Guest Blog: Women & Elections: 5 Reasons Why Women Make Great Political Candidates

In honor of Women's Equality Day and the 90th anniversary of women winning the right to vote, here is a guest blog from Phil Van Treuren at Killer Campaigning.

One of the reasons we started Killer Campaigning was to show potential political candidates of all demographics how to serve their communities by running for office. As a former political consultant and campaign manager, however, I’m especially interested in encouraging women to get into politics–particularly because I know how effective they can be as candidates in local elections.

While women often make unparalleled government officials, they also have a knack for being very competitive political campaign candidates. As a political consultant, I would have much rather worked for a strong female candidate than a typical male candidate–for many reasons. While female politicians and candidates are outnumbered by their male counterparts today, I’m encouraged by the growing number of talented women entering political campaign races every year.

So, how do women win such a large percentage of campaigns and elections they enter, and what characteristics make females such effective political candidates? The reasons why women are often more successful than men in politics are far too numerous to list in one article, but we’re going to take a look at five of the most compelling below. If you have more to add to the list, please leave a comment at the end of this post.

And if you’re a women thinking about starting a career in politics and elections, I hope you’ll go for it . . . your country and community needs more talented females in government!

Top 5 Reasons Why Women Make Great Local Political Campaign Candidates

1. Natural Communication Skills

While nothing in this post is meant to stereotype men or women, it’s a fact that females are often more talented and comfortable in the realm of effective communication.

Being able to communicate your ideas in a compelling fashion is a vital trait for political candidates, and the person who can do so naturally–without having to be taught how–has an advantage in any campaign. Many voters find the communication style of women candidates more appealing, which helps in both one-on-one grassroots situations and public forums or debates.

2. Higher Thresholds for Campaign Trail Stress

The rigors of the campaign trail–even in local elections–can be much more demanding and stressful than new candidates expect. A woman’s innate ability to process and deal with stressful situations calmly is a huge boon in political campaigns.

Not all men are hotheads, but a male political candidate is much more likely to respond to respond to the steady stress of campaigning in a damaging fashion. Angry outbursts, impulsive comments and bad attitudes just aren’t as common in female candidates.

3. Better Ability Make Supporters & Volunteers Feel Appreciated

One of the most important–and overlooked–things that political candidates can do for their campaigns is making employees, volunteers and supporters feel as though their hard work is appreciated.

I can’t tell you how many male candidates I’ve worked with who treat their staff and volunteers like dirt, which leads to awful productivity. This kind of arrogance and lack of empathy might be present in some women candidates, as well, but it isn’t as common. Women are often much better at letting people know how important and needed they are.

4. Lower Likelihood for “Skeletons in the Closet”

Sure, women can have their secrets, too, but they are much less likely than men to have career-destroying skeletons hanging in the closet. As a campaign manager, one of your greatest fears is that something scandalous is going to be revealed about your candidate in the last few weeks of the election.

Male candidates certainly don’t have a corner on the scandal market, but many of them do seem to have more political baggage. How often do you see a scandal involving a female politician in the news?

5. Greater Voter Appeal and Demographic Advantages

It’s a well-known fact in political consulting circles that a female candidate will often run a few points ahead of a male challenger just because she is a woman. We’re not going to explore the reasons for this, but in most districts, being a woman is automatically going to give you a head start in the race.

Now, just being female won’t win the election for you–it also takes good planning, hard work and a bit of luck. As a man, though, I would much rather run against another man than go head-to-head with a female candidate at the polls.


The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

The Arsonist and the Fireman

Copyright 2010 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

Bill Maher's Religulous: In Theaters October 3rd

Anyone else concerned about the encroachment of religion into politics, especially in a country where there is supposed to be a bright line separation between church and state? Well, it looks like comedian Bill Maher has taken on the subject in his film, Religulous. Also, if you are looking for an organization that's fighting the good fight on this issue, try Americans United for the Separation of Church and State; their big project now is to stop illegal church electioneering. AU's efforts are particularly important given the Alliance Defense Fund's efforts to politicize the issue and force a court showdown over the separation of church and state. This weekend, more than 200 pastors plan to endorse candidates from the pulpit; if the IRS threatens their non-profit status as a result they have vowed to file lawsuits as part of the Pulpit Initiative. And, given how the Bush Administration has tipped the scales in the judiciary, I am more than a little nervous about the outcome of such challenges. Maybe Maher's movie -- well timed given the Pulpit Initiative's big day -- will help to stem the tide.



Copyright 2008 (text only). The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.

"Insanely Useful Websites for Government Transparancy"

Ever heard of The Sunlight Foundation? It's a great organization, essentially a group to empower watchdogs — uh, that would be us, folks, the voters! The foundation is using the power of the Internet to "shine a light on the interplay of money, lobbying, influence and government in Washington in ways never before possible." They have compiled a great list of helpful sites for those of us wanting the insider's scoop on all things government and politics.

As their website says: “The following sites and resources are 'insanely useful Web sites' for government transparency. They provide a broad range of information available to track government and legislative information, campaign contributions and the role of money in politics. Many of these resources apply the Web 2.0 ethos to sift, share and combine this information in innovative ways — often times by mashing data together from disparate sources to maximize the usability of that information.”

Just a few of the sites that the Sunlight Foundation features — and in some cases, funds — include:

Congresspedia.org — The “online wiki-based citizens’ encyclopedia on Congress” from the Sunlight Foundation and the Center for Media & Democracy.

Contractor Misconduct Database — The government awards contracts to companies with histories of misconduct such as contract fraud and environmental, ethics, and labor violations. The Project On Government Oversight (POGO) is providing such data about the top 50 contractors.

EarmarkWatch.org — Ever wanted to be an investigative reporter? Want to follow the money? This site is a user-friendly, online investigative tool that lets citizens determine "if earmarks address pressing needs, favor political contributors or are simply pure pork." The unique site guides users step by step through the process that an investigative reporter would follow — associating different kinds of political information with each earmark, and also guides users about how to use online resources on campaign finance, lobbying and federal spending for their research — tying the pork to the source. Users can also comment on and fact-check one each other's work, or send messages — including tips and suggestions — to others.

Fedspending.org — OMB Watch’s combination of data from the Federal Procurement Data System and the Federal Assistance Award Data System has created a free, searchable database of federal government contracting and spending. The database allows you to search contracts and grants by state, congressional district, contracting agency or type of award, and shows where the money is being spent and — very important — whether it was competitively bid or just given to Haliburton.

GovTrack.us — This site uses THOMAS data and others to provide Congressional profiles and searchable legislative data. Users can sign up for email alerts to track Members, legislation and votes.

LOUIS — Sunlight Foundation’s Library of Unified Information Sources – “a search engine that combs through seven different sets of government documents. The seven sets of documents are Congressional Reports, the Congressional Record, Congressional Hearings, the Federal Register, Presidential Documents, GAO Reports, and Congressional Bills and Resolutions.”

OpenSecrets.org — This site is the premiere source of data on money in national politics. The user is able to search by member of Congress, by donor, or by industry sector. The site also contains four separate databases: lobbying, personal financial disclosures, congressional travel and revolving door.

VoterWatch — “...combines C-SPAN video of Congress with the accompanying text from the Congressional Record to allow viewers to search the video for comments made by a member of Congress.”

WashingtonWatch — This site determines the average cost, or savings, per individual of each bill introduced in Congress by performing calculations on government estimates compared to the US population. The Web site provides users with pro and con arguments for each bill, allows comments on each bill, allows users to vote “yes” or “no” on the bills and provides a “write your rep” function.

Watchdog.net — "...is a hub for data about politics. The site brings together census data, voting records, lobbying forms, campaign finance reports, and much more in one easy-to-understand place. And then it gives you the tools to actually do something about it."



To this list, The Information Knot — where I found some of the sites on this list — also added this resource:

Washington Post’s U.S. Congress Votes Database
From the Washington Post; provides House and Senate roll call votes from the 102nd Congress (1991) to the present. Also groups vote results by state, gender or zodiac sign of the Members. A convenient way for constituents to compile a Member’s entire floor voting record for recent Congresses or track missed votes or voting with one’s party.


Use these sites in good health, my friends. And please, use them to speak your minds, or better yet, speak truth to power.

The Best Three Bucks You Don't Have to Spend This Tax Day

There were lots of media stories today about tax day: harried, last minute filers; savings tips for next year; the best excuses to get an extension, etc. Unfortunately, though, I didn't see much about one aspect of Uncle Sam's annual payday that I think is critically important, especially this year: the voluntary check-off program that finances the Presidential Election Campaign Fund.

The presidential public financing system started in the early 1970s and is fueled by a simple, voluntary checkoff on our tax returns -- three bucks for individual filers, six bucks for couples. Sounds like a bargain to me. Actually, it enters no brainer territory when you consider that checking the “yes” box doesn't cost us a dime -- and it doesn't reduce our refund either. The checkoff actually redirects three bucks from general revenues to the Fund -- so yeah, I guess you could make the argument it "costs" us in the larger sense because our tax dollars underwrite the general fund. But the checkoff, as it's currently implemented, is financially painless -- and it's not like checking "no" gives you an extra three bucks. So it's a win-win, right?

Despite this simplicity, and lack of personal cost, participation in the checkoff program has fallen dramatically since the program's inception (27.5 percent participation on 1976 returns) -- although it has apparently leveled off at a whopping 11 percent in the last several election cycles. Wow. Color me underwhelmed -- although compared to other taxpayer checkoff or add-on programs, the Fund's checkoff has one of the higher participation rates around. Still, though, the abysmal support has meant that the Fund has faced chronic shortfalls since the early 1990s -- and the shortages are putting the whole public campaign financing system at risk.

Of course, another serious problem with the Fund has nothing to do with its structure or our apathy, and instead has to deal with the fact that leading candidates are opting not to take matching funds so they can avoid artificially low spending limits. This, of course, was one of the main points of the Fund -- to publicly support campaigns while at the same time capping them to keep a lid on runaway spending. But the Fund's contribution levels have not been indexed, and thus have not kept pace with the realities of today's campaign environment.

The Campaign Finance Institute's Task Force on Financing Presidential Nominations' issued a 2005 report, So the Voters May Choose... Reviving the Presidential Matching Fund System, offering a number of campaign finance fixes as well as recommendations to improve the Fund, especially in light of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA). Among them were:

• Increase the income tax checkoff to five bucks, then index it thereafter.


• Expand checkoff participation by having the FEC invest some of the checkoff funds in public education about the Fund and the checkoff program.


• Develop better IRS standards for tax preparation software so consumers can truly make an informed choice about the checkoff.

In 2006, Sen. Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Reps. Marty Meehan (D-MA) and Christopher Shays (R-CT) introduced legislation to address several campaign finance issues, including shoring up the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. However -- surprise, surprise -- their Presidential Funding Act didn't budge in the 109th Congress. They reintroduced the bill (S. 2412/H.R. 776, though Meehan retired from Congress later in 2007), but even if it passed it would not take effect until 2009 -- and thus effect the 2012 presidential campaign. These bills would change the primary match ratio from 1:1 to 4:1, raise the spending limit for primary candidates from about $45 million to $150 million, and raise the income tax checkoff from three bucks to ten, among other items.

Public Citizen has also recommended some structural improvements to improve the Fund that merit consideration:

• Increase the checkoff from three bucks per taxpayer to eight bucks per taxpayer.


• Index the tax checkoff for inflation to keep the Fund solvent.


• Return any unused public funds, repayments of public funds, interest, and fines collected for violations of the presidential public financing system into the Presidential Election Campaign Fund as a way to increase its revenues. (Currently, most of these refunds or fines are turned over to the general fund.)

So, I hope you checked the box, people. If not, well, I won't hold it against you -- this year! But I hope you seriously ponder that checkoff next year. We need the help to keep the Fund solvent, and to show the support for public campaign financing. We also need commonsense reform to make public financing attractive to candidates again -- reform that both allows candidates to be competitive but still gives the public a chance to get a handle on runaway campaign costs and diminish the influence of big money in politics.

Copyright 2008. The Zaftig Redhead. All Rights Reserved.