
that we're tracking

does show that we're
seeing women really lead

in a lot of the change
in these institutions,

not just numerical change, but
cultural change, policy change,

et cetera.

And to take from that,
hopefully, an interest

in being part of that change.

And it could be,
regardless of your party,

it can be like,
how can-- in fact,

if you are conservative, we
need you even more right now

to be a part of pushing for
the change in representation

within that party.

So I think the
opportunity piece,

and then just the everyday stuff
is I always push candidates

and if you want to just
be in campaigns overall,

to be thinking about these
questions of gender and race

in really thoughtful ways
and in creative ways.

In other words, to not go by the
status quo when somebody says,

well, you shouldn't really
talk about your kids

on the campaign trail.

Folks are going to ask
you questions about it.

Sure, you might face
different treatment

and different
questions, but what

are the ways in which
you can, in that role,

really push voters and the
institutions to change?

And on that, I'll just
give one example and then

be quiet, which is Ayanna
Pressley is my favorite example

of this in the campaign.

And the clip is in our report.

So you can find
it on the website.

So this is at a Kavanaugh
protest in October of 2018,

so very close to the election.

Ayanna Pressley,
congressional candidate,

first Black woman elected
from Massachusetts.

She gets to the
podium, and she says,

I know I'm not supposed to be
angry because I'm a Black woman.

And Black women
who express anger

are called angry Black women.

This might hurt me.

And then she pauses, and then
she says, but I am angry,

and I. And she goes on.

And what she's saying in
that moment is twofold.

And I think it's a lesson
for women in politics.

One is that I'm calling
out the stereotype.

And I'm going to push
you to think differently.

So that's thanks to her for
being willing to do that work.

But secondly,
that's all the work

I'm going to do now,
because the work is on you.

The responsibility is on you
to change an institution,

to accommodate people
like me in a better way.

It is not my work to accommodate
to the institution as it's been.

And that to me is
really powerful

and something that we should
all be thinking about.

But I think especially those
who are underrepresented

in institutions, to
both see your role,

but also, lift some of
the burden off of you

to accommodate
institutions as they are,

but instead put the
pressure on others

to change the institutions
so that they better

accommodate you.

KATHRYN PEARSON: Thank you.

We've been talking a lot
about the presidency,

congressional elections,
a little bit about state

legislative elections.

But of course, there are many,
many important local elections

as well.

And, in fact, parties have an
influence in varying degrees,

in varying states for elections
and to all of these offices.

So what advice would you give
to party leaders differentiating

by party, the Republicans
and Democrats,

respectively, on
how to elect more

women at every level of office,
starting with local office.

KELLY DITMAR: Yeah.

So, I mean, writ large, no
matter what level of office,

I think first of all,
party leadership,

one thing we see
across the country,

although somewhat changing,
it depends on the state

and locality, it's just
the underrepresentation

of women and people of color
in party leadership roles.

So first is get people
to the table that

bring different perspectives.

When you're thinking
about recruitment,

when you're thinking
about who you're

going to support in a race and
what you value in a candidate,

have different voices, even in
those initial conversations.

And then, I think, especially
on the Republican side

to this point, about, well, we
don't play identity politics,

I think there's got to be some
reconciliation of the fact

that by choosing or
targeting recruitment

of women or candidates
of color or candidates

who have diverse sexual
orientation or gender identity,

that is not negating the merit
that they bring to the office.

But that it goes
back to this line,

that sort of Clinton line,
which is that among the merits

is that they bring a
different perspective,

and they probably also bring you
some different electoral value

that you should consider--

donors, et cetera, if you want
to be quite strategic about it

in thinking about the
value of diversity.

So it is not just you're
checking off a box,

it is you're thinking about
the real value of that,

and then think about
how you integrate that.

I think Democrats
also have to do that,

but have seemed to see some of
that value a little bit more.

And then I think there is
a question about parties

intervening earlier.

So in the Republican Party, one
of the efforts by Elise Stefanik

is to say, as a woman
in the house saying we

need to support Republican
women candidates in the primary

because as Kathryn
and others have shown,

this is a challenge to
get through the primary

for Republican
women, in particular.

So the party may
actually have to step in.

And so I understand
why parties don't.

We all understand what their
roles are in primaries.

But this is
something, again, they

have to grapple with
because the belief

that they don't get
involved in primaries.

We know that they are.

But it's how and
where they do that.

All of this applies, I think,
across levels of office,

but certainly at the local
level where voters might not

be as aware of this issue.

There does in some ways,
there's a heightened role then,

for those who are
doing that recruitment

and tapping people,
because often it's

the tapping that is the person
who ends up in office, if that

makes sense.

If there's not a whole
lot of competition

for that office or people
don't know about it,

then the party folks can
play an even greater role.

And then the thing we
always say to party leaders,

which I guess is conflicts
with this a little bit,

is also don't just say to women,
start at the school board,

and just start at
that level, and then

so that the bias that's
ingrained in that is like, yes,

certainly we want more
women at the local level,

but they should be thinking
more strategically about where

their area of interest and
expertise is versus the idea

that it's somehow
easier for them

to get elected at that level.

One, we actually don't
have evidence empirically

that it's true.

And we know there's
more women on school

boards for a host of
reasons, but it's not

necessarily easier for women to
get elected at the local level.

And we certainly
know that it's harder

once they serve in
the local level,

because anybody who's
served in local office

knows that when you go
to the grocery store,

and you go to your kid's party,
the amount of pressure on you

and the amount of burnout
that we see from local level

officials is serious.

And so we always
get a little like,

we want you to run
for the local level.

But also, there are a
lot of other offices

for which you can run,
and you should choose

the one that suits you best.

KATHRYN PEARSON: Great.

Thank you.

Well, please everyone, join
me in thanking Professor Kelly

Dittmar for an
excellent conversation.

[APPLAUSE]

KELLY DITMAR: And now
back to the hearings.

[LAUGHTER]

And thanks to the audience
for some great questions.

KATHRYN PEARSON: Thank
you all for coming out.