Comparing Political Campaigns with Respect to Gender: The 2016 Senatorial Election Cycle
Location
Ballroom
Start Date
4-12-2019 9:00 AM
End Date
4-12-2019 2:30 PM
Poster Number
34
Faculty Sponsor’s Department
Political Science, International Affairs & Public Administration
Name of Project's Faculty Sponsor
Dr. Mary Cooper
Type
Poster: Competitive
Project's Category
Political Science
Abstract or Artist's Statement
Only 25 women are currently serving in the United States Senate and there have only been 56 women to ever hold these positions in the history of the United States. The purpose of this research is to compare the identities and finances of campaigns in the 2016 Senatorial race, with respect to gender, to better understand possible reasons for the gender gap in this political institution. The data used in this study was primarily gathered from the Federal Election Commission. The information of the candidates includes party affiliation, types of candidates (incumbent, challenger, or open-seat), and financial contributions to the campaigns. The financial data examined was from the contributions of prominent Political Action Committees, donations from individuals, and party organizations. Concluding the research, results of the winning candidates were compiled with data from Ballotopedia to examine the successful campaigns. The results, in comparing men and women candidates, showed 17.7% of candidates were women and 82.3% were men. There was not a variation on the type of seat the candidates were competing for, whether an open-seat race or challenging race, besides a 6% difference in incumbent candidates between men and women, which could be explained by the lack of women currently serving. Gender did, however, have an effect on party affiliation with a majority of women identifying with the Democratic Party and the majority of men with the Republican Party. The ways in which men and women fund their campaigns differ, as well. The data shows that, unlike men, women derive most campaign funds from individual donors and rely on smaller contributions than do men. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee used the majority of their funds opposing Republican male candidates, a minority opposing Republican female candidates, and even spent some funds in support of Democratic women candidates. The National Republican Senate Committee directed their funds to oppose Democratic women the most and some funds to oppose Democratic men. Political Action Committees that are considered “women’s PACs,” such as Emily’s List, had a significant role in funding campaigns for women, with liberally ideological committees being more effective than their conservative counterparts. The winning candidates included 82.4% men and 17.6% women. A majority of women, with 83.33%, were Democrats and a majority of men, with 71.4%, were Republican. The ratio of winning candidates who were men to women correlates to the ratio of men and women that entered the race, strengthening previous research preformed by other scholars. This leads to the conclusion that the number of women in the Senate will rise if a higher percentage of women will run for office.
Comparing Political Campaigns with Respect to Gender: The 2016 Senatorial Election Cycle
Ballroom
Only 25 women are currently serving in the United States Senate and there have only been 56 women to ever hold these positions in the history of the United States. The purpose of this research is to compare the identities and finances of campaigns in the 2016 Senatorial race, with respect to gender, to better understand possible reasons for the gender gap in this political institution. The data used in this study was primarily gathered from the Federal Election Commission. The information of the candidates includes party affiliation, types of candidates (incumbent, challenger, or open-seat), and financial contributions to the campaigns. The financial data examined was from the contributions of prominent Political Action Committees, donations from individuals, and party organizations. Concluding the research, results of the winning candidates were compiled with data from Ballotopedia to examine the successful campaigns. The results, in comparing men and women candidates, showed 17.7% of candidates were women and 82.3% were men. There was not a variation on the type of seat the candidates were competing for, whether an open-seat race or challenging race, besides a 6% difference in incumbent candidates between men and women, which could be explained by the lack of women currently serving. Gender did, however, have an effect on party affiliation with a majority of women identifying with the Democratic Party and the majority of men with the Republican Party. The ways in which men and women fund their campaigns differ, as well. The data shows that, unlike men, women derive most campaign funds from individual donors and rely on smaller contributions than do men. The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee used the majority of their funds opposing Republican male candidates, a minority opposing Republican female candidates, and even spent some funds in support of Democratic women candidates. The National Republican Senate Committee directed their funds to oppose Democratic women the most and some funds to oppose Democratic men. Political Action Committees that are considered “women’s PACs,” such as Emily’s List, had a significant role in funding campaigns for women, with liberally ideological committees being more effective than their conservative counterparts. The winning candidates included 82.4% men and 17.6% women. A majority of women, with 83.33%, were Democrats and a majority of men, with 71.4%, were Republican. The ratio of winning candidates who were men to women correlates to the ratio of men and women that entered the race, strengthening previous research preformed by other scholars. This leads to the conclusion that the number of women in the Senate will rise if a higher percentage of women will run for office.