Is 2010 the Year of the Safe Man?
September 25, 2010
by Kitt
|
Now the primaries are finished and the general is on! How will women fare in representation after this election? Early in the election season, some were calling 2010 “The Year of the Woman”, yet so many women lost their primaries. Below is a list of women general election candidates along with some polling information. When reading poll reports, you see words like “Solid Republican”, “Safe Democratic”, “Likely Democratic”, “Leans Republican”. I’ve translated these terms into what matters to readers of this blog: Show us the women!
Looking at the senate races, the good news is we have 3 states that are “Solid Woman”. Thank you California, Maryland and New York! We have 1 “Leans Woman”, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and 2 Toss Ups: challenger Sharron Angle of Nevada and incumbent Patty Murray of Washington. The rest are Safe, Likely or Leans Men. How does this affect our representation? Currently, it looks like we will lose at least 2 of our incumbents (AK, AR) and could lose one in a toss-up (WA). We will keep 3 incumbents in “Solid Woman” states (CA, MD, NY). We have a good chance to gain in NH and we will keep 11 of the 17 women currently serving in the senate who are not up for re-election this year. Sound good? No. There is a strong chance women will lose representation in the senate this year, and no change to gain. Our best hope is to maintain our same level which requires winning both Toss Up states (NV, WA). If we lose both Toss Ups, we will have a net loss of 2 seats. If we win and lose a Toss Up, we will have a loss of 1 seat. So the MAIN FOCUS is the two Toss Up states: Sharron Angle in NV and Patty Murray in WA. As well, we need to secure that “Leans Woman” and make New Hampshire a new seat for women with Kelly Ayotte.
The governors races will deliver us two “Solid Woman” states. Thank you Oklahoma and New Mexico! South Carolina is a “Leans Woman” state and there are 3 Toss Up states: Meg Whitman in California, Alex Sink in Florida and Libby Mitchell in Maine. The races have been running close this entire election season. So our representation appears up in the air. Currently, only 6 women are serving as governors, two of which are not up for re-election and will remain in service. Jan Brewer is the only incumbent running and is likely to win. We are likely to gain one governorship in SC with Nikki Haley. If we lose all 3 Toss Ups (CA, FL, ME), we will maintain our representation. If we win the Toss Ups, we will gain 3 
governorships for women. So again, the MAIN FOCUS is on the Toss Ups: Meg Whitman in CA, Alex Sink in FL and Libby Mitchell in ME. We also want to keep an eye on Nikki Haley in SC. If we lose SC and the Toss Ups, we will lose representation for women in our states’ highest office.
If anyone wants to get involved with some of these Toss Ups or Leans states, your help could make a difference. (Hint. Hint.) Women lost a lot of primaries this season by super, tiny margins, some even less than 1000 votes. Let’s see the reverse happening in November!
Don’t let the media get you distracted on the high profile races. Read all you can about these 7 close races and GET INVOLVED!!! Don’t let “The Year of the Woman” become “The Year of the Safe Man”. Your involvement will make a difference and you’ll have fun doing it.
Senate:
NH Kelly Ayotte
WA Patty Murray
Governor:
CA Meg Whitman
FL Alex Sink
SC Nikki Haley
List of Candidates:
AK Lisa Murkowski (R) (I) Leans Man
AR Blanche Lincoln (D) (I) Likely Man
CA Barbara Boxer (D) (I), Carly Fiorina (R) (C) Solid Woman!
CT Linda McMahon (R) (O) Leans Man
DE Christine O’Donnell (R) (O) Likely Man
IA Roxanne Conlin (D) (C) Safe Man
KS Lisa Johnston (D) (O) Safe Man
MD Barbara Mikulski (D) (I) Solid Woman!
MO Robin Carnahan (D) (O) Leans Man
NC Elaine Marshall (D) (C) Leans Man
NH Kelly Ayotte (R) (O) Leans Woman
NV Sharron Angle (R) (C) Toss Up
NY Kirsten Gillibrand (D) (I) Solid Woman!
WA Patty Murray (D) (I) Toss Up
AZ Jan Brewer (R) (I) Likely Woman
CA Meg Whitman (R) (O) Toss Up
FL Alex Sink (D) (O) Toss Up
ME Libby Mitchell (D) Toss Up
NM Diane Denish (D) (O), Susana Martinez (R) (O) Solid Woman!
OK Jari Askins (D) (O), Mary Fallin (R) (O) Solid Woman!
SC Nikki Haley (R) (O) Leans Woman
WY Leslie Petersen (D) (O) Safe Man
Currently only 76 women (59D, 17R) serve out of 435 seats. 138 are running (91D, 47R). There are too many races to analyze in one blog post. Please share any information and polling you have of these races in the comments. We’d love to get your scoop!
Halane, nice overview. are you aware of the latest poll for the senate race in NY? Gillibrand is only 6 points ahead. I think we should not underestimate Christine O’Donnell. Nobody thought she could win the primary with her tiny team and being underfunded. now the money streams in and the advisors. we need to be really loud, that these advisors don’t make her less interesting to her voter. Her appeal was the grassroots approach, the accessibility. we now how the RNC mishandled Sarah Palin. I hope we don’t have a rerun here. It looks interesting to me that the sexualized language has not been a great problem. rather dismissing the candidate in th eusual gender specific manner and the phony lawsuits, which just are huge distracters and money eaters.
I am glad TNA has called out the hotness attack on Gillebrand.
In Missouri’s Fourth House District, Vicky Hartzler is fighting the good old boys in the guise of Ike Skelton (D-Nervous). It’s an R+16 district that has been represented by the same man since 1976. Vicky is a solid mainstream conservative who is perfect for a mainstream conservative district, and she would be the first woman ever to hold the seat. If women can win races in rural Missouri, we can win anywhere. There’s a fire from the heartland…
In Missouri’s Fourth House District, Vicky Hartzler is fighting the good old boys in the guise of Ike Skelton (D-Nervous). It’s an R+16 district that has been represented by the same man since 1976. Vicky is a solid mainstream conservative who is perfect for a mainstream conservative district, and she would be the first woman ever to hold the seat. If women can win races in rural Missouri, we can win anywhere. There’s a fire from the heartland…
I enjoy most of the postings on this blog. OK I snarl at some of them and cheer others but this one just leaves me confused. You seem to be advocating voting for the candidate who is female regardless of what she stands for, her abilities or her experience.Yes there are plenty of stupid incompetant men in Congress who need to be removed and replaced with intelligent, hard working women if possible. But that is not a reason to support candidates whose political views I disagree with and/or are unqualified, ignorant or just plain bizarre just because she is a women. Given a choice between a competant man and a fairly competant women I will always support the women but expecting female electors to support any and every women is stupid.
No; it’s not stupid, and here’s why:
Every woman is competent to lead.
Very true, some women are competent to lead girl scout troops, some are competent to lead PTAs or law firms or the boards of major businesses;some are competant to be mayors and lead towns,some to lead fund raising for charities, some to serve in Congress and some to serve soup to the homeless. Women are very competent in many many different areas but this doesn’t mean that any one women must be the best choice for something just because she is a women. Politics is not just about winning elections it is also about devising, understanding and implimenting policies at all levels. To suggest all women can somehow magically do this and so must be supported over any male candidates regardless of her competance is nonsenseand comes dangerously close to being sexist nonsense.
libby, I think you recognize the problem that women were and in many cases are still not supported by their parties in primaries. they usually get attacked as stupid, non competent, ugly or too sexy and hot. particularly the democrats have used this scheme. when I see how a guy like Scott Brown is considered competent and good looks did not do him in, and what non sense is piled up on women from Hillary to Sarah to Christine and Sharon. the conservatives get even the special treat to be denounced as religious fanatics, while most of the guys either preach morals or vastly exaggerate their Christian worship.
when you go competent, do you think they all have to be lawyers? I have problems with the percentage of lawyers in congress. as if other viewpoints were not important. the lawyers legislate every component of society usually without the input of the effected component. same with women, male lawyers legislate on such a vast array of laws and bills, they have no idea how the female populace gets hit. representation is important not only for race but also for gender.
Yes I get your point Anna that women were NOT selected in the past simply because they WERE women and in many cases I’m sure this is still true. And yes you are right that men often are selected with the things that are presented as negetive in female candidates being welcomed as positive in male candidates. But the point I am trying to make is just because incompetent male candidates get elected that is no arguement for electing incompetent female candidates as well. I agree completely with you that equal gender representation is vital. Women as you say have very different biological, psychological, social and economic experiences from men and these must be represented amongst the lawmakers (and no this doesn’t simply mean more female lawyers)so that women’s concerns are taken into account the way men’s have automatically been for centuries.We’re agreed we need more females to be selected and elected. But my point is what we need is good female candidates not just female candidates. OK ‘good’ is subjective but in a democracy there are basics and women who can’t or won’t handle those should not be supported.
when a woman is called incompetent, the comparison whether a black person or a male of any race would be called incompetent or not. and if not, it is not o.k. to have a different standard for women.
“But the point I am trying to make is just because incompetent male candidates get elected that is no arguement for electing incompetent female candidates as well.”
I think it is, frankly. Bella Abzug said that we’ll know when we’ve truly achieved equality when a woman schlemeil gets promoted as quickly as a male schlemeil. She’s right. We chuckle over that crap about how we have to be twice as good to get half the credit, but it’s true and I’m sick of it. there’s always going to be bozos and cray people in government, and goddamn it, half of them should be women.
Merely making half of government women would be an improvement in and of itself, no matter what. Anyone who doesn’t believe there is inherent value in that should stop faking.
Oh great! well its nice to know you have such high aspirations for your gender and your country. So this is what we are going to teach our daughters is it. You don’t have to worry about being well informed or hardworking or take the time to actually understand what you are talking about and why others hold views different from yours.No you can be as ignorant as you like and it doesn’t matter, we will support you because female equality means being as dumb as men.
Every woman is competent to lead. I don’t live in an ant farm. My candidates are chosen based on whether or not or how closely their values approximate mine; chief among them is that my gender have representation and parity.
OK I understand that and respect your choice of priorities if gender is the most important factor to you although I’m still not sure how it works. If you live in a state that puts up a female Republican candidate for say Govenor and a male Democrat I get that you will vote Republican.But then if she doesn’t run for re-election and the Republicans select a male candidate and the Democrats a women do you vote Democrat, even though her political views and policies are likely to be very different? If you lived in Delaware would you vote for Christine O’Donnell but if you moved to California vote for Barbara Boxer??? If so you either have a very tight political focus thinking of one thing and one thing only or you are able to change your political principles more often than most people change their socks!
it seems that Libby hasn’t figured out that the cards are stacked against us.
to suggest that voting for a female republican is so beyond despair approximating it to not caring for an education of your your own daughter, is cheap very cheap. everyone here wants their children to have the best education and grow into wonderful brilliant adults (who respect their mothers).
let’s stay with Christine O’Donnell. she was a long time ago for christian values and outspoken about it, to the point to hurt her political chances in this anti-religious and over-sexed culture. from the liberal media I get it is only o.k as muslim, thar your religion needs to be respected; otherwise, as christian it speaks to your lack of intellect. i have no grievance if a female senate candidate had a strong opinion about speaking the truth and was against masturbation, as long as she would not create bills spying into everybody’s bedroom. and it was decades ago that she hold these opinions. making some not so longterm politically opportune statements on Maher’s show leads to crucifixation in this race. what about all the male candidates sexually harassing/ philandering/ creating out of wedlock children? what about the president sealing everything he said as a not so smart 20something but unsealing everyone else’s records?
the democrats create this fear of these republican women ending all our freedoms with their zealous Christianity. what I fear is the expansion of spying our government plans now: spying emails, social networks. they probably don’t spy in mosques that would be against religious freedom.
“OK I understand that and respect your choice of priorities if gender is the most important factor to you although I’m still not sure how it works.”
I sense disrespect to female gender here. why is it so hard to be happy for a female candidate to win?
yes if I were in Delaware I would vote for O’Donnell. I don’t believe in the democrat’s propaganda. to get that far without financial or party support, she must be smart. In Maryland I’d vote for Michulsky, In California I’d vote for Fiorina, if the reps had a male, I’d vote for Boxer. they are both capable. As much as I loved Hillary’s candidacy, to me Sarah Palin would be a good president too. wish she had the chance to serve in senate first, but am sure she would find the right people with the right experience to surround her. she probably is much more of a libertarian to not mess with people’s privacy, women’s bodies, the various religious and cultural backgrounds. She could potentially have more spine to stand up against the various to big to fail entities we have compared to our current president.
I sense that people are not falling anymore to the propaganda of the democrats to make the opponents evil and dumb. on the republican side however, there are some guys who are seriously dropping the ball (see other post at TNA women’s history museum). they think no one cares and had to see the 200 some comments in NYT with comments of over 70 shovel ready women to come to DC and dig for the museum.
Wow – calm down Anna, why the attack? I did not say that voting for a female republican meant not careing about the education of your daughters. I was responding to Janis’ post where she argued it is ok to vote for women who are ‘bozos and crazy’ because it advances equality. I made no mention of Republicans although it is interesting that you assume I meant them. Christine O’Donnell I only mentioned as an example of a rightwing candidate in contrast to a leftwing politician like Barbara Boxer when replying to Kiuku’s comment that for her gender is the most important thing to vote for. I’ll do the christian thing with your religious rant and insults and turn the other cheek. O’Donnell has failed in her attempts to be elected simply because the voters, including large numbers of women, have not supported her and unless the polls change don’t seem to be doing so this time either. That is not because stupid stories about witchcraft or her christian values have been run in the ‘liberal’ (shouldn’t that be ‘lamestream’)media. It is because serious questions about her financial honesty have been raised by people including republicans and she has not yet answered them. Trying to claim as she has that they are just part of a sexist attack is stupid and very insulting to women such as Clinton and Palin who have had serious sexism to deal with. It worries me that women may fall into the trap of defending all women all of the time even when there are serious questions about an individuals abilities and past behaviour to be asked This is not about disrespecting women’s gender as you accuse me it is about democracy. Women struggled suffered and risked physical and social pain to get us the vote. It is one of the most precious things we have and we should never give a candidate a pass from answering tough questions about their ability honest or competence just because they are female. OK end of my rant. I agree totally with your comments about the privacy of the individual (which is why I am pro-choice but that’s a whole new argument) and share you hope that the smears and propaganda stop by BOTH sides. Rightwing Republican’s are just as guilty as the Democrats and in fact wrote the book with their smears and lies about the Clintons in the 90s.
Libby, you are assuming that your choice is between a competent man and an incompetent woman. That, rarely, if ever happens. A woman has to be 10 times as competent as a man in order to compete against him though most people have fooled themselves into believing that it is an equal playing field out there. It is these delusional people who are horrified at the idea of vagina voting. Many people here have realized, based on history and experience, that a man is rarely competent to represent the interests of anyone except himself, let alone women. I can’t think of a single man in congress now who is competent to represent the interests of women. Given that, our best option is to give women a chance, and at the least, increase female representation in Congress.
Yeh I agreed Kali, women often do have to be better than men and I will always be willing to support a female candidate if I can. This blog and the TNA site does a great job in highlighting the women standing and encouraging support for them.I have no trouble with that at all. Also I’m not assuming the choice is always between a competent man and an incompetant women. There are many very good female polticians in both parties and a great many useless men. The only point I make is that there are also incompetent women and competent men and if faced with a choice like that I (and many female voters) will vote for the man. Ability (and policy positions) are more important than gender because that is how the power that we give elected candidates plays out. There is little point in me voting for a women if she will not support the policies I think we need. For me gender is very important but not the one big issue that beats all others thats all.
“For me gender is very important but not the one big issue that beats all others that’s all.”
This is the problem. Women will NEVER prioritize offenses against women, gender-based hatred. Ever. Something else always trumps it, every single time. Women will never put women first.
Libby I vote for women no matter what. that’s my primary value. I don’t even look at men anymore. I try to avoid buying their products too.
like Bes I turn off the TV now. Otherwise I have to change the channel everytime a male is speaking.
“Ability (and policy positions) are more important than gender because that is how the power that we give elected candidates plays out.”
and I have realized over many voting cycles that the things candidates say and write in their expensive campaign material is most of the time not representative what they are ding when elected. if you go by issues you have to take the time and check their voting record and go in details of bills. you need to spend a lot of time. the candidates spoken words are highly unuseful.
look at the race battle. AA community was so very successful because they put the race question on top of everything else.
if we are not willing to put gender on top of everything else there will be zero progress. when you study what it took for these brave women of the NWP a century ago, you will find what single mindedness they had to submit themselves to gain ground. having gender issues as one of your top 10 will not do.
Leave your Response Want an avatar? Get a gravatar!
Community Room
May 8, 2012 at 11:30 am
May 8, 2012 at 9:56 am
May 7, 2012 at 2:04 pm
May 7, 2012 at 1:37 pm
May 7, 2012 at 1:19 pm
April 20, 2012 at 12:57 pm
April 11, 2012 at 4:39 pm
April 6, 2012 at 1:18 pm
BUILD your NETWORK
Our Network of College Women
Protecting our Teenage Girls
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Pioneer Mentors
Blogroll
Find us Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...