Women Candidates and their Campaigns

What do we know about how women become candidates and what factors contribute to their likelihood of victory? While much early scholarship focused on the distinctly gendered hurdles to women candidate emergence, selection, and success, real-world evidence and corresponding research has revealed shifts in the gendered terrain of campaigns over time in ways that at least reduce women’s barriers to entry and success or, at most, create conditions where women are electorally advantaged. Even where terrain has shifted, gender is not a neutral force in U.S. campaigns and elections, and it does not function in isolation from other forces such as race, party, office, and electoral context. The increased numbers of women running for elective office across levels ensures that there is not a single story of women candidates’ routes, strategies, or success. 

Presence of Women Candidates 

The number of women running for office has increased notably in the past decade, reaching new record highs at state and federal levels.1 The rise in Democratic women candidates, specifically, was responsible for the “surge” of women running from 2016 to 2018, but Republican women were primarily responsible for the increase – albeit smaller – in women candidates from 2018 to 2020. That year, a record six women vied for the Democratic nomination for president. The gains in women candidates and nominees across most levels of office have slowed since 2020, though 2022 was a record year for women candidates, nominees, and winners of gubernatorial contests. Still, women remain outnumbered by men on primary and general election ballots. In 2024, for example, women were 26.8% of candidates and 31% of general election nominees for the U.S. House.2 They were 35.1% of state legislative nominees. 

Representation of women candidates varies significantly by party. Women were 37.6% of Democratic candidates and 45.8% of Democratic nominees in 2024 U.S. House contests, while only 17.6% of Republican House candidates and 16.3% of Republican House nominees were women that year.3 In state legislative contests in 2024, women achieved near-parity (49.3%) with men among Democratic nominees while three-quarters of Republican nominees were men.4 The racial and ethnic diversity among candidates has also changed over time, with increases over the past decade in women candidates, nominees, and winners in state and federal offices from historically underrepresented racial/ethnic groups.5

Gendered Pipelines

The paths to candidacy and officeholding vary by gender, starting with the pool of potential candidates. Women and men have historically worked in different types of occupations and have had different relationships to paid work, and women remain more likely to be the primary caregivers in their families. Studies at the local, state legislative, and congressional levels show that while gender differences in occupational backgrounds have narrowed, male legislators are still more likely than women to come from law and business, and lawyers are significantly overrepresented as both legislative candidates and officeholders.6

Danielle Thomsen and Aaron King found that because men outnumber women in three likely candidate pools – lawyers who made political contributions, state legislators, and media-identified potential candidates for U.S. Senate – women would have to actually be much more likely to run for office than men, particularly among Republicans, to yield gender parity in candidacy for state and federal offices.7 But women can and have successfully reached office via other paths and through female-dominated occupations. Moreover, CAWP’s 2008 study of state legislators showed that previous officeholding experience is not always necessary for a successful bid for state legislative office.8 Together, these findings demonstrate that the pool of women who could seek office is larger than is commonly believed.

Political Ambition

Debates persist over the degree to which political ambition, most commonly defined as a desire to seek or hold political power, is a prerequisite for potential women candidates to make the decision to run. For two decades, Jennifer Lawless and Richard Fox have conducted their “Citizen Political Ambition Panel Study,” surveying women and men in the typical occupations that lead to candidacy — business, law, education, and political activism.9 They find women express less political ambition than men, a gender gap that has not narrowed in their twenty years of research. What they identify as the primary reasons for that gap have also remain largely unchanged: traditional family role orientations, a masculinized ethos in political organizations and institutions, and a gendered psyche whereby women are more likely than men to doubt they have the qualifications necessary to run for office and win. 

Angela Bos and colleagues describe how a process of “gendered political socialization” contributes to a growing gender gap in political interest and ambition as children age, at the same time that girls’ perceptions of political leadership as male-dominated hardens and they internalize gender role expectations.10 Challenges to men’s dominance in political roles can help to close this gap, however. David Campbell and Christina Wolbrecht found that seeing women political leaders, especially those who are novel, viable, and visible, has positive and lasting effects on young women’s political engagement and ambition, particular among Democratic and Black girls who see women who share their identities in political leadership.11

Hillary Clinton’s 2016 candidacy for president, wherein she became the first woman major-party presidential nominee and first woman to win the national popular vote, offered a real-world test of whether disrupting gender norms at the highest level of U.S. politics would affect women’s political ambition. Two experimental studies leveraged this event to find positive effects on Democrat women’s political ambition when they were primed with a positive reminder of Clinton’s historic candidacy12 and after watching Clinton’s campaign ads.13

But the 2016 presidential election’s impact on women’s political engagement and ambition was not limited to the effects of a prominent woman candidate. Attention to women’s underrepresentation in or exclusion from positions of political power can spur women’s political engagement and ambition, especially when paired with recognition that women’s lived experiences and perspectives are critical to the policy debates of the time.14 These dynamics were at play in the 2018 election, when negative emotions also motivated a record number of women to run for office. One experiment found that priming anger at Donald Trump’s mistreatment of women increased political ambition among women, particularly highly-educated white and Democratic women.15 Another study of women congressional candidates in 2018 found that Democratic women candidates were especially likely to publicly report that urgency, anger, frustration, or threat motivated their candidacy.16 Regina Matheson and William Parsons identified a “Trump effect” on women running for state legislative offices in 2018 and 2020.17 These findings demonstrate how changes in the political climate can supersede, for some women, the aversion created by traditional political barriers and/or the lack of pre-existing ambition. 

Some studies have found that women are more likely than men to express aversion to the conflict, competition, and self-promotion often required of running for political office.18 However, their willingness to consider a bid for office increases when a political career is framed as fulfilling communal goals.19 The relationship between political ambition and community-centered goals is especially strong for Asian, Black, and Latina women.20 Pearl Dowe’s theory of Black women’s “ambition on the margins” challenges a race-blind understanding of gender and political ambition.21 Instead, she captures the distinct influence of marginalization on Black women’s ambition and emergence as candidates. She also pushes scholars and practitioners alike to cast a wider lens for identifying the sites that might spur political ambition and engagement, moving beyond industries or institutions most tied to candidate recruitment and emergence for white women. 

Finally, a growing field of research into violence against women in politics (VAWIP) seeks to capture the distinct types of violence and harassment intended to drive women out of politics.22 Violence and harassment are likely to escalate in competitive electoral contexts and have the potential to inform not only women candidates’ experiences on the campaign trail, but also whether or not women choose to run for office. The anticipation and experience of political violence and harassment can shape how and where women campaign and how many resources need to be dedicated to ensuring candidate safety and well-being.

Candidate Recruitment 

Lawless and Fox struggle to reconcile the persistent gender gap in political ambition with the rise in women candidates and officeholders in the past two decades.23 One possible explanation is the targeted efforts to recruit women to run for office. Recruitment and encouragement, especially from political leaders, helps to reduce gender disparities in ambition and candidate emergence.24 But women have been less likely than men to be recruited to run for office, according to studies conducted as recently as 2021.25 Gender bias can reduce party leaders’ recruitment of women due to the preponderance of men among party leaders, their doubts about women’s electability, and the insularity of political recruitment networks.26 More recent findings show that the party leaders may be less concerned about women’s electability but that their doubts about Latina/o and Black candidates’ viability persist.27 This may help to explain findings that Asian, Black, and Latina women have been more likely than non-Hispanic white women to be discouraged from running for office.28

CAWP’s recent study on Rethinking Women’s Political Power demonstrated some shift in party leader perceptions, particularly among Democrats who see greater electoral incentive for recruiting and supporting women candidates.29 However, Republican party leaders are less motivated to engage in targeted recruitment of women, both because they face less pressure than their Democratic counterparts (from voters, practitioners, and women political leaders), and because many argue that these strategies contradict their views on fairness and merit.30 Laurel Elder’s comprehensive study of the partisan gap in women’s political representation affirms this growing divergence in partisan culture and priorities as they relate to women’s political progress.31For more, see overview of Women and Political Parties

Political parties are not the only agents of recruitment. Women’s groups and political action committees (PACs) have identified, trained, and supported women’s candidacies for decades, providing women with financial resources, strategic guidance, and networks critical to their emergence and success.32 However, the landscape of organizations and individuals engaged in targeted recruitment and support of women candidates varies by party and race.33 The gender-targeted support infrastructures available to Republican women in politics are far less robust than those available to Democratic women, and the formalized organizations and programs available to women in politics are rarely specified to serve women at distinct intersections of race and gender.34 Race-specific programs, organizations, and networks of women can be especially important to women candidate emergence and success from historically underrepresented racial and ethnic communities.35

While extensive investigations show that women congressional candidates can raise similar – or even greater – amounts of campaign funds than men,36 evidence shows that the financial terrain in political campaigns varies for candidates by gender, party, and race.37 Successful women candidates have frequently reported that they believe it is harder for them to raise money than their male counterparts,38 and women are less likely and less able to self-fund.39 For more, see overview of Women, Money, and Politics

Candidate Emergence 

In their assessment of gender differences in making the decision to run for state legislative office, Susan Carroll and Kira Sanbonmatsu question whether nascent political ambition is required for candidate emergence, suggesting instead that ambition and candidacy can arise simultaneously; a pre-existing desire to be an elected official may not be necessary.40 They found that the decision to run is more “relationally embedded” for women, meaning that women are more likely than men to evaluate the effects of their candidacies on their families and consider whether they have sufficient support and encouragement from political actors. While there are mixed findings about the degree to which disparities in the distribution of domestic labor negatively affects women’s likelihood of running for office, there is little doubt that women’s heightened responsibilities in households complicate their perceived and real compatibility with political careers.41

Women make strategic considerations on when to run for office, as well as where they believe they are most likely to win. More than a decade ago, Barbara Palmer and Dennis Simon found that districts “friendly” to electing white Democratic women to Congress were more liberal, urban, diverse, and wealthier than the districts that elect white Democratic men; white Republican women fared best (and better than their male counterparts) in districts that were less conservative and more urban and diverse.42 Studies since then have shown that women are more likely to run in these “women-friendly” districts at both the congressional and state legislative levels.43 Non-incumbent women are also more likely to emerge as candidates in contests for open seats.44

Electoral rules, which often vary by level and type of office, also shape women’s candidacy calculations. For example, Alana Jeydel and William Wilkerson find that the number of women running in gubernatorial primaries is greater in states where there is no pre-primary endorsement, the governor and lieutenant governor are not on the same ticket, there are gubernatorial term limits and shorter gubernatorial terms, governors have a lower salary, and there is public financing in gubernatorial contests.45 Other studies have found a positive but small effect of term limits at the state legislative level46 but no significant effect of implementing ranked-choice voting at the local level47 on the number of women running.

Christian Dyogi Phillips’ “intersectional model of electoral opportunity” accounts for the ways in which race and gender create different conditions for potential candidates to emerge and succeed,48 and other studies have found disparate predictors of women candidate emergence for Black, Latina, Asian, and white women candidates.49 The racial and ethnic make-up of a district’s population has a significant influence on the likelihood that a candidate with a shared racial/ethnic identity emerges,50 and men and women racial minority candidates have been more likely to run in districts with significantly larger minority populations.51 This is consistent with research findings that women of color are more likely to be elected from majority-minority districts.52 Researchers suggest that these trends may be due to electability biases in recruitment and/or strategic decision-making by minority candidates.53 More recent successes of Asian, Black, Latina, Middle Eastern/North African, and Native women in majority-white electorates disprove electability doubts that have negatively influenced the recruitment and support of racially diverse women in all electorates.54 For more, see overviews of Asian American, Black, and Latina Women in Politics

Candidate Evaluation, Strategy, and Success 

There is strong support for the oft-cited claim that “when women run, women win,” indicating that women candidates generally fare the same as, if not better than, their male counterparts in similar types of electoral contests.55 In fact, Susanne Schwarz and Alexander Coppock review more than 30 candidate choice experiments in the U.S. and find that women candidates are advantaged, on average, over men.56 Still, gendered attitudes and expectations, as well as gender disparities in candidate support, create distinctly gendered terrain in political campaigns. In this way, campaigns act as gendered institutions, whereby “gender is not only embedded in expectations for and behavior of candidates but also influences the psyche and strategic considerations of all those involved.”57

Stereotypical expectations of politicians have been congruent with masculine expectations most easily assumed of men, whereas feminine stereotypes most attributed to women have been more incongruous with expectations of political leaders.58 These perceptions have shifted over time, as women – and women politicians specifically – are viewed as equally competent, not more emotional, and just as capable of leadership as their male counterparts.59 Gender stereotypes appear to be overwhelmed by partisanship in voter decision-making.60 However, gender – and its intersections with other identities such as race and sexual orientation – still shapes how voters perceive and evaluate political candidates, including in ways that can both advantage and disadvantage women.61 For more, see overview of Voter Attitudes Toward Women in Politics

While there is variance by electoral context and contest, candidates and practitioners have long assumed that meeting voter demand in campaigns meant proving the masculine credentials most expected of candidates and officeholders. For men and women candidates alike, that includes displaying stereotypically masculine traits – such as experience, competency, leadership, and toughness – and demonstrating expertise on issues most often assumed the territory of men – such as national security and defense – especially when campaigning for the presidency.62 This creates little dissonance in voters’ minds for men candidates, but women candidates who adopt this approach risk incongruity with gender expectations in adapting to the masculine norms of candidacy. 

There is no clear pattern in women’s or men’s adherence to masculine or feminine stereotypes in how they present themselves as candidates. In evaluations of campaign materials such as advertisements and online media, some scholars have found evidence of women candidates prioritizing stereotypically masculine traits and issues,63 while others have found women candidates are more likely than their male counterparts to present themselves in stereotypically feminine ways.64 This includes emphasizing traits such as compassion and care and expertise on stereotypically feminine issues such as education, health care, and issues related to children and families. A particularly common finding is that women candidates balance feminine and masculine styles of presentation while campaigning,65 consistent with Mary Christine Banwart and Mitchell McKinney’s characterization of a “gendered adaptiveness strategy” whereby candidates do not adhere to one specific set of gender norms but adapt their gender performance to the distinct conditions under which their campaigns are run.66

Due to the variance in context as well as the diversity among candidates and voters, there is no single strategy that will lead to women’s success. Emphasizing masculine traits and issue expertise may yield electoral benefits,67 but counterstereotypic strategies may also come with risks for women candidates.68 For example, in the same study where they show that women’s emphasis of agentic traits (e.g. competence, assertiveness) improves evaluations of their leadership and knowledge, Ding Wang, Jennifer Merolla, and Arielle Magniello find that the same women might suffer on ratings of communal traits like gentleness and sensitivity.69

Strategic decisions about gender presentation must also consider campaign context, as certain policy and political environments are more likely to highlight the distinct value of stereotypically feminine or masculine approaches and expertise. For example, the political environment for women candidates in 2018 – amidst #MeToo mobilization and after women’s marches nationwide – was distinct from years prior. In that environment, an especially diverse set of women candidates leveraged their gender and intersectional identities as electoral advantages instead of hurdles to overcome.70 Pamela Aronson and Matthew Fleming describe Democratic women candidates in 2018 as “innovators” whose self-presentation was “overtly feminist” and supportive of “an intersectional critique of white male power.”71

Partisanship also informs candidates’ gender strategies and how they are received by voters. Democrats are more likely to value stereotypically feminine traits and issue expertise in political leaders regardless of their sex, while Republicans express preferences for stereotypically masculine traits and competencies.72 As a result, Democratic women candidates benefit more than Republican women from employing feminine-focused strategies.73 Across four different studies, Christopher Karpowitz and colleagues find more of a penalty for Republican women – and men – candidates who present themselves in stereotypically feminine ways, especially among the most conservative voters.74 Other research has shown that Republican women candidates who present themselves in more traditionally feminine ways are viewed as less competent and less capable of political leadership than their male counterparts.75 Stereotypical expectations that women legislators are more liberal than men have also posed a distinct challenge to women running in Republican primaries.76 Concern about this electability hurdle may explain gender disparities in candidate emergence in the most conservative Republican primaries.77 This is consistent with findings that Republican women run in less favorable partisan environments than Democratic women78 and that their lowest levels of representation have been in conservative states where Republicans have been most successful in recent years.79 For more, see overview of Women and Political Parties

Candidate evaluations also vary at the intersections of gender and race/ethnicity.80 Despite past emphases on the “double disadvantage” confronted by women from historically underrepresented racial or ethnic communities, more recent research has described the potential advantages of the distinct positionality vis-á-vis race and gender for minority women candidates.81 These advantages do not negate the distinct challenges the same women confront en route to officeholding,82 but they suggest that identity influences candidate evaluation in complex ways that should be considered with nuance and care in crafting campaign strategy. For more, see overviews of Asian American, Black, and Latina Women in Politics

Electability bias – whereby voters express concern over a candidates’ capacity for election success – against women and racial minority candidates, and minority women candidates most of all, persists.83 The strongest evidence of this bias comes at the presidential level.84 Women candidates must confront that bias in campaigning, demonstrating through both words and actions that they can be successful while also running a concurrent campaign to persuade voters, donors, and organization leaders that they have the best credentials to do the job. In making their case, they can rely on concrete evidence of success. For example, Paru Shah, Jamil Scott, and Eric Gonzalez Juenke found that women of color state legislative candidates fared better than their white counterparts in 2014 and 2016 elections, including in open-seat and competitive elections.85

Multiple studies have shown that the appearance of gender neutrality in election outcomes is due to women candidates’ qualifications advantage over men, an advantage evident both in which women run and how they campaign in ways that emphasize their credentials.86 For example, Sarah Fulton and Kostanca Dhima analyzed U.S. House candidates from 2006 to 2018 and found that because women Democrats are consistently more qualified than men candidates, they are equally (if not more) likely to succeed.87 More recent growth in both the presence and success of Democratic women U.S. House candidates with no prior elected experience may signal some shifting in the higher standards to which women candidates have been held.88

Media 

The ways in which candidates present themselves to voters is often mediated by media. Early studies found that men running for office received more total coverage and better coverage than women candidates. Newer studies find no significant differences in the amount of coverage by gender and no clear pattern of gender differences in the tone or type of coverage.89 For example, Danny Hayes and Jennifer Lawless’ analysis of media coverage of U.S. House candidates in local newspapers found few differences in the amount or substance of candidate coverage in 2010 or 2014.90 However, Nichole Bauer’s analysis of newspaper coverage of women Senate candidates in 2016 found more attention to their qualifications and more references to feminine stereotypic traits and gender roles than their male counterparts.91 Few studies have looked specifically at how media coverage of women candidates varies by race/ethnicity.92 The likelihood of gender differences – including gender bias – in media coverage appears to be most likely in presidential contests, where there is much more coverage, historical dominance of men and masculinity, and heightened scrutiny of all candidates—men and women alike.93 For more, see overview of Women and the Presidency

As with findings on how women candidates are covered, research on the effects of media treatment on candidates varies. In a meta-analysis of experimental studies on media effects, Tobias Rohrbach, Loes Aaldering, and Daphne Joanna Van der Pas found that voters are less likely to vote for women than men candidates who are covered negatively by media and that media coverage of candidates’ children lowers evaluations of women candidates’ viability in ways disproportionate to men.94 They found that media coverage that adheres to gender stereotypical coverage of women candidates’ traits or issue expertise does not appear to influence vote choice, but emphasis on women’s communal traits can negatively affect perceptions of their viability. 

There are some indications that the increased presence of women politicians is correlated with an increase in women political journalists,95 and the creation of gender-attentive news outlets (e.g. The 19th News) disrupts the media ecosystem for women and men candidates alike. 

Suggested Citation: Dittmar, Kelly, Kira Sanbonmatsu, and Paru Shah. 2026. CAWP Research Inventory on Gender & Politics. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.

Endnotes 

¹ CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “CAWP Candidate Databases.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/candidates-cawp-candidate-databases 

² Dittmar, Kelly. 2025. Women in Election 2024: Stalled Progress. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://womenrun.rutgers.edu/2024-report/

³ Dittmar 2025

⁴ Dittmar 2025

⁵ Dittmar 2025

⁶ Bernhard, Rachel, and Mirya R. Holman. 2025. Gendered Jobs and Local Leaders: Women, Work, and the Pipeline to Local Political Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; Bonica, Adam. 2020. “Why Are There so Many Lawyers in Congress?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 45 (2): 253–89; Carroll, Susan J., and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2013. More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Manning, Jennifer E. 2025. Membership of the 119th Congress: A Profile, Report R48535, August 4. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48535#ifn13.

⁷ Thomsen, Danielle M., and Aaron S. King. 2020. “Women’s Representation and the Gendered Pipeline to Power.” American Political Science Review 114 (4): 989–1000. 

⁸ Sanbonmatsu, Kira, Susan J. Carroll, and Debbie Walsh. 2009. Poised to Run: Women’s Pathways to the State Legislature. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/poisedtorun_0.pdf

⁹ Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2005. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Political Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2025. It Takes More Than a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

¹⁰ Bos, Angela L., Jill S. Greenlee, Mirya R. Holman, Zoe M. Oxley, and Celeste Lay. 2022. “This One’s for the Boys: How Gendered Political Socialization Limits Girls’ Political Ambition and Interest.” American Political Science Review 116 (2): 484–501.

¹¹ Campbell, David E., and Christina Wolbrecht. 2025. See Jane Run: How Women Politicians Matter for Young People. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

¹² DeMora, Stephanie L., Christian Lindke, Sean Long, Jennifer Merolla, and Maricruz A. Osorio. 2023. “The Effect of the Political Environment on White Women’s Political Ambition.” Political Research Quarterly 76 (4): 1987–2003.

¹³ Bonneau, Chris W., and Kristin Kanthak. 2020. “Stronger Together: Political Ambition and the Presentation of Women Running for Office.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 8 (3): 576–94. 

¹⁴ Clayton, Amanda, Diana Z. O’Brien, and Jennifer M. Piscopo. 2023. “Women Grab Back: Exclusion, Policy Threat, and Women’s Political Ambition.” American Political Science Review 117 (4): 1465–85; Witt, Linda, Karen M. Paget, and Glenna Matthews. 1995. Running as a Woman: Gender and Power in American Politics. New York, NY: The Free Press.

¹⁵ DeMora et al. 2023

¹⁶ Dittmar, Kelly. 2020. “Urgency and Ambition: The Influence of Political Environment and Emotion in Spurring U.S. Women’s Candidacies in 2018.” European Journal of Politics and Gender 3 (1): 143–60.

¹⁷ Matheson, Regina M., and William W. Parsons. 2023. The Pink Wave: Women Running for Office After Trump. New York, NY: New York University Press.

¹⁸ Kanthak, Kristin, and Jonathan Woon. 2015. “Women Don’t Run? Election Aversion and Candidate Entry.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 595–612; Schneider, Monica C., Mirya R. Holman, Amanda B. Diekman, and Thomas McAndrew. 2016. “Power, Conflict, and Community: How Gendered Views of Political Power Influence Women's Political Ambition.” Political Psychology 37 (4): 515–31.

¹⁹ Schneider et al. 2016

²⁰ Bejarano, Christina E. 2013. The Latina Advantage: Gender, Race, and Political Success. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press; Dowe, Pearl K. Ford. 2023. The Radical Imagination of Black Women: Ambition, Politics, and Power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Phillips, Christian Dyogi. 2021. Nowhere to Run: Race, Gender, and Immigration in American Elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

²¹ Dowe 2023

²² Krook, Mona Lena. 2020. Violence Against Women in Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Bjarnegård, Elin, and Pär Zetterberg. 2023. Gender and Violence against Political Actors. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

²³ Lawless and Fox 2025

²⁴ Bernhard, Rachel I., Shauna L. Shames, Rachel Silbermann, and Dawn Langan Teele. 2020. “Who Runs? Data from Women Trained as Candidates.” In Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy, eds. Shauna L. Shames, Rachel I. Bernhard, Mirya R. Holman, and Dawn Langan Teele, 30–40. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press;  Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013; Lawless and Fox 2025

²⁵ Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013; Lawless and Fox 2025

²⁶ Crowder-Meyer, Melody. 2013. “Gendered Recruitment Without Trying: How Local Party Recruiters Affect Women’s Representation.” Politics & Gender 9 (4): 390–413; Niven, David. 1998. The Missing Majority: The Recruitment of Women as State Legislative Candidates. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood; Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2006. Where Women Run: Gender and Party in the American States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

²⁷ Doherty, David, Conor M. Dowling, and Michael G. Miller. 2019. “Do Local Party Chairs Think Women and Minority Candidates Can Win? Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” The Journal of Politics 81 (4): 1282–97. 

²⁸ Phillips 2021; Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013

²⁹ Dittmar, Kelly. 2023. Rethinking Women’s Political Power. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://rethinkingpower.rutgers.edu/

³⁰ Dittmar 2023

³¹ Elder, Laurel. 2021. The Partisan Gap: Why Democratic Women Get Elected But Republican Women Don't. New York, NY: New York University Press. 

³² For example, see Dittmar 2023; Sanbonmatsu, Kira, and Kelly Dittmar. 2020. “Are You Ready to Run®? Campaign Trainings and Women’s Candidacies in New Jersey.” In Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy, eds. Shauna L. Shames, Rachel I. Bernhard, Mirya R. Holman, and Dawn Langan Teele, 193–202. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

³³ Dittmar 2023; Kreitzer, Rebecca, and Tracy Osborn. 2020. “Women Candidate Recruitment Groups in the States.” In Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy, eds. Shauna L. Shames, Rachel I. Bernhard, Mirya R. Holman, and Dawn Langan Teele, 183–92. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

³⁴ Crowder-Meyer, Melody, and Rosalyn Cooperman. 2018. “Can’t Buy Them Love: How Party Culture among Donors Contributes to the Party Gap in Women’s Representation.” The Journal of Politics 80 (4): 1211–24; Dittmar 2023

³⁵ Bejarano, Christina, and Wendy Smooth. 2022. “Women of Color Mobilizing: Sistahs are Doing It for Themselves from GOTV to Running Candidates for Political Office.” Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy 43 (1): 18–24; Dowe 2023; Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2015. “Electing Women of Color: The Role of Campaign Trainings.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 36 (2): 137–60. 

³⁶ Burrell, Barbara C. 2014. Gender in Campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; Sanbonmatsu, Kira, and Shikshya Adhikari. 2025. Final Analysis: 2024 Women, Money, & Politics Watch. A CAWP Women, Money, & Politics report. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/research/cawp-women-money-and-politics-series/money-watch-2024/final-analysis

³⁷ Crowder-Meyer and Cooperman 2018; Kitchens, Karin E., and Michele L. Swers. 2016. “Why Aren’t There More Republican Women in Congress? Gender, Partisanship, and Fundraising Support in the 2010 and 2012 Elections.” Politics & Gender 12: 648–76; James, Heather. 2022. “There’s No Women’s Mafia: Women’s Donor Groups in State Legislative Elections.” Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy 43 (4): 483–98; Phillips 2021; Sorensen, Ashley, and Philip Chen. 2022. "Identity in Campaign Finance and Elections: The Impact of Gender and Race on Money Raised in 2010–2018 U.S. House Elections." Political Research Quarterly 75 (3): 738–53.

³⁸ Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013; Dittmar, Kelly, Kira Sanbonmatsu, and Susan J. Carroll. 2018. A Seat at the Table: Congresswomen’s Perspectives on Why Their Presence Matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

³⁹ Plaskon, Savannah, and Danielle M. Thomsen. 2024. “Self-Rising Candidates: Racial and Gender Disparities in Self-Funding.” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA; Sanbonmatsu and Adhikari 2025

⁴⁰ Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013

⁴¹ Bernhard et al. 2020; Bernhard, Rachel, Shauna Shames, and Dawn Langan Teele. 2021. “To Emerge? Breadwinning, Motherhood, and Women’s Decisions to Run for Office.” American Political Science Review 115 (2): 379–94; Dittmar 2023; Lawless and Fox 2025

⁴² Palmer, Barbara, and Dennis Michael Simon. 2012. Women and Congressional Elections: A Century of Change. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

⁴³ Ondercin, Heather L. 2022. “Location, Location, Location: How Electoral Opportunities Shape Women’s Emergence as Candidates.” British Journal of Political Science 52 (4): 1523–43; Pyeatt, Nicholas, and Alixandra B. Yanus. 2021. "Gender, Entry, and Victory in State Legislative Primary Elections." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 42 (4): 352–68.

⁴⁴ Ondercin 2022

⁴⁵ Jeydel, Alana, and William R. Wilkerson. 2025. "Why aren’t more women on the gubernatorial ballot?" Politics, Groups, and Identities 13 (2): 346–67.

⁴⁶ Clark, Jennifer Hayes, and Gathoni Kimondo. 2025. “When Women Run: Explaining the Emergence of Women State Legislative Candidates.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 31 (4): 1061–76; Pettey, Samantha. 2018. “Female Candidate Emergence and Term Limits: A State-Level Analysis.” Political Research Quarterly 71 (2): 318–29.

⁴⁷ Colner, Jonathan. 2025. "Running Toward Rankings: Ranked Choice Voting's Impact on Candidate Entry and Descriptive Representation." American Journal of Political Science 69 (3): 1010–28.

⁴⁸ Phillips 2021

⁴⁹ Clark and Kimondo 2025; Silva, Andrea, and Carrie Skulley. 2019. “Always Running: Candidate Emergence among Women of Color over Time.” Political Research Quarterly 72 (2): 342–59.

⁵⁰ Clark and Kimondo 2025

⁵¹ Shah, Paru, Jamil Scott, and Eric Gonzalez Juenke. 2019. “Women of Color Candidates: Examining Emergence and Success in State Legislative Elections." Politics, Groups, and Identities 7 (2): 429–43. 

⁵² Hardy-Fanta, Carol, Pei-te Lien, Dianne M. Pinderhughes, and Christine M. Sierra. 2006. “Gender, Race, and Descriptive Representation in the United States: Findings from the Gender and Multicultural Leadership Project.” Journal of Women Politics & Policy 28 (3-4): 7–41; Juenke, Eric Gonzalez, and Paru Shah. 2016. “Demand and Supply: Racial and Ethnic Minority Candidates in White Districts.” Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 1: 60–90; Swain, Katie E. O., and Pei-te Lien. 2017. “Structural and Contextual Factors Regarding the Accessibility of Elective Office for Women of Color at the Local Level.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 38 (2): 128–50.

⁵³ Juenke and Shah 2016; Shah, Scott, and Juenke 2019

⁵⁴ Dittmar, Kelly. 2019. Unfinished Business: Women Running in 2018 and Beyond. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ https://womenrun.rutgers.edu/2018-report/; Hill, Chelsea. 2025. Black Women in American Politics 2025. A Report for the Higher Heights Leadership Fund by the Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/research-and-scholarship/black-women-american-politics-2025

⁵⁵ Anastasopoulous, Lefteris. 2016. “Estimating the Gender Penalty in House of Representative Elections Using a Regression Discontinuity Design.” Electoral Studies 43: 150–57; Burrell 2014; Fox, Richard L. 2026. “Congressional Elections: Women’s Candidacies and the Road to Gender Parity.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, 6th edition, eds. Richard L. Fox, Kelly Dittmar, and Susan J. Carroll, 198–223. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; Porter, Rachel, and Sarah  A. Treul. 2025. "Evaluating (in)experience in Congressional Elections." American Journal of Political Science 69 (1): 284–98.

⁵⁶ Schwarz, Susanne, and Alexander Coppock. 2021. "What Have We Learned about Gender from Candidate Choice Experiments? A Meta-Analysis of Sixty-Seven Factorial Survey Experiments." The Journal of Politics 84 (2): 655–68.

⁵⁷ Dittmar, Kelly. 2015. Navigating Gendered Terrain: Stereotypes and Strategy in Political Campaigns. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

⁵⁸ Eagly, Alice, and Steven Karau. 2002. “Role Congruity Theory and Prejudice Toward Female Leaders.” Psychological Review 109 (3): 573–98.

⁵⁹ Brooks, Deborah Jordan. 2013. He Runs, She Runs: Why Gender Stereotypes Do Not Harm Women Candidates. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; Cormack, Lindsey, and Kristyn L. Karl. 2022. "Why Women Earn High Marks: Examining the Role of Partisanship and Gender in Political Evaluations." Politics & Gender 18 (3): 768–97; Eagly, Alice, Christa Nater, David I. Miller, Michèle Kaufmann, and Sabine Sczesny. 2020. “Gender Stereotypes Have Changed: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of U.S. Public Opinion Polls from 1946 to 2018.” American Psychologist 75 (3): 301–15; Van der Pas, Daphne, Loes Aaldering, and Angela L. Bos. 2024. “Looks Like a Leader: Measuring Evolution in Gendered Politician Stereotypes.” Political Behavior 46: 1653–75. 

⁶⁰ Carey, John, Katherine Clayton, Gretchen Helmke, Brendan Nyhan, Mitchell Sanders, and Susan Stokes. 2022. “Who Will Defend Democracy? Evaluating Tradeoffs in Candidate Support Among Partisan Donors and Voters.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 32 (1): 230–45; Dolan, Kathleen. 2014. When Does Gender Matter? Women Candidates and Gender Stereotypes in American Elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Hayes, Danny, and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2016. Women on the Run: Gender, Media, and Political Campaigning in a Polarized Era. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

⁶¹ Banducci, Susan,  Joanna Everitt, and Elisabeth Gidengil. 2025. "Studying Gender Stereotypes of Political Candidates Over Four Decades." European Journal of Politics and Gender (Online): 1-27; Cassese, Erin. 2019. “Intersectional Stereotyping in Political Decision Making.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics; Ditonto, Tessa, David J. Andersen, and David A. M. Peterson. 2025. “The Gendered Risks of Violating Expectations and the Importance of Information for Women Candidates.” Politics & Gender (Online): 1–31; PerryUndem. 2023. “Assessing the State of Public Opinion Toward Women, Gender, Equality – and Abortion.” https://perryundem.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/PerryUndem-Landscape-of-Views-toward-Women-Gender-and-Abortion.pdf; Rohrbach, Tobias. 2025. "Are Women Politicians Kind and Competent? Disentangling Stereotype Incongruity in Candidate Evaluations.” Political Behavior 47 (1): 411–434; Schneider, Monica C., Angela L. Bos, and Madeline DeFilippo. 2022. "Gender Role Violations and Voter Prejudice: The Agentic Penalty Faced by Women Politicians." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (2): 117-33; Sweet-Cushman, Jennie. 2022. "Legislative vs. Executive Political Offices: How Gender Stereotypes Can Disadvantage Women in Either Office." Political Behavior 44 (1): 411–34.

⁶² Conroy, Meredith. 2015. Masculinity, Media, and the American Presidency. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; Katz, Jackson. 2016. Man Enough?: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the Politics of Presidential Masculinity. Northampton, MA: Interlink Books; Dittmar, Kelly. 2026. “Gender, Race, and Presidential Politics: Assessing  ​Persistent Forces in 2024.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, 6th edition, eds. Richard L. Fox, Kelly Dittmar, and Susan J. Carroll, 19–53. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

⁶³ For example, see Fridkin, Kim L., and Patrick J. Kenney. 2014. The Changing Face of Representation: The Gender of U.S. Senators and Constituent Communications. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press; Gunderson, Anna, Nichole Bauer, Emily Rains, and Annie Sheehan-Dean. 2025. “Gender Stereotypes Across Electoral Contexts.” Political Behavior (Online): 1–24.

⁶⁴ Evans, Heather K. 2022. “A Woman's Place Is in the (U.S.) House.” In Electoral Campaigns, Media, and the New World of Digital Politics, eds. David Taras and Richard Davis, 83–102. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; Schneider, Monica C. 2014. “The Effects of Gender-Bending on Candidate Evaluations.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 35 (1): 55–77; Wang, Ding, Jennifer L. Merolla, and Arielle Manganiello. 2023. "The Effect of Counterstereotypic Gender Strategies on Candidate Evaluations in American Elections." Politics & Gender 19 (4): 1180–203.

⁶⁵ Bauer, Nichole M., and Martina Santia. 2022. "Going Feminine: Identifying How and When Female Candidates Emphasize Feminine and Masculine Traits on the Campaign Trail." Political Research Quarterly 75 (3): 691–705; Carpinella, Colleen, and Nichole M. Bauer. 2021. "A Visual Analysis of Gender Stereotypes in Campaign Advertising." Politics, Groups, and Identities 9 (2): 369–86; Gunderson et al. 2025

⁶⁶ Banwart, Mary Christine, and Mitchell McKinney. 2005. “A Gendered Influence in Campaign Debates? Analysis of Mixed-gender United States Senate and Gubernatorial Debates.” Communication Studies 56 (4): 370. 

⁶⁷ Bauer, Nichole M. 2017. “The Effects of Counterstereotypic Gender Strategies on Candidate Evaluations.” Political Psychology 38 (2): 279–95; Caverley, Jonathan, and Yanna Krupnikov. 2025. “Leaders but Not Authorities? Gender, Veterans, and Messages about National Security.” American Political Science Review 119 (1): 261–76; Dolan, Kathleen. 2010. “The Impact of Gender Stereotyped Evaluations on Support for Women Candidates.” Political Behavior 32: 69–88; Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 119-47. 

⁶⁸ Bauer 2017; Cassese, Erin C., and Mirya R. Holman. 2018. “Party and Gender Stereotypes in Campaign Attacks.” Political Behavior 40: 785–807.

⁶⁹ Wang, Merolla, and Manganiello 2023

⁷⁰ Dittmar 2019

⁷¹ Aronson, Pamela, and Matthew R. Fleming. 2023. Gender Revolution: How Electoral Politics and #MeToo are Reshaping Everyday Life. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, 103.

⁷² Karpowitz, Christopher F., J. Quin Monson, Jessica R. Preece, and Alejandra Aldridge 2024. "Selecting for Masculinity: Women’s Under-Representation in the Republican Party." American Political Science Review 118 (4): 1873–94; Roberts, Damon C., and Stephen Utych. 2022. "A Delicate Hand or Two-Fisted Aggression? How Gendered Language Influences Candidate Perceptions." American Politics Research 50 (3): 353–65.

⁷³ Aronson and Fleming 2023; Bernhard, Rachel. 2022. "Wearing the Pants(suit)? Gendered Leadership Styles, Partisanship, and Candidate Evaluation in the 2016 U.S. Election." Politics & Gender 18 (2): 513–45; Dittmar 2019; Schenk, Marie, Kristen Essel, and Cory Manento. 2025. “Running on Rage: Feminist Messaging and Voter Response in Primary Campaigns.” Politics, Groups, and Identities (Online): 1–19.

⁷⁴ Karpowitz et al. 2024

⁷⁵ Bauer, Nichole M. 2020a. “A Feminine Advantage? Delineating the Effects of Feminine Trait and Feminine Issue Messages on Evaluations of Female Candidates.” Politics & Gender 16 (3): 660–80.

⁷⁶ Koch, Jeffrey W. 2000. “Do Citizens Apply Gender Stereotypes to Infer Candidates’ Ideological Orientations?” Journal of Politics 62 (2): 414–29; King, David C., and Richard E. Matland. 2003. “Sex and the Grand Old Party: An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Candidate Sex on Support for a Republican Candidate.” American Politics Research 31 (6): 595–612.

⁷⁷ Cowburn, Mike, and Meredith Conroy. 2026. “Where Do Women Win Primaries? Asymmetric Opportunity Theory in Congressional Nominations.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 47 (1): 1–21.

⁷⁸ Thomsen, Danielle M. 2019. “Which Women Win? Partisan Changes in Victory Patterns in U.S. House Elections.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 7 (2): 412–28.

⁷⁹ Elder 2021

⁸⁰ Cassese 2019; Gershon, Sarah Allen, and Jessica Lavariega Monforti. 2021. "Intersecting Campaigns: Candidate Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Voter Evaluations." Politics, Groups, and Identities 9 (3): 439–63.

⁸¹ Bejarano 2013; Bejarano, Christina, Nadia E. Brown, Sarah Allen Gershon, and Celeste Montoya. 2021. "Shared Identities: Intersectionality, Linked Fate, and Perceptions of Political Candidates." Political Research Quarterly 74 (4): 970–85; Carew, Jessica Denyse Johnson. 2016. “Stereotyping of Black Women in Elections.” In Dis­tinct Identities: Minority Women in U.S. Politics, eds. Nadia E. Brown and Sarah Allen Gershon, 95–115. New York, NY: Routledge; Gershon and Monforti 2021

⁸² Carew, Jessica Denyse Johnson. 2012. “‘Lifting as We Climb?’ The Role of Stereotypes in the Evaluation of Political Candidates at the Intersection of Race and Gender.” PhD Dissertation. Duke University; Cargile, Ivy A. M., Jennifer L. Merolla, and Jean Reith Schroedel. 2016. “Intersectionality and Latino/a Candidate Evaluation.” In Latinas in American Politics: Changing and Embracing Political Ambition, eds. Sharon A. Navarro, Samantha L. Hernandez, and Leslie A. Navarro, 39–60. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

⁸³ Bateson, Regina. 2020. “Strategic Discrimination.” Perspectives on Politics 18 (4): 1068–87; Chen, Philip, and Ashley Sorensen. 2025. "Raced-Gendered Electability: Support, Donations, and Democratic Double Standards for Black Women Candidates." Political Research Quarterly 78 (3): 942–56; Hassell, Hans J. G., and Neil Visalvanich. 2024. “Perceptions of Electability: Candidate (and Voter) Ideology, Race, and Gender.” Political Behavior 46: 2075–98.

⁸⁴ Bateson 2020; Green, Jon, Brian Schaffner, and Sam Luks. 2022. “Strategic Discrimination in the 2020 Democratic Primary.” Public Opinion Quarterly 86 (4): 886–98.

⁸⁵ Shah, Scott, and Juenke 2019

⁸⁶ Anzia, Sarah F., and Rachel Bernhard. 2022. “Gender Stereotyping and the Electoral Success of Women Candidates: New Evidence from Local Elections in the United States.” British Journal of Political Science 52: 1544–63; Bauer, Nichole M. 2020b. The Qualifications Gap: Why Women Must Be Better than Men to Win Political Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; Barnes, Tiffany, Regina Branton, and Erin Cassese. 2017. “A Reexamination of Women's Electoral Success in Open Seat Elections: The Conditioning Effect of Electoral Competition.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 38 (3): 298–317; Fulton, Sarah A., and Kostanca Dhima. 2021. "The Gendered Politics of Congressional Elections." Political Behavior 43 (4): 1611–37; Pearson, Kathryn, and Eric McGhee. 2013. “What It Takes to Win: Question 'Gender Neutral' Outcomes in U.S. House Elections.” Politics & Gender 9(4): 439–62.

⁸⁷ Fulton and Dhima 2021

⁸⁸ Porter and Treul 2025

⁸⁹ Van der Pas, Daphne Joanna, and Loes Aaldering. 2020. “Gender Differences in Political Media Coverage: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Communication 70: 114–43.

⁹⁰ Hayes and Lawless 2016

⁹¹ Bauer, Nichole M. 2024. “Who Covers the Qualifications of Female Candidates? Examining Gender Bias in News Coverage Across National and Local Newspapers.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 101 (3): 657–78.

⁹² For exceptions, see Gershon, Sarah Allen. 2012. “When Race, Gender, and the Media Intersect: Campaign News Coverage of Minority Congresswomen.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 33 (2): 105–25; Ward, Orlanda. 2016. “Seeing Double: Race, Gender, and Coverage of Minority Women's Campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives.” Politics & Gender 12 (2): 317–43.

⁹³ Conroy, Meredith, Erin Cassese, Dhrumil Mehta, Ciera Hammond, Linda Beail, Al Johri, Sean Long, and Dominik Stecula. 2025. "Mayor Pete is Smart and Elizabeth Warren is Unlikable? Coverage of Warmth and Competence Traits in the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary." Politics & Gender 21 (4): 794–823; Falk, Erika. 2010. Women for President: Media Bias in Nine Campaigns, 2nd edition. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press; Falk, Erika. 2019. “When Women Run for Office: Press Coverage of Hillary Clinton During the 2016 Presidential Campaign.” In Journalism, Gender, and Power, eds. Cynthia Carter, Linda Steiner, and Stuart Allen, 347–62. London, UK: Routledge; Lawrence, Regina G., and Melody Rose. 2010. Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House: Gender Politics and the Media on the Campaign Trail. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

⁹⁴ Rohrbach, Tobias, Loes Aaldering, and Daphne Joanna Van der Pas. 2023. “Gender Differences and Similarities in News Media Effects on Political Candidate Evaluations: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Communication 73 (2): 101–12.

⁹⁵ Bauer, Nichole M., Cana Kim, Kenlea Barnes, Khaleel Ouedraogo, and Elise Strain. 2024. “Still a Boy’s Club: Women Journalists & Political News Coverage.” Journalism Studies 25 (13): 1654–75.

• 1

  CAWP (Center for American Women and Politics). “CAWP Candidate Databases.” https://cawp.rutgers.edu/data/candidates-cawp-candidate-databases 

• 2

  Dittmar, Kelly. 2025. Women in Election 2024: Stalled Progress. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://womenrun.rutgers.edu/2024-report/

• 3

  Dittmar 2025

• 4

  Dittmar 2025

• 5

  Dittmar 2025

• 6

  Bernhard, Rachel, and Mirya R. Holman. 2025. Gendered Jobs and Local Leaders: Women, Work, and the Pipeline to Local Political Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; Bonica, Adam. 2020. “Why Are There so Many Lawyers in Congress?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 45 (2): 253–89; Carroll, Susan J., and Kira Sanbonmatsu. 2013. More Women Can Run: Gender and Pathways to the State Legislatures. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Manning, Jennifer E. 2025. Membership of the 119th Congress: A Profile, Report R48535, August 4. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R48535#ifn13.

• 7

  Thomsen, Danielle M., and Aaron S. King. 2020. “Women’s Representation and the Gendered Pipeline to Power.” American Political Science Review 114 (4): 989–1000. 

• 8

  Sanbonmatsu, Kira, Susan J. Carroll, and Debbie Walsh. 2009. Poised to Run: Women’s Pathways to the State Legislature. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/resources/poisedtorun_0.pdf

• 9

  Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2005. It Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Political Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2010. It Still Takes a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2025. It Takes More Than a Candidate: Why Women Don’t Run for Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

• 10

  Bos, Angela L., Jill S. Greenlee, Mirya R. Holman, Zoe M. Oxley, and Celeste Lay. 2022. “This One’s for the Boys: How Gendered Political Socialization Limits Girls’ Political Ambition and Interest.” American Political Science Review 116 (2): 484–501.

• 11

  Campbell, David E., and Christina Wolbrecht. 2025. See Jane Run: How Women Politicians Matter for Young People. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

• 12

  DeMora, Stephanie L., Christian Lindke, Sean Long, Jennifer Merolla, and Maricruz A. Osorio. 2023. “The Effect of the Political Environment on White Women’s Political Ambition.” Political Research Quarterly 76 (4): 1987–2003.

• 13

  Bonneau, Chris W., and Kristin Kanthak. 2020. “Stronger Together: Political Ambition and the Presentation of Women Running for Office.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 8 (3): 576–94. 

• 14

  Clayton, Amanda, Diana Z. O’Brien, and Jennifer M. Piscopo. 2023. “Women Grab Back: Exclusion, Policy Threat, and Women’s Political Ambition.” American Political Science Review 117 (4): 1465–85; Witt, Linda, Karen M. Paget, and Glenna Matthews. 1995. Running as a Woman: Gender and Power in American Politics. New York, NY: The Free Press.

• 15

  DeMora et al. 2023

• 16

  Dittmar, Kelly. 2020. “Urgency and Ambition: The Influence of Political Environment and Emotion in Spurring U.S. Women’s Candidacies in 2018.” European Journal of Politics and Gender 3 (1): 143–60.

• 17

  Matheson, Regina M., and William W. Parsons. 2023. The Pink Wave: Women Running for Office After Trump. New York, NY: New York University Press.

• 18

  Kanthak, Kristin, and Jonathan Woon. 2015. “Women Don’t Run? Election Aversion and Candidate Entry.” American Journal of Political Science 59 (3): 595–612; Schneider, Monica C., Mirya R. Holman, Amanda B. Diekman, and Thomas McAndrew. 2016. “Power, Conflict, and Community: How Gendered Views of Political Power Influence Women's Political Ambition.” Political Psychology 37 (4): 515–31.

  
   

• 19

  Schneider et al. 2016

• 20

  Bejarano, Christina E. 2013. The Latina Advantage: Gender, Race, and Political Success. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press; Dowe, Pearl K. Ford. 2023. The Radical Imagination of Black Women: Ambition, Politics, and Power. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Phillips, Christian Dyogi. 2021. Nowhere to Run: Race, Gender, and Immigration in American Elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

• 21

  Dowe 2023

• 22

  Krook, Mona Lena. 2020. Violence Against Women in Politics. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Bjarnegård, Elin, and Pär Zetterberg. 2023. Gender and Violence against Political Actors. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

• 23

  Lawless and Fox 2025

• 24

  Bernhard, Rachel I., Shauna L. Shames, Rachel Silbermann, and Dawn Langan Teele. 2020. “Who Runs? Data from Women Trained as Candidates.” In Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy, eds. Shauna L. Shames, Rachel I. Bernhard, Mirya R. Holman, and Dawn Langan Teele, 30–40. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press;  Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013; Lawless and Fox 2025

• 25

  Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013; Lawless and Fox 2025

• 26

  Crowder-Meyer, Melody. 2013. “Gendered Recruitment Without Trying: How Local Party Recruiters Affect Women’s Representation.” Politics & Gender 9 (4): 390–413; Niven, David. 1998. The Missing Majority: The Recruitment of Women as State Legislative Candidates. Santa Barbara, CA: Greenwood; Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2006. Where Women Run: Gender and Party in the American States. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

• 27

  Doherty, David, Conor M. Dowling, and Michael G. Miller. 2019. “Do Local Party Chairs Think Women and Minority Candidates Can Win? Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” The Journal of Politics 81 (4): 1282–97. 

• 28

  Phillips 2021; Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013

• 29

  Dittmar, Kelly. 2023. Rethinking Women’s Political Power. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://rethinkingpower.rutgers.edu/

• 30

  Dittmar 2023

• 31

  Elder, Laurel. 2021. The Partisan Gap: Why Democratic Women Get Elected But Republican Women Don't. New York, NY: New York University Press. 

• 32

  For example, see Dittmar 2023; Sanbonmatsu, Kira, and Kelly Dittmar. 2020. “Are You Ready to Run®? Campaign Trainings and Women’s Candidacies in New Jersey.” In Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy, eds. Shauna L. Shames, Rachel I. Bernhard, Mirya R. Holman, and Dawn Langan Teele, 193–202. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

• 33

  Dittmar 2023; Kreitzer, Rebecca, and Tracy Osborn. 2020. “Women Candidate Recruitment Groups in the States.” In Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy, eds. Shauna L. Shames, Rachel I. Bernhard, Mirya R. Holman, and Dawn Langan Teele, 183–92. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

• 34

  Crowder-Meyer, Melody, and Rosalyn Cooperman. 2018. “Can’t Buy Them Love: How Party Culture among Donors Contributes to the Party Gap in Women’s Representation.” The Journal of Politics 80 (4): 1211–24; Dittmar 2023

• 35

  Bejarano, Christina, and Wendy Smooth. 2022. “Women of Color Mobilizing: Sistahs are Doing It for Themselves from GOTV to Running Candidates for Political Office.” Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy 43 (1): 18–24; Dowe 2023; Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2015. “Electing Women of Color: The Role of Campaign Trainings.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 36 (2): 137–60. 

• 36

  Burrell, Barbara C. 2014. Gender in Campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; Sanbonmatsu, Kira, and Shikshya Adhikari. 2025. Final Analysis: 2024 Women, Money, & Politics Watch. A CAWP Women, Money, & Politics report. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ.https://cawp.rutgers.edu/research/cawp-women-money-and-politics-series/money-watch-2024/final-analysis

• 37

  Crowder-Meyer and Cooperman 2018; Kitchens, Karin E., and Michele L. Swers. 2016. “Why Aren’t There More Republican Women in Congress? Gender, Partisanship, and Fundraising Support in the 2010 and 2012 Elections.” Politics & Gender 12: 648–76; James, Heather. 2022. “There’s No Women’s Mafia: Women’s Donor Groups in State Legislative Elections.” Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy 43 (4): 483–98; Phillips 2021; Sorensen, Ashley, and Philip Chen. 2022. "Identity in Campaign Finance and Elections: The Impact of Gender and Race on Money Raised in 2010–2018 U.S. House Elections." Political Research Quarterly 75 (3): 738–53.

• 38

  Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013; Dittmar, Kelly, Kira Sanbonmatsu, and Susan J. Carroll. 2018. A Seat at the Table: Congresswomen’s Perspectives on Why Their Presence Matters. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

   

• 39

  Plaskon, Savannah, and Danielle M. Thomsen. 2024. “Self-Rising Candidates: Racial and Gender Disparities in Self-Funding.” Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Philadelphia, PA; Sanbonmatsu and Adhikari 2025

• 40

  Carroll and Sanbonmatsu 2013

• 41

  Bernhard et al. 2020; Bernhard, Rachel, Shauna Shames, and Dawn Langan Teele. 2021. “To Emerge? Breadwinning, Motherhood, and Women’s Decisions to Run for Office.” American Political Science Review 115 (2): 379–94; Dittmar 2023; Lawless and Fox 2025

• 42

  Palmer, Barbara, and Dennis Michael Simon. 2012. Women and Congressional Elections: A Century of Change. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

• 43

  Ondercin, Heather L. 2022. “Location, Location, Location: How Electoral Opportunities Shape Women’s Emergence as Candidates.” British Journal of Political Science 52 (4): 1523–43; Pyeatt, Nicholas, and Alixandra B. Yanus. 2021. "Gender, Entry, and Victory in State Legislative Primary Elections." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 42 (4): 352–68.

• 44

  Ondercin 2022

• 45

  Jeydel, Alana, and William R. Wilkerson. 2025. "Why aren’t more women on the gubernatorial ballot?" Politics, Groups, and Identities 13 (2): 346–67.

  
   

• 46

  Clark, Jennifer Hayes, and Gathoni Kimondo. 2025. “When Women Run: Explaining the Emergence of Women State Legislative Candidates.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 31 (4): 1061–76; Pettey, Samantha. 2018. “Female Candidate Emergence and Term Limits: A State-Level Analysis.” Political Research Quarterly 71 (2): 318–29.

• 47

  Colner, Jonathan. 2025. "Running Toward Rankings: Ranked Choice Voting's Impact on Candidate Entry and Descriptive Representation." American Journal of Political Science 69 (3): 1010–28.

• 48

  Phillips 2021

• 49

  Clark and Kimondo 2025; Silva, Andrea, and Carrie Skulley. 2019. “Always Running: Candidate Emergence among Women of Color over Time.” Political Research Quarterly 72 (2): 342–59.

• 50

  Clark and Kimondo 2025

• 51

  Shah, Paru, Jamil Scott, and Eric Gonzalez Juenke. 2019. “Women of Color Candidates: Examining Emergence and Success in State Legislative Elections." Politics, Groups, and Identities 7 (2): 429–43. 

• 52

  Hardy-Fanta, Carol, Pei-te Lien, Dianne M. Pinderhughes, and Christine M. Sierra. 2006. “Gender, Race, and Descriptive Representation in the United States: Findings from the Gender and Multicultural Leadership Project.” Journal of Women Politics & Policy 28 (3-4): 7–41; Juenke, Eric Gonzalez, and Paru Shah. 2016. “Demand and Supply: Racial and Ethnic Minority Candidates in White Districts.” Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 1: 60–90; Swain, Katie E. O., and Pei-te Lien. 2017. “Structural and Contextual Factors Regarding the Accessibility of Elective Office for Women of Color at the Local Level.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 38 (2): 128–50.

• 53

  Juenke and Shah 2016; Shah, Scott, and Juenke 2019

• 54

  Dittmar, Kelly. 2019. Unfinished Business: Women Running in 2018 and Beyond. Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ https://womenrun.rutgers.edu/2018-report/; Hill, Chelsea. 2025. Black Women in American Politics 2025. A Report for the Higher Heights Leadership Fund by the Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/research-and-scholarship/black-women-american-politics-2025

• 55

  Anastasopoulous, Lefteris. 2016. “Estimating the Gender Penalty in House of Representative Elections Using a Regression Discontinuity Design.” Electoral Studies 43: 150–57; Burrell 2014; Fox, Richard L. 2026. “Congressional Elections: Women’s Candidacies and the Road to Gender Parity.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, 6th edition, eds. Richard L. Fox, Kelly Dittmar, and Susan J. Carroll, 198–223. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; Porter, Rachel, and Sarah  A. Treul. 2025. "Evaluating (in)experience in Congressional Elections." American Journal of Political Science 69 (1): 284–98.

• 56

  Schwarz, Susanne, and Alexander Coppock. 2021. "What Have We Learned about Gender from Candidate Choice Experiments? A Meta-Analysis of Sixty-Seven Factorial Survey Experiments." The Journal of Politics 84 (2): 655–68.

• 57

  Dittmar, Kelly. 2015. Navigating Gendered Terrain: Stereotypes and Strategy in Political Campaigns. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.

• 58

  Eagly, Alice, and Steven Karau. 2002. “Role Congruity Theory and Prejudice Toward Female Leaders.” Psychological Review 109 (3): 573–98.

• 59

  Brooks, Deborah Jordan. 2013. He Runs, She Runs: Why Gender Stereotypes Do Not Harm Women Candidates. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; Cormack, Lindsey, and Kristyn L. Karl. 2022. "Why Women Earn High Marks: Examining the Role of Partisanship and Gender in Political Evaluations." Politics & Gender 18 (3): 768–97; Eagly, Alice, Christa Nater, David I. Miller, Michèle Kaufmann, and Sabine Sczesny. 2020. “Gender Stereotypes Have Changed: A Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis of U.S. Public Opinion Polls from 1946 to 2018.” American Psychologist 75 (3): 301–15; Van der Pas, Daphne, Loes Aaldering, and Angela L. Bos. 2024. “Looks Like a Leader: Measuring Evolution in Gendered Politician Stereotypes.” Political Behavior 46: 1653–75. 

• 60

  Carey, John, Katherine Clayton, Gretchen Helmke, Brendan Nyhan, Mitchell Sanders, and Susan Stokes. 2022. “Who Will Defend Democracy? Evaluating Tradeoffs in Candidate Support Among Partisan Donors and Voters.” Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties 32 (1): 230–45; Dolan, Kathleen. 2014. When Does Gender Matter? Women Candidates and Gender Stereotypes in American Elections. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; Hayes, Danny, and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2016. Women on the Run: Gender, Media, and Political Campaigning in a Polarized Era. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

• 61

  Banducci, Susan,  Joanna Everitt, and Elisabeth Gidengil. 2025. "Studying Gender Stereotypes of Political Candidates Over Four Decades." European Journal of Politics and Gender (Online): 1-27; Cassese, Erin. 2019. “Intersectional Stereotyping in Political Decision Making.” Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics; Ditonto, Tessa, David J. Andersen, and David A. M. Peterson. 2025. “The Gendered Risks of Violating Expectations and the Importance of Information for Women Candidates.” Politics & Gender (Online): 1–31; PerryUndem. 2023. “Assessing the State of Public Opinion Toward Women, Gender, Equality – and Abortion.” https://perryundem.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/PerryUndem-Landscape-of-Views-toward-Women-Gender-and-Abortion.pdf; Rohrbach, Tobias. 2025. "Are Women Politicians Kind and Competent? Disentangling Stereotype Incongruity in Candidate Evaluations.” Political Behavior 47 (1): 411–434; Schneider, Monica C., Angela L. Bos, and Madeline DeFilippo. 2022. "Gender Role Violations and Voter Prejudice: The Agentic Penalty Faced by Women Politicians." Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 43 (2): 117-33; Sweet-Cushman, Jennie. 2022. "Legislative vs. Executive Political Offices: How Gender Stereotypes Can Disadvantage Women in Either Office." Political Behavior 44 (1): 411–34.

• 62

  Conroy, Meredith. 2015. Masculinity, Media, and the American Presidency. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; Katz, Jackson. 2016. Man Enough?: Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton, and the Politics of Presidential Masculinity. Northampton, MA: Interlink Books; Dittmar, Kelly. 2026. “Gender, Race, and Presidential Politics: Assessing  ​Persistent Forces in 2024.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, 6th edition, eds. Richard L. Fox, Kelly Dittmar, and Susan J. Carroll, 19–53. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. 

• 63

  For example, see Fridkin, Kim L., and Patrick J. Kenney. 2014. The Changing Face of Representation: The Gender of U.S. Senators and Constituent Communications. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan Press; Gunderson, Anna, Nichole Bauer, Emily Rains, and Annie Sheehan-Dean. 2025. “Gender Stereotypes Across Electoral Contexts.” Political Behavior (Online): 1–24.

• 64

  Evans, Heather K. 2022. “A Woman's Place Is in the (U.S.) House.” In Electoral Campaigns, Media, and the New World of Digital Politics, eds. David Taras and Richard Davis, 83–102. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press; Schneider, Monica C. 2014. “The Effects of Gender-Bending on Candidate Evaluations.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 35 (1): 55–77; Wang, Ding, Jennifer L. Merolla, and Arielle Manganiello. 2023. "The Effect of Counterstereotypic Gender Strategies on Candidate Evaluations in American Elections." Politics & Gender 19 (4): 1180–203.

• 65

  Bauer, Nichole M., and Martina Santia. 2022. "Going Feminine: Identifying How and When Female Candidates Emphasize Feminine and Masculine Traits on the Campaign Trail." Political Research Quarterly 75 (3): 691–705; Carpinella, Colleen, and Nichole M. Bauer. 2021. "A Visual Analysis of Gender Stereotypes in Campaign Advertising." Politics, Groups, and Identities 9 (2): 369–86; Gunderson et al. 2025

• 66

  Banwart, Mary Christine, and Mitchell McKinney. 2005. “A Gendered Influence in Campaign Debates? Analysis of Mixed-gender United States Senate and Gubernatorial Debates.” Communication Studies 56 (4): 370. 

• 67

  Bauer, Nichole M. 2017. “The Effects of Counterstereotypic Gender Strategies on Candidate Evaluations.” Political Psychology 38 (2): 279–95; Caverley, Jonathan, and Yanna Krupnikov. 2025. “Leaders but Not Authorities? Gender, Veterans, and Messages about National Security.” American Political Science Review 119 (1): 261–76; Dolan, Kathleen. 2010. “The Impact of Gender Stereotyped Evaluations on Support for Women Candidates.” Political Behavior 32: 69–88; Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37 (1): 119-47. 

   

• 68

  Bauer 2017; Cassese, Erin C., and Mirya R. Holman. 2018. “Party and Gender Stereotypes in Campaign Attacks.” Political Behavior 40: 785–807.

• 69

  Wang, Merolla, and Manganiello 2023

   

• 70

  Dittmar 2019

• 71

  Aronson, Pamela, and Matthew R. Fleming. 2023. Gender Revolution: How Electoral Politics and #MeToo are Reshaping Everyday Life. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, 103.

• 72

  Karpowitz, Christopher F., J. Quin Monson, Jessica R. Preece, Alejandra Aldridge 2024. "Selecting for Masculinity: Women’s Under-Representation in the Republican Party." American Political Science Review 118 (4): 1873–94; Roberts, Damon C., and Stephen Utych. 2022. "A Delicate Hand or Two-Fisted Aggression? How Gendered Language Influences Candidate Perceptions." American Politics Research 50 (3): 353–65.

• 73

  Aronson and Fleming 2023; Bernhard, Rachel. 2022. "Wearing the Pants(suit)? Gendered Leadership Styles, Partisanship, and Candidate Evaluation in the 2016 U.S. Election." Politics & Gender 18 (2): 513–45; Dittmar 2019; Schenk, Marie, Kristen Essel, and Cory Manento. 2025. “Running on Rage: Feminist Messaging and Voter Response in Primary Campaigns.” Politics, Groups, and Identities (Online): 1–19.

• 74

  Karpowitz et al. 2024

• 75

  Bauer, Nichole M. 2020a. “A Feminine Advantage? Delineating the Effects of Feminine Trait and Feminine Issue Messages on Evaluations of Female Candidates.” Politics & Gender 16 (3): 660–80.

• 76

  Koch, Jeffrey W. 2000. “Do Citizens Apply Gender Stereotypes to Infer Candidates’ Ideological Orientations?” Journal of Politics 62 (2): 414–29; King, David C., and Richard E. Matland. 2003. “Sex and the Grand Old Party: An Experimental Investigation of the Effect of Candidate Sex on Support for a Republican Candidate.” American Politics Research 31 (6): 595–612.

• 77

  Cowburn, Mike, and Meredith Conroy. 2026. “Where Do Women Win Primaries? Asymmetric Opportunity Theory in Congressional Nominations.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 47 (1): 1–21.

• 78

  Thomsen, Danielle M. 2019. “Which Women Win? Partisan Changes in Victory Patterns in U.S. House Elections.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 7 (2): 412–28.

• 79

  Elder 2021

• 80

  Cassese 2019; Gershon, Sarah Allen, and Jessica Lavariega Monforti. 2021. "Intersecting Campaigns: Candidate Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Voter Evaluations." Politics, Groups, and Identities 9 (3): 439–63.

• 81

  Bejarano 2013; Bejarano, Christina, Nadia E. Brown, Sarah Allen Gershon, and Celeste Montoya. 2021. "Shared Identities: Intersectionality, Linked Fate, and Perceptions of Political Candidates." Political Research Quarterly 74 (4): 970–85; Carew, Jessica Denyse Johnson. 2016. “Stereotyping of Black Women in Elections.” In Dis­tinct Identities: Minority Women in U.S. Politics, eds. Nadia E. Brown and Sarah Allen Gershon. New York, NY: Routledge, 95–115; Gershon and Monforti 2021

• 82

  Carew, Jessica Denyse Johnson. 2012. “‘Lifting as We Climb?’ The Role of Stereotypes in the Evaluation of Political Candidates at the Intersection of Race and Gender.” PhD Dissertation. Duke University; Cargile, Ivy A. M., Jennifer L. Merolla, and Jean Reith Schroedel. 2016. “Intersectionality and Latino/a Candidate Evaluation.” In Latinas in American Politics: Changing and Embracing Political Ambition, eds. Sharon A. Navarro, Samantha L. Hernandez, and Leslie A. Navarro, 39–60. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

• 83

  Bateson, Regina. 2020. “Strategic Discrimination.” Perspectives on Politics 18 (4):1068–87; Chen, Philip, and Ashley Sorensen. 2025. "Raced-Gendered Electability: Support, Donations, and Democratic Double Standards for Black Women Candidates." Political Research Quarterly 78 (3): 942–56; Hassell, Hans J. G., and Neil Visalvanich. 2024. “Perceptions of Electability: Candidate (and Voter) Ideology, Race, and Gender.” Political Behavior 46: 2075–98.

• 84

  Bateson 2020; Green, Jon, Brian Schaffner, and Sam Luks. 2022. “Strategic Discrimination in the 2020 Democratic Primary.” Public Opinion Quarterly 86 (4): 886–98.

• 85

  Shah, Scott, and Juenke 2019

• 86

  Anzia, Sarah F., and Rachel Bernhard. 2022. “Gender Stereotyping and the Electoral Success of Women Candidates: New Evidence from Local Elections in the United States.” British Journal of Political Science 52: 1544–63; Bauer, Nichole M. 2020b. The Qualifications Gap: Why Women Must Be Better than Men to Win Political Office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press; Barnes, Tiffany, Regina Branton, and Erin Cassese. 2017. “A Reexamination of Women's Electoral Success in Open Seat Elections: The Conditioning Effect of Electoral Competition.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 38 (3): 298–317; Fulton, Sarah A., and Kostanca Dhima. 2021. "The Gendered Politics of Congressional Elections." Political Behavior 43 (4): 1611–37; Pearson, Kathryn, and Eric McGhee. 2013. “What It Takes to Win: Question 'Gender Neutral' Outcomes in U.S. House Elections.” Politics & Gender 9(4): 439–62.

• 87

  Fulton and Dhima 2021

• 88

  Porter and Treul 2025

• 89

  Van der Pas, Daphne Joanna, and Loes Aaldering. 2020. “Gender Differences in Political Media Coverage: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Communication 70: 114–43.

• 90

  Hayes and Lawless 2016

• 91

  Bauer, Nichole M. 2024. “Who Covers the Qualifications of Female Candidates? Examining Gender Bias in News Coverage Across National and Local Newspapers.” Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly 101 (3): 657–78.

• 92

  For exceptions, see Gershon, Sarah Allen. 2012. “When Race, Gender, and the Media Intersect: Campaign News Coverage of Minority Congresswomen.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 33 (2): 105–25; Ward, Orlanda. 2016. “Seeing Double: Race, Gender, and Coverage of Minority Women's Campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives.” Politics & Gender 12 (2): 317–43.

• 93

  Conroy, Meredith, Erin Cassese, Dhrumil Mehta, Ciera Hammond, Linda Beail, Al Johri, Sean Long, and Dominik Stecula. 2025. "Mayor Pete is Smart and Elizabeth Warren is Unlikable? Coverage of Warmth and Competence Traits in the 2020 Democratic Presidential Primary." Politics & Gender 21 (4): 794–823; Falk, Erika. 2010. Women for President: Media Bias in Nine Campaigns, 2nd edition. Champaign, IL: University of Illinois Press; Falk, Erika. 2019. “When Women Run for Office: Press Coverage of Hillary Clinton During the 2016 Presidential Campaign.” In Journalism, Gender, and Power, eds. Cynthia Carter, Linda Steiner, and Stuart Allen. London, UK: Routledge, 347–62; Lawrence, Regina G., and Melody Rose. 2010. Hillary Clinton’s Race for the White House: Gender Politics and the Media on the Campaign Trail. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers.

• 94

  Rohrbach, Tobias, Loes Aaldering, and Daphne Joanna Van der Pas. 2023. “Gender Differences and Similarities in News Media Effects on Political Candidate Evaluations: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Communication 73 (2): 101–12.

• 95

  Bauer, Nichole M., Cana Kim, Kenlea Barnes, Khaleel Ouedraogo, and Elise Strain. 2024. “Still a Boy’s Club: Women Journalists & Political News Coverage.” Journalism Studies 25 (13): 1654–75.