Share
Email This Page
add comment
Print

Intro: "A political season dubbed 'the year of the woman' may turn out to be just the opposite. If large numbers of Democratic incumbents lose in November, many women could be replaced by men."

Washington Democratic Senator Patty Murray, a Democratic woman facing a challenge from a Republican man, 04/06/10. (photo: AP)
Washington Democratic Senator Patty Murray, a Democratic woman facing a challenge from a Republican man, 04/06/10. (photo: AP)


Women in Washington, Your Seats Are at Risk

By Lisa Mascaro, Tribune Washington Bureau

02 September 10

A political season dubbed 'the year of the woman' may turn out to be just the opposite. If large numbers of Democratic incumbents lose in November, many women could be replaced by men.

ith this fall's midterm elections, the number of women serving in Congress could drop for the first time in a generation - a twist on a political season many had dubbed "the year of the woman."

If large numbers of Democratic incumbents lose in November, as expected, many women could be replaced by men. Female candidates tend to do better in Democratic years, and 2010 is shaping up as a successful year for Republicans.

Women now hold 90 seats in Congress: 69 are Democrats and 21 are Republicans. After the November election, Congress could end up with as many as 10 fewer female members, prognosticators now say, the first backslide in the uninterrupted march of women to Washington since 1978.

The prospect of a setback has advocates of women's rights in disbelief, but determined to try to prevent it. "That is not going to happen," said Terry O'Neill, president of the National Organization for Women, which is working to elect candidates of both sexes who support women's equality.

While political attention has focused this year on Sarah Palin's handpicked candidates and on a record number of Republican women running for House seats, primary losses have thinned their ranks to several dozen.

In fact, just four women are among the GOP's 46 "Young Guns," as the party calls its frontline challengers who are considered future leaders.

Republican campaign officials expect more female candidates will join the group as they prove themselves with the fundraising and organization needed to mount serious campaigns. But the bulk of "Republican candidates in these really promising seats are men," said David Wasserman, a congressional analyst at the Cook Political Report who has been monitoring the situation.

Many of the vulnerable Democratic women this fall first arrived on the waves of the 2006 and 2008 elections, but now face tough odds in districts that have since soured on the party in power and on President Obama's agenda.

Freshman Rep. Debbie Halvorson (D-Ill.), who won in 2008 in an increasingly split district long dominated by the GOP, is being challenged by a 32-year-old Iraq war veteran, Adam Kinzinger, one of the Young Guns.

Another endangered Democratic congresswoman, Betsy Markey, a freshman from Colorado, is being challenged by a fifth-generation farmer and state representative, Cory Gardner, who is also a Young Gun.

Republican officials in Washington say that their female candidates will make gains, pointing to Montgomery City Councilwoman Martha Roby, who is running against Democratic Rep. Bobby Bright in Alabama, and ophthalmologist Nan Hayworth, who hopes to oust two-term Democratic Rep. John Hall in New York.

"The 2010 candidate recruitment class is a formidable one, and that includes a number of top-tier female candidates who will likely be called 'congresswoman' after November," said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Campaign Committee.

In the Senate, if voters reject Democrats Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas and Patty Murray of Washington, both will probably be replaced by men.

Republican female candidates could pick up Senate seats in Connecticut, where World Wrestling Entertainment's Linda McMahon is running for the open seat held by retiring Sen. Christopher J. Dodd, and in Nevada, where "tea party" favorite Sharron Angle wants to oust Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Yet overall, the numbers are not likely to overcome potential losses by women.

The fortunes of women in Congress have ebbed and flowed since the first, Jeannette Rankin, a Republican from Montana, took office in the House in 1917, three years before the 19th Amendment to the Constitution gave women the right to vote.

Women made mostly steady gains through the election of President Kennedy in 1960, when 20 women held office in Congress, according to the Center for American Women and Politics at Rutgers University.

But two years later, the midterm elections, which are often unkind to the party in power, saw the number of women dip to 14. It was not until President Carter's election in 1976 that the number of women returned to 20.

Without question, the biggest Year of the Woman was in 1992, when the number of women in the Senate doubled from three to six and those in the House swelled from 28 to 47.

The gains came mostly on the Democratic side of the aisle, as women who had made their way through elected positions on school boards, city councils and state legislatures jumped to Congress.

There were fewer such careers in the GOP ranks. When Republicans took over Congress in 1994, sweeping more than 50 new members to office in the House, they added just five women to the chamber.

Wasserman expects that the net losses for women in Congress after November could mean three to eight fewer women in the House and one or two fewer in the Senate.

So after years of steady gains for women, Wasserman said, "2010 will be a hiccup."

 

Comments  

 
+6 # Guest 2010-09-02 21:13
I was just thinking today that if Hillary Clinton replaces Dr Robert Gates as Secretary of Defense, it will be a boon for women federal civil servants and women military members. Our voices seem to go nowhere as it is now. And here we are talking about seats we might lose in Congress. This is a sad day contemplating that possibility. I mean sometimes you wonder, how do you get through to dumb people? The Republicans have practically bankrupted our Country and now we might reward them by giving up our Congressional seats to more airheads like Palin and Bachman.
 
 
+6 # Guest 2010-09-03 04:07
As an activist in the Women's movement for over 40 years, I strongly believe that one should not vote for a woman just because she is female. In the case of the congressional candidates, I would say,vote for the best candidate, regardless of gender.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-09-05 14:51
Quoting
As an activist in the Women's movement for over 40 years, I strongly believe that one should not vote for a woman just because she is female. In the case of the congressional candidates, I would say, vote for the best candidate, regardless of gender.


That's not the problem. The problem is having plenty of women candidates. Money is a factor, and sexism is certainly not dead. We are locked into men's ways of doing things, and that won't change until we have a critical mass of women willing to work for alternatives to war and incarceration. Women, thank god, don't have to prove their manhood.
 
 
-2 # Guest 2010-09-03 05:40
If this is true, does it amount to a human rights violation perpetrated by the insensitive voters of the United States? What we need is intervention in the election process. Perhaps a constitutional amendment granting full citizenship status to women by reducing that of men. I propose that the amendment count each man as three fifths of a citizen. His vote would be three fifths of a vote. In drawing congressional districts, each man would be counted as three fifths of a voter. That should give women an equal opportunity to achieve election. We could convene a panel of experts to determine the status of transsexuals and transvetites with all declared homosezuals being assigned the gender of their choice. The dilemma of how to assign value to those who choose to be without gender might be solved by creating a special role for them as arbiters. That is a small but important group that might be assigned positions on a gender neutrality board.
 
 
+3 # Guest 2010-09-03 05:55
As usual the men want to take back the power. this is not a woman friendly world and until it is we will destroy ourselves.
 
 
+6 # Guest 2010-09-03 06:33
If the basic problem is that the Dems (female or male) are almost indistinguishab le from the Reps, would it help for women to run as independents?
 
 
+2 # Guest 2010-09-03 06:40
As an activist in the Women's movement for over 40 years, I strongly believe that one should not vote for a woman just because she is female. In the case of the congressional candidates, I would say,vote for the best candidate, regardless of gender.
----------------------
I'm not a Women's movement activist but I sure am with you on voting for the best person for the job regardless of gender.
 
 
+10 # Guest 2010-09-03 07:18
Contrary to popular belief, the US is not as female-friendly as it portrays itself. There is still far too much inequity in income levels, health care, leadership roles, etc. Sure, there are a handful of women in elected and appointed positions, but are they really respected for their intelligence and accomplishments ? Not really. People tend to want to focus on their roles as wives or mothers or for that matter are quick to question their sexual orientation and always want to critique their fashion sense. None of these things have any relevance on their ability to do their jobs and no one ever focuses on such things regarding men in similar positions.
 
 
+6 # Guest 2010-09-03 08:50
We are now faced with women candidates and "comers" who would destroy all the progress women have made for the last 50 years. Palin, Angle, Fiorina et al. offer nothing but a complete reversal of our gains. We need women, not Mama Grizzlies. Given a slate, vote for the candidate who serves progress, regardless of gender.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-09-06 19:26
Regina is right. What Palin, Angle, Fiorina et al. have in common is that they are all Evangelical Christians. Since 1980 when Pat Robertson ran for President and lost, he promised that they were going to work from the bottom up. They infiltrated the school boards and now their goal is to infiltrate the House and the Senate. Their main goal is the White House and not too far in the future turn our country into a Theocracy. If the ticket of Palin/Beck 2012 becomes a reality, this country is doom.
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-09-04 17:12
Let's be cautious, and avoid the following: 1. assume that any and all predictions re. Dems. going to lose big in Nov. are true and accurate. Our villianaire rulers certainly have the ways and means to spin us with phoney polling and/or phoney results. 2. assume that all voters will have their votes counted. A longtime respected women's vote advocacy group, the League of Women Voters, showed the documentary "The Uncounted" here in Colorado Springs, the super fusion center of the country where loss of civil rights, including the right to vote, abounds. We should not be naive, and rule out the possibility that 'spooks'(enforcers of the military/industrial/corporate/terrorism complex's coup de etat) have a hand in the Diebold and Diebold related electronic vote and count election fraud. Time to take off the blinders dear sheeple, recognize that we've had a coup, and begin to do what is needed to.....UNDO THE COUP!
 
 
0 # Guest 2010-09-19 03:52
Who is the bigger airhead....Palin or O'Donnell? My God, does the word "Republicans" now mean "brainless bimbos"?
 

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.