Wanting, and Weighting: White Women and Descriptive Representation in the 2016 Presidential Election

Abstract

This paper demonstrates that the relationship between wanting a descriptive representative based on gender, and giving that attitude weight in voting decisions, is weakest among White women voters. Among under-represented groups of voters, White women were uniquely positioned going into the 2016 presidential election—they had the option to choose “one of their own” in terms of race and gender. Yet, the majority did not vote for the White woman on the ballot, Hillary Rodham Clinton. This outcome is an opportunity to interrogate how descriptive representation functions in different ways across groups with distinct socio-political positions in American politics. I argue that the relationship between desiring descriptive representation, and giving it weight when deciding for whom to vote for, is different across groups. Using American National Election Survey (ANES) data, I show that this is the case in the 2016 election. Nearly two-thirds of White women who said that electing more women is important, voted for Trump. Moreover, White women's espoused belief in the necessity of electing more women had no significant effect on their ultimate vote choice. In contrast, the same desire for increased descriptive representation based on gender had large, positive, and significant effects on women of color's vote choice. This study bears on extant research considering descriptive representation's importance to voters based only on race, or gender, and on the broader literature linking group identities and voter behavior.

The Gender Gap Is a Race Gap: Women Voters in US Presidential Elections

“…Although it may seem obvious or “natural” to analyze women voters together as a group based on the notion that they vote together as a function of sex categorization, doing so obscures important heterogeneity within female voters (but see Frasure Yokley 2018; Huddy, Cassese, and Lizotte 2008; Phillips 2018; Valentino, Wayne, and Oceno 2018). For example, after the release of the “Access Hollywood” video of Donald Trump during the general election campaign in 2016, many analysts predicted women voters would desert the candidate en masse.…”

Investment and Invisibility

“…is the person represented by someone from their racial group). This is due to the mixed evidence on the effect of descriptive representation on turnout (Stout 2018; Tate 2004), as well as scholarship suggesting this effect contains within-group heterogeneity (Griffin and Keane, 2006) and matters differently for different social groups (Phillips 2018). Ultimately, the inconsistency and complexity of these effects make it a subject that requires greater attention than can be given in this analysis.…”

Helping to Break the Glass Ceiling? Fathers, First Daughters, and Presidential Vote Choice in 2016

“…4 Evidence from multiple sources suggests the centrality of sexist attitudes (made salient in the context of Trump's misogynistic campaign rhetoric) in voting behavior (Bock et al 2017;Bracic et al 2018;Cassese and Barnes 2018;Schaffner et al 2018;Valentino et al 2018). While scholars point to the importance of sexism and gender in understanding the 2016 election (McCall and Orloff 2017), research has focused on women (as a group) much more than men (Cassese and Barnes 2018;Junn 2017;Phillips 2018;Setzler and Yanus 2018). As a result, the cross-cutting demographic, social, and political factors informing presidential preferences among American men remain underexplored, particularly in light of Clinton's unique candidacy (Dittmar 2017).…”