Do Local Party Chairs Think Women and Minority Candidates Can Win? Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment

Abstract

We conducted a national survey of local party chairs that included a conjoint experiment to assess the effects of candidates' race and gender on chairs' assessments of their likelihood of winning a state legislative primary election in their area. Chairs from both parties viewed women candidates as just as likely as men to win the support of their base but viewed Latinx and black candidates as substantially less likely to win. The disadvantage chairs believe minority candidates face is insensitive to variation in county demographics among Republican chairs but is attenuated among Democratic chairs serving counties with larger minority populations. Our findings suggest that officials from both parties believe that minority candidates face an uphill battle with their base. This perception may color chairs' decisions about which candidates to recruit and most vigorously support.

The Party's Primary Preferences: Race, Gender, and Party Support of Congressional Primary Candidates

“…Party leadership in both parties remains predominately white and male. Moreover, both women and minorities may be perceived as less electable (Doherty, Dowling, and Miller forthcoming; Gimenez et al. ) However, recent work has highlighted efforts to make groups seeking better representation of women and minorities more central within the party (Crowder‐Meyer and Cooperman ; Herndon ; Sanbonmatsu ).…”

“…Recent research has also suggested that local leaders from both parties do not view minority candidates as electorally viable as white candidates (although that may be mitigated in certain minority‐majority districts (Doherty, Dowling, and Miller forthcoming)). Perceived general election viability is a critical component of party leaders' rationale for support of a congressional candidate in the primary (Hassell ).…”

“…Since women attained voting rights almost 100 years ago, the fight for women's political representation, both descriptive and substantive, has become a major political issue. Research on the relationship between party institutions and women's representation has generally found that party elites show a bias in recruiting men as candidates over women (Crowder‐Meyer ; Fox and Lawless ; Niven ; but see Doherty, Dowling, and Miller forthcoming), and that potential women candidates perceive party institutions as unsupportive of their potential as candidates, which may contribute to general difficulty in recruiting women candidates (Butler and Preece ). In other words, what parties do matters when it comes to providing a welcoming atmosphere for potential women candidates, and recruiting and running them in turn.…”

“…Women overall are less likely to be recruited to run for political office by party elites (Fox and Lawless ; Niven ). Although women (holding candidate backgrounds constant) are not viewed as less electable (Doherty, Dowling, and Miller forthcoming), candidates with feminine traits are viewed by party elites as having lower electoral chances (Gimenez et al. ).…”

“…This could be the result of several factors, including primarily male party elites' basing their recruitment strategies on “ideal” candidate characteristics that are in reality based on their own characteristics (Hassell ), but also the reality of perceptions that party institutions are unwelcoming of women candidates (Butler and Preece ). Moreover, while party chairs do not view women candidates (holding gendered traits constant) as less electorally viable (Doherty, Dowling, and Miller forthcoming), feminine priorities and backgrounds do have perceived negative electoral consequences among party elites (Gimenez et al. ).…”