Editore"s Note
Tilting at Windmills

Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

January 11, 2007
By: Kevin Drum

WOMEN IN CONGRESS....A couple of days ago I linked to "Queens of the Hill," an article in our current issue about the rise of Democratic women in the 110th Congress. That prompted an email from a longtime reader who has looked at the outcomes of the November midterms and writes to say that the results were actually pretty dismal this year for Democratic women running for House seats. I haven't verified his numbers independently, but here's what he told me:

  • Of the 63 most competitive House races with either a Republican incumbent or a Republican-held open seat, 4 of the 20 Dem female candidates won and 25 of the 43 men won.

  • Of the 19 races in the original DCCC Red-to-Blue program (not counting the at-risk incumbents on the list), one of the nine women won and eight of the 10 men won.

  • Women came up short in the close races. In Republican seats where a Democrat got at least 48% of the vote, 18/26 men won but only 3/12 women. If we move it up to 49%, it's 18/22 for men and 3/10 for women.

A more sophisticated statistical analysis that controls for such things as incumbency, fundraising, and the partisanship of the district, indicates that this isn't a fluke: Democratic women really did do significantly worse than Democratic men. This is despite the fact that (a) women historically do about the same as men and (b) this year women were better funded than men on average.

So why did Democratic women do so poorly this year? Is it just a coincidence? Did they get bad campaign advice? Did Republicans run differently against women than against men? Were women more likely to run in certain kinds of districts than men? (What kind? And why did it backfire?) Did the Iraq war backdrop hurt women?

The raw data is intriguing and a bit disturbing, but it's not clear what conclusions to draw from it. Any thoughts?

Kevin Drum 6:03 PM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (52)

Bookmark and Share
 
Comments

If it's not a fluke, which I suspect it is, then you should look farther back to the nominating process. Are the Democrats nominating inferior women candidates just because they are women? That's the ancient Achilles Heel of affirmative action: if you give a break to somebody based on sex or race, eventually they reach a level of competition where there are no more preferences, and they lose disproportionately. For example, preferred minorities who get into law schools that they wouldn't get into if they were white or Asian tend to flunk out, fail the bar exam, and not make partner at higher rates than people who weren't given breaks.

Posted by: Steve Sailer on January 11, 2007 at 6:46 PM | PERMALINK

Also, maybe in this age of "terror" the public is looking for alpha-male types.

Posted by: J.S. on January 11, 2007 at 7:00 PM | PERMALINK

If there are issues that female candidates bring up much more often or much less often than male candidates, could it be those issues, at least in part?

If so, what are those issues?

Posted by: Anthony on January 11, 2007 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

Crikey. Usually at least one random yahoo shows up to yell "Frist!" before Steve Sailer appears in a puff of smoke and brimstone ash to blame the victims of discrimination for their own fate.

Here's another anecdote which I think needs to be added to the mix. There were at least 2 Democratic women candidates who scored decisive upsets on Election Day. Carol Shea-Porter in NH and Nancy Boyda in Kansas. They weren't on the DCCC's list because they beat the DCCC's preferred candidate in the primary, and/or because the race was considered to be an unlikely pickup. As a result, less money was spent on these races and fewer GOP attack ads aired in the district.

Since we're in the business of irresponsible speculation here, perhaps the standard Republican line of attack against Democratic candidates (i.e. accusing them of being weak-kneed ninnies who want to hug the terrorists) was more effective against female candidates due to ingrained sexism among a certain percentage of the electorate.

Or maybe, as I suspect, this is all a big coincidence. After all, Democratic women in Senate races mopped up their competition.

But it sure is fun to speculate about nonfalsifiable Just-So explanations for current events that uphold our biases, isn't it Steve? By the way, please don't forget to let the door hit your ass on the way out.

Posted by: ajl on January 11, 2007 at 7:08 PM | PERMALINK

Boyda's victory was delivered by the troops at Ft. Leavenworth and Ft. Riley who did not turn out for Ryun like they had in the past.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State on January 11, 2007 at 7:16 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin: A more sophisticated statistical analysis that controls for such things as incumbency, fundraising, and the partisanship of the district, indicates that this isn't a fluke: Democratic women really did do significantly worse than Democratic men. This is despite the fact that (a) women historically do about the same as men and (b) this year women were better funded than men on average

Since this analysis controls for fundraising, point (b) looks wrong. The study already adjusted for the fact that women were better funded than men.

Sorry to quibble. This is actually quite an interesting post.

Posted by: ex-liberal on January 11, 2007 at 7:18 PM | PERMALINK

My God, Sailer. The Democrats don't conjure these people in some kind of smoky back room. Present some evidence that they were recruited in preference to better-qualified men before you commence bloviating about how they're probably affirmative action hires.

Posted by: Steve on January 11, 2007 at 7:24 PM | PERMALINK

My question is how many more women were nominated and ran this year than last cycle? If they did worse as a percentage of nominees but the numbers of elected look about the same or marginally better, then we're still making progress ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 11, 2007 at 7:41 PM | PERMALINK

ajl, in the Senate there was only one female challenger(Klobuchar was running for an open seat that was held by a democrat previously). Claire McCaskill did win, and that is important, but it is awfully hard to draw many conclusions from one data point.

Posted by: tinman on January 11, 2007 at 7:46 PM | PERMALINK
A more sophisticated statistical analysis that controls for such things as incumbency, fundraising, and the partisanship of the district, indicates that this isn't a fluke: Democratic women really did do significantly worse than Democratic men.

One thing that's not controlled for is experience (besides simple incumbency), or military background. I expect that exploring that, in the context of the 2006 election, might be fruitful, though "experience" is hard to operationalize in a purely quantitative way without losing meaning.

Posted by: cmdicely on January 11, 2007 at 8:00 PM | PERMALINK

Kevin, In order to analyze females or males wins or losses there has to be much more information. Besides funding I would also like to see polling info regarding incumbents, etc. Females made great strides this year and will continue to do so but it's important to put up qualified candidates no matter what gender.

Posted by: JL on January 11, 2007 at 8:02 PM | PERMALINK

Because Democrats won this time because of a relatively large number of nominal Republican's voting across party lines to give the Democrat a push over the top.

These key swing voters are far more likely to swing for another Man, then to swing for a Woman.

Posted by: Bones on January 11, 2007 at 8:19 PM | PERMALINK

Tinman-

That's true, but Klobuchar also won in a state where the previous Senate election was won by a Republican. She was running against a well-funded House incumbent. And she won easily.

All of this is just to say that some of the most important women candidates in this election cycle aren't included in the data.

And, of course, to say that there is no basis whatsoever for Sailer's attempts to bring his favorite topic into the conversation.

Posted by: ajl on January 11, 2007 at 8:21 PM | PERMALINK

Klobuchar had the benefit of a state-wide race. She got a lot of youth votes. The outlying districts don't have any youth(slight exaggeration) so it's harder to win over the traditionalists.

Posted by: cdmn on January 11, 2007 at 8:42 PM | PERMALINK

Under the 50 state strategy, the number of Democratic candidates who lose would of course go up in the first 1-2 cycles. So the next question is, did engaged, energetic, committed Democratic women agree to run as candidates in "hopeless" districts in support of the strategy?

Cranky

Posted by: Cranky Observer on January 11, 2007 at 8:43 PM | PERMALINK

Cranky:

That's essentially my point, too -- although I wasn't thinking of the 50-state stragegy. The general question is how many more women ran this cycle than last, and your collorary -- how many ran in "hopeless" districts as a result of aggressive recruiting -- is a good one.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 11, 2007 at 8:49 PM | PERMALINK

I suspect it's part of the same dynamic that caused Democrats to seek out Iraq war veterans and macho males as candidates. Not a bad strategy in the current situation, as the results indicate. My theory doesn't account for the loss by Tammy Duckworth, which I thought was a shocker. But I don't know much about that individual race.

Some years are really good for women (and, in fact, women made gains across the board even this year), but the post-9/11 environment is probably more favorable to guys. Normally, I'd be sorry--but this year, whatever it took for the Dems to take control is all right with me. We gals will return when the time is ripe--just as soon as "The Decider" leaves the building.

Posted by: BWR on January 11, 2007 at 8:53 PM | PERMALINK

Maybe the women fought in harder districts? Maybe out of their own choosing they picked longer shots than the men?

The statistics may lead to the wrong assumption. There's a lot that isn't controlled for there...

Posted by: Steve L on January 11, 2007 at 9:02 PM | PERMALINK

BWR:

The poop I've heard on the Duckworth race (and that I read on Howard Dean's blog two years ago) is that her nomination was an example of Rahm Emmanuel overstretch. Another woman was running in the primary (Christine Cegelis, I believe?) who had the strong backing of the netroots, but Rahm vetoed her because he believed a vet would be a better candidate.

Problem was, Duckworth has zero political experience and Cegelis was well-respected in local politics. So when the time came for GOTV, the boots just weren't on the ground as enthusiastically as they might've been for a truly exciting candidate like Cegelis ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 11, 2007 at 9:16 PM | PERMALINK

I love the anti-Affirmative action people who ignore the well established phenomenon of stereotype threat. When properly proctored, you can give the same test and have blacks do as well as whites when controlled for stereotype threats. Additionally, you can decrease the score of white males if you add stereotype threat (you can do the same thing on men vs women). Given the obvious stereotype threats present from an early age, you expect minorities to score lower and probably shouldn't even be judged by the same criteria if you really wanted to be fair.

If the first poster really wanted to be fair, he would have to make white males do much better than their minority counterparts. If you hold them to the same standard, taking into account stereotype threat, than whites are in effect the real recipients of "affirmative action".

I recommend browsing any good peer reviewed social psychology journal. Its all out there. And it even made headlines in Science magazine recently. Worth a skim, at least.

Posted by: gq on January 11, 2007 at 9:24 PM | PERMALINK

Five of these races had Democratic women running against Republican women (four incumbents), and not in easy districts: Paccione against Musgrave, Madrid against Wilson, Wulsin against Schmidt, Kilroy against Pryce, and Wetterling against Bachman. Three of the four incumbent races went into overtime. I would think that any advantage or disadvantage to being a woman would be neutralized here, and the primary factors the district and the quality of the candidate.

Posted by: abc on January 11, 2007 at 9:25 PM | PERMALINK

"We're in possession of the thing that men want. Who's better than whom?" -- Chrissie Hynde, The Pretenders

Posted by: Donald from Hawaii on January 11, 2007 at 9:51 PM | PERMALINK

This is still a man's world. As a woman, I have to take solace in the fact that we have the first-ever female speaker of the house. For years, early in my career, I was responsible to develop and monitor affirmative action programs.
Politics is a tough road for women and there are a lot of angry male voters out there. I personally think this is one of the main reasons that men fare so well in the vetting process and in elections: They stick together.

Posted by: consider wisely always on January 11, 2007 at 9:58 PM | PERMALINK

So, do the Democrats use affirmative action in selecting candidates?

If not, why not?

Is picking candidates too important to use affirmative action?

If so, what does that say about affirmative action in general?

Posted by: Steve Sailer on January 11, 2007 at 10:00 PM | PERMALINK

Lots of political science research shows that women candidates are judged as more competent on matters such as budgets, health care and education while male candidates are judged as more competent on national security. Some of these studies use experimental designs, where subjects are asked to answer questions after reading a made-up resume with a picture attached and some get information on faux female and others on faux male candidates.
As this was an election with national security (the war in Iraq and terrorism) was the central issue, that issue environment disproportionately hurt women candidates and this provides a ready explanation for the gender difference, particularly with women candidates who were challengers and not well-established public figures.

Posted by: af on January 11, 2007 at 10:04 PM | PERMALINK

Every race is different, and I don't know about the rest of the country, but I do know a little about Missouri. To me the Talent/ McCaskill race was the signature race of 2006. It was Karl Rove's greatest defeat.

Claire McCaskill ran against and defeated a very well liked incumbent who really didn't do anything wrong. Some argue she is a superior candidate. I have known Claire for decades and can tell you she she will make a great Senator. She knows just about everybody. She is a very good candidate, but she isn't that good.

Jim Talent was the incumbent. He wasn't involved in even a hint of scandal. He seems to this day to be a pretty hard working, intelligent and decent family man--the kind of man you would like to have as a friend. He didn't call anybody Macacca. He should have won.

I belief he lost because he foolishly followed the National Republican campaign plan.

First, like a lot of Republicans taking national money, he ran a whole lot of cheesy negative ads. Unfortunately most of those ads attacked Claire's husband for being a successful businessman. People were scratching their heads. A lot of folks were asking “what is wrong with making money?” He was able to shelter his taxes. Claire countered those ads by saying her husband was able to legally shelter his money by taking the tax advice of high powered tax lawyers. "Oh, Jim isn't your wife a high powered tax lawyer?" Game, set match on millions of dollars in cheesy negative ads.

I understand that the Rovian wing of the National Republican Senatorial Campaign was responsible for those ads. Thanks Karl for your grand strategic vision. You took a nice guy candidate and saddled him with the sin of envy.

In addition, the Republican moron who encouraged Rush Limbaugh to rail against Michael J. Fox didn't do Talent any favors. Again that little gambit has Karl Rove written all over it. If so thanks again.

Finally, Karl thank you for sending the President to Springfield a few days before the election. It reminded a lot of Missourians of just exactly why we were mad in the first place. It was great for the Democratic get out the vote effort.

In short McCaskill's sex had little to do with her victory. The political tone deafness of the National Republican Campaign organization was a far larger factor.

Posted by: Ron Byers on January 11, 2007 at 10:13 PM | PERMALINK

There was a curious tug of war between Howard Dean and Rahm Emanuel during the process of designing and implementing a campaign. Rahm sold the centrist notion that "somewhat conservative men" who preferably had military service in their backgrounds were the most desirable, the best "investments."

Seems to me we let the post Cunningham race in California go to hell in a handcart -- insufficient support, insufficient protest over a dubious vote. Women are still "iffy" in the "real" world of politics -- which is why we jump up and down over Pelosi's accession to power (damn! we should hardly have noticed it!) and respond to polls about Hillary's viability.

We are still, by European standards, in the Dark Ages here. Sooner we change our attitudes, the better. It isn't "those other" people who are keeping women down but a combination of us liberals and us women who are self-consciously keeping afloat the notion of women's sub-viability -- as painful as that may be to accept. We not only allow the culture to patronize us, we patronize each other.

Posted by: PW on January 11, 2007 at 10:14 PM | PERMALINK

Ron Byers:

Nice rundown on the Missouri race.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 11, 2007 at 10:25 PM | PERMALINK

Has anyone looked at the outcomes of races in which both major party candidates were women? If there is no man to vote for at all, who won, the Rep or the Dem? Could be an interesting approach to the question.

Posted by: revbelair on January 11, 2007 at 10:33 PM | PERMALINK

Fair trade, jobs, globalizaton were winners for Dems. I read that the 'fair trade' Dems did better at winning than other Dems. I wonder if women tend to emphasize other issues,that were not as big in this election.

Posted by: dissent on January 11, 2007 at 10:38 PM | PERMALINK

For years, and even today, the only way you could spot women in the house or senate was by the bright colors they wore.
Look how Geraldine Ferraro was butchered by the press when she ran for vice president. That seems like so long ago. Look how Hillary Clinton is demonized. How conservatives spoke the name "Nancy Pelosi" as if Lucifer from hell.

But women are coming on, and we will continue to come on. I don't think it is women's attitudes as much it is men's attitudes about our worth and capabilities.
In my work place, we women have taken over all of the administrative and managerial positions-- We are coming on. I have not lost heart about our will or ability to thrive in politics.

Posted by: consider wisely on January 11, 2007 at 10:40 PM | PERMALINK

Excellent analysis Ron.

I had a dog in that fight myself. I spent hours phonebanking, canvassing and researching Talents record for anything that would prove injurious (I found something in the SASC transcripts, and Claire used it).

I can't thank Rush Limbaugh enough. His diatribe against Michael J. Fox pissed off a lot of people. I phonebanked a couple of days after his little display of maturity, and the shift was palpable, you could almost feel the boat list as people abdicated the undecided category for both Claire and Amendment 2 (stem cells).

For the record, the most vehement opinions in the world are held by grandmothers of diabetic children.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State on January 11, 2007 at 10:44 PM | PERMALINK

My thought is -- I never thought I would say this about a 66 year old grandma, but Nancy Pelosi is HOT!!!

Posted by: Joe Bob Briggs on January 11, 2007 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

Tammy Duckworth was parachuted in as the alternative to the progressive candidate, Christine Cegelis. That peeled off some support on the left. Her ground organization, as far as I could tell, was arrogant and ill-informed about the district. The fraudulent robocalls didn't help. I don't think any of it had much to do with gender.

I'm also not sure I understand how affirmative action could work in a primary context. (It's much easier to understand in the parliamentary system where you vote for a slate put up by a party - hence the parité movement in France.)

But I do think, generally speaking, the Bush administration has ushered in a war on women.

Posted by: rabbit on January 11, 2007 at 11:04 PM | PERMALINK

Joe Bob - My husband said the same exact thing. Speaks well for both of you, I think.

(aka Global Citizen)

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State on January 11, 2007 at 11:07 PM | PERMALINK

Barbara Boxer is doing a helluva job interrogating the secretary of state on the Iraq war policy in the senate foreign relations committee. She has posters of Rice's previous dubious testimony. She is out-doing Senator Russ Feingold in content and passion. Cspan repeat is still on. Rice looks put upon. Boxer wants it in the record that Britain is bringing home its troops. She wants an estimate of expected casualties with the administration's escalation of war. Rice is condescending to her then acts like she cares, Boxer interjects, asks, who pays the price for your decisions? Ends by saying it is appalling the administration did not take into account the potential for casualties... Boxer epitomizes a powerful woman. We're out there!

Posted by: consier wisely always on January 11, 2007 at 11:47 PM | PERMALINK

Global & Joe Bob:

As for the hotness of Ms. Pelosi ... I dunno ... I'm sure she was in her younger days.

But she's obviously a botox user. Look at her impeccably smooth, caressable cheeks. Then look at her hands. It's like the leather neck of the otherwise adorable Judy Woodruff ...

I'm sorry. I know I'm supposed to be programmed to respond to youthful looks positively, but this attempting to defeat nature I find as offensive as unnaturally perfect boobs.

All the magic of beauty just evaporates for me ...

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 12, 2007 at 12:00 AM | PERMALINK

I know what the hell is on Botox so nix that notion - but dude - invest in Olay Regenerist retinol futures. I just turned 44 and after 20+ years of aerobics and riding a hundred+ miles a week on my bike, I now find myself really applying myself to the effort of gaining ten pounds because chubby doesn't wrinkle.

Posted by: Blue Girl, Red State on January 12, 2007 at 12:13 AM | PERMALINK

Global--Estee Lauder keeps my skin glowing, and they tell me I look 28.

Posted by: consider wisely on January 12, 2007 at 12:34 AM | PERMALINK

Bob--good point about hands. And necks can sure show age. Nicolas Perricone is a dermatologist who recommends salmon, romaine lettuce, pears, to name a few face-savers. And some MDs say that sleeping on your side, smashing down the skin of the face, creates irreversible lines. I trained myself to sleep on my back as a teenie bopper.

Posted by: consider wisely on January 12, 2007 at 12:44 AM | PERMALINK

It may simply be that female Dems (Demales?) are the most likely of any major group to be actual human beings, and therefore most frightening to the reactionaries that dominate both the right and the swingosphere.

Posted by: Kenji on January 12, 2007 at 1:24 AM | PERMALINK

gq: "I love the anti-Affirmative action people who ignore the well established phenomenon of stereotype threat...I recommend browsing any good peer reviewed social psychology journal. Its all out there."

Perhaps you need to read some good peer reviewed and RECENT psychology articles? In particular, check out the work by Paul Sackett, who conclusively demonstrated that the findings of stereotype threat research has been widely misrepresented and that stereotype threat doesn't occur in real-world situations, such as job performance and selection.

The "well-established" phenomena of Stereotype Threat might be a modern Clever Hans. One roots for Social Psychologists who keep trying to find situational explanations for persistent and stubborn gaps in racial achievement, but stereotype threat isn't it.

As for why women may have lost more races than men, I first wonder about sample sizes. I also wonder if the women who lost had the same job experience as the women who won. The two races I know about--Wetterling/Bachman in MN and what I have read about the Tammy Duckworth race--the person who lost had less job experience. I adored Patty Wetterling and consider Michele Bachman an evil spawn of satan, but Bachman is a both a lawyer and had government experience, and she had polish in a way that Wetterling did not. Sigh.

Why are liberals so reluctant to admit that their passion to achieve sexual and racial equality may sometimes result in the nomination of less-qualified candidates? Discrimination is discrimination whether you are a conservative bigot who favors white males or a bleeding heart liberal who favors women and people of color: prejudice based on race or sex will deny opportunities to well-qualified candidates of the unfavored race or sex and give opportunities to less-qualified candidates of the favored race or sex. That's how discrimination works.

Posted by: PTate in FR on January 12, 2007 at 4:51 AM | PERMALINK

Red Girl: " I just turned 44 and after 20+ years ... gaining ten pounds because chubby doesn't wrinkle."

You and me both. Glad someone else noticed this.

Posted by: KathyF on January 12, 2007 at 5:24 AM | PERMALINK

Also, as to women defeated in November: I can speak about the Madrid campaign in NM CD-1. She was running against a well-funded woman, and she only lost by a mere few hundred votes.

Negative campaigns work when you've saturated the TV commercial slots. Albuquerque is a relatively cheap TV market, yet Wilson spent more than anyone else on TV ads, pretty much all of which were negative.

But it probably all turned on a poor performance by Madrid in the one televised debate.

Posted by: KathyF on January 12, 2007 at 5:28 AM | PERMALINK

One of the Democratic women, Patty Wetterling, was beaten by a Republican woman, Michele Bachmann.

I think the main reason here was a terrible campaign run by Wetterling's camp, combined with a Bachmann campaign that did a decent job of hiding her extremism and a media that did not do any critical examination of Bachmann's background and claims.

Posted by: Pat Smith on January 12, 2007 at 7:42 AM | PERMALINK

Pat Smith: "I think the main reason here was a terrible campaign run by Wetterling's camp, combined with a Bachmann campaign that did a decent job of hiding her extremism and a media that did not do any critical examination of Bachmann's background and claims."

If the race had been run in any other district, Wetterling would have won. The MN 6th district--heart of anti-abortion MN--is politically conservative to its core. We expected Bachman to win, but the remarkable thing is that Patty Wetterling gave Bachman such a fight, despite Wetterling's lack of polish and political experience and her liberal views.

Posted by: PTate in FR on January 12, 2007 at 8:26 AM | PERMALINK

There's no real mystery why Republican women do better than Democratic women. Republicans, when faced with a female Democratic candidate, will do everything in their power to exploit the opponent's gender. They will prey on people's prejudice, using all of the subtle code words and obvious insuations about women. In short, Republicans will exploit the prejudices of voters to undermine female Democratic candidates. And they will do so as visciously as possible.

When Democrats face a female Republican candidate, they do none of these things. They fight fair and avoid stereotyping and code words. It's an even contest. So the female Republican candidate has a much better chance.

I really don't think it's too much more complicated than that.

Posted by: owenz on January 12, 2007 at 10:52 AM | PERMALINK

rabbit,

I figured there'd be at least one Cegelis supporter repeating the same old tired arguments against Duckworth. The fact of the matter was the nat'l. repubs at Hyde's and Hastert's insistance spent more against Tammy than they spent against Jim Webb in VA. The DCCC misspent $3.2 million against Roskam with their stupid ads attacking him for wanting to ban books and supporting guns in schools. The first one was so over the top (nobody believed he wanted to ban Dr. Suess and Little House on the Prairie) it wrecked Duckworth's credibility and fired up his fundy base.

I'd like to know what cretin in the DCCC ad shop thought this election was about that crap instead of the war in Iraq and the Culture of Corruption which BTW Roskam is a poster boy for with his links to DeLay and FEC fines from past campaigns.
A couple of decent commercials about those two issues and Duckworth would have won easily.

Cegelis raised all of $143,000 on her own against Hyde's $800,000+ in 2004. She closed out her 2006 effort at $363,000 in 2006. Roskam raised $3,500,000 million and Duckworth $4,500,000. If Cegelis's vaunted organization had managed to turn out 24,000 voters to win the primary she still would have been swamped in a landslide in November. As it was the Repubs spent a lot of money and sent operatives they desperately needed elsewhere to win this race.

If Cegelis wants to run again I suggest she find herself some big backers, or buddy up to the Chamber of Commerce like Bean does, and for Christ sake shut up her sour grapes supporters like you who only fragment the local party. Come 2008 people like me are going to be more inclined to work for Obama or Durbin than we are for a
propective House rep, especially one who's lost twice and who attracts people who won't support the party nominee once the primary is over.

Posted by: markg8 on January 12, 2007 at 11:30 AM | PERMALINK

Revbelair asked about the outcome in races in which both the Republican and Democrat were female. There were at least five such races in which the Republicans prevailed. Michele Bachmann's victory over Patty Wetterling in Minnesota was mentioned by other commentators. This was an open seat vacated by a Republican.

The other four Republicans were incumbents: in New Mexico, Heather Wilson beat Patricia Madrid, in Colorado, Marilyn Musgrave beat Angie Paccione and in Ohio, Deborah Pryce beat Mary Jo Kilroy and Jean Schmidt beat Victoria Wulsin.

Posted by: Vadranor on January 12, 2007 at 1:26 PM | PERMALINK

During Pelosi's three days of Ascension, they showed a clip on TV of her during her first run for office. She had much more noticeable lines around her eyes then. I don't think it is JUST Botox, tho. I think you need some collegen injections to get rid of the lines, or Botox, which sort of paralyzes your wrinkle-creating muscles, won't give you a bit of improvement. It more freezes where you are than makes you look better.

I think both hair dye and cosmetic "injections" make older people (like myself) look absolutely wierd. But then I've had gray hair since my 30's and never died it.

With gray hair now "hot" for men (like Anderson Cooper and that American Idol guy) when will women be able to give up their colorists?

Posted by: Cal Gal on January 12, 2007 at 3:29 PM | PERMALINK

WA-08 seemed like one race in which the Dem candidate (Darcy Burner) had no qualifications for the job other than her gender. Blue district in almost every other way this cycle and she still couldn't knock out "Sheriff Dave" Reichert.

Posted by: kimmo on January 13, 2007 at 7:04 PM | PERMALINK

kimmo:

Darcy Burner had my second favorite name of all the newbies, only beat out by Zack Space :)

Who fortunately got elected ...

His dad's first name is Socrates, btw.

Bob

Posted by: rmck1 on January 14, 2007 at 8:42 AM | PERMALINK




 

 

Read Jonathan Rowe remembrance and articles
Email Newsletter icon, E-mail Newsletter icon, Email List icon, E-mail List icon Sign up for Free News & Updates

Advertise in WM



buy from Amazon and
support the Monthly