Getting Women to See Themselves as Candidates

Getting women to see themselves as potential candidates.

This illustration can only be used with the Lucia Graves piece that ran in the 7/26/2014 issue of National Journal magazine. 
National Journal
Lucia Graves
July 25, 2014, 1 a.m.

On a hot Wed­nes­day in May, in a hotel ball­room in down­town At­lanta, Hat­tie Adams is ex­plain­ing why she doesn’t want to run for of­fice. An an­im­ated wo­man in her 40s, with a pol­ished look and a strong, con­fid­ent voice, Adams is treas­urer of her loc­al uni­on chapter. She has long har­bored an in­terest in polit­ics and has had friends en­cour­age her to run, she says. Once she even ser­i­ously con­sidered jump­ing in­to a race for the board of trust­ees of Port Chester in Westchester County, New York, but de­cided against it after her hus­band ex­pressed in­terest in the job. She didn’t want polit­ics to in­ter­fere with her roles as a moth­er and a wife. Be­sides, she adds, her hus­band was “more know­ledge­able.” (He wound up win­ning the seat.)

This is not what Jes­sica Byrd wants to hear. “It’s great that someone in your fam­ily is run­ning for of­fice,” Byrd tells Adams and the two dozen oth­er wo­men in the room. “But we want you to run.”

Byrd works for EMILY’s List, a Wash­ing­ton-based Demo­crat­ic or­gan­iz­a­tion foun­ded in 1985 to build a fun­drais­ing net­work for fe­male can­did­ates who sup­port abor­tion rights (the name is an ac­ronym for “Early Money Is Like Yeast”). In 2001, the group launched a can­did­ate-train­ing pro­gram, with daylong in­struc­tion ses­sions and bind­ers full of tips for nav­ig­at­ing the male-dom­in­ated world of polit­ics. Then the or­gan­iz­a­tion began work­ing to max­im­ize con­tri­bu­tions and voter turnout. Today, Byrd is here to try to do something new: to train and en­cour­age wo­men who say they don’t want to run.

“At this point, when Demo­crat­ic wo­men run, they tend to win,” Jess McIn­tosh, EMILY’s List’s com­mu­nic­a­tions dir­ect­or, tells me later. “They do really well. The reas­on we don’t have more wo­men in of­fice is that there aren’t more run­ning.”

One wo­man says she feels that, at 61, she’s too old to run for of­fice. An­oth­er says she simply prefers to be be­hind the scenes. At best, they have thought about think­ing about run­ning.

The ses­sion in At­lanta is part of an ef­fort aimed at chal­len­ging con­cep­tions about what the face of lead­er­ship should look like, and who is qual­i­fied to lead. Billed as “a pipeline to the pipeline,” it is presen­ted as an op­por­tun­ity for at­tendees to learn how to identi­fy po­ten­tial can­did­ates in their com­munit­ies, but Byrd, the bright, con­geni­al wo­man who is spear­head­ing the pro­gram in 10 pi­lot states, cer­tainly wouldn’t mind if par­ti­cipants wound up identi­fy­ing po­ten­tial can­did­ates in the room — or even in their own chairs.

The train­ees are all mem­bers of the Co­ali­tion of Black Trade Uni­on­ists, who have come to At­lanta for the or­gan­iz­a­tion’s an­nu­al event, and many are at the EMILY’s List ses­sion mainly be­cause they were en­cour­aged by their uni­on to at­tend. (Adams tells me later that she had ori­gin­ally planned to put in an ap­pear­ance and then leave at lunch, but the day turned out to be more in­ter­est­ing than she’d ex­pec­ted.) One wo­man says she feels that, at 61, she’s too old to run for of­fice. An­oth­er says she simply prefers to be be­hind the scenes. At best, like Adams, they have thought about think­ing about run­ning for of­fice. Un­der oth­er cir­cum­stances, few of them would be likely to show up for a train­ing ses­sion on how to re­cruit can­did­ates, and Byrd ex­presses ex­cite­ment at the op­por­tun­ity to reach this par­tic­u­lar slice of the pop­u­la­tion: “A thou­sand black work­ers com­ing to­geth­er is just too good to be true,” she says.

Part in­struct­or, part life coach, Byrd stands at the front of the room with a slide pro­ject­or and her step-by-step les­son plan, os­cil­lat­ing between group dis­cus­sions and Power­Point slides. “We wanted to keep this dia­logue-heavy,” Byrd says of her cur­riculum. “To really in­spire people who leave to think about their com­munit­ies dif­fer­ently.” She primes the semi­circle of wo­men be­fore her on what to look for in a can­did­ate, where to find prom­ising pro­spects, and how to sur­mount their own bar­ri­ers and fears. She asks them to flip through their men­tal con­tact lists, to help her build a data­base of names of po­ten­tial can­did­ates.

Then she moves on to the activ­it­ies. In the first, the wo­men set about cre­at­ing their own help-wanted ads for can­did­ates. An ac­com­pa­ny­ing slide en­cour­ages the train­ees to really get to know any po­ten­tial re­cruits. What mo­tiv­ates this per­son? Does she con­sider her­self “polit­ic­al,” and if not, why not? An­oth­er slide warns to watch out for “red flags”: Bet­ter to steer clear of any­one who re­fuses to ask people for money; any­one who says “you’ll have to do most of the work” be­cause their job and fam­ily take a lot of their time; and any­one with a sick re­l­at­ive.

EMILY’s List Pres­id­ent Stephanie Schriock (Amy Suss­man/Getty Im­ages for Glam­our)Byrd tells me after the ses­sion that cre­at­ing the help-wanted ad is her fa­vor­ite part of the train­ing, be­cause “it starts to get them through some of the bar­ri­ers in their own minds about who should have power and who shouldn’t.” She says she typ­ic­ally asks her train­ees to con­sider what qual­it­ies they think a per­son must have to be a can­did­ate. Does she have to have good cred­it, or own a home? Does she have to be mar­ried, wealthy, or highly edu­cated? Does she have to be con­nec­ted or con­ven­tion­ally at­tract­ive? If a wo­men thinks she has to check all of those boxes just to throw her hat in­to the ring, Byrd says, “that’s keep­ing people out of the sys­tem.”

But doesn’t she have to check some boxes? And pre­sum­ably not check oth­ers? For ex­ample, Lynette Gail­ord, a train­ee in her early 60s, tells me about a young­er wo­man she’d been think­ing about ment­or­ing who is a “good orator” but “not re­spons­ible on Face­book.” What ex­actly are the deal-break­ers?

Bey­ond the “red flags” list, Byrd won’t get spe­cif­ic, but work­shop at­tendees are en­cour­aged to put pro­spect­ive can­did­ates to this test: When you meet with someone you’re in­ter­ested in, ask her 1) to bring a list of five people she knows would com­mit time to the cam­paign and 2) bring a list of 10 people she knows would con­trib­ute. (Fail­ure to meet either of these min­im­um tasks is con­sidered a bad sign.)

Byrd says she is hon­est with wo­men, ac­know­ledging that there can be real bar­ri­ers to run­ning, but she also tells them that with hard work and the right sup­port, those bar­ri­ers can be over­come. It is her job, she says, to think about where people are and how to get them “to a place of yes.” Her goal is to bring “as many people in­to our polit­ic­al sys­tem as pos­sible, to make sure that every­one is truly be­ing rep­res­en­ted in the most di­verse way so that we truly have a rep­res­ent­at­ive demo­cracy.” And that means, she says, “that we have to ask every­one.”

After the want-ad ex­er­cise, par­ti­cipants break up in­to small groups to brain­storm about where they might find po­ten­tial re­cruits. Armed with rolls of white butcher pa­per and mark­ers, they make bul­let-point lists of loc­a­tions — churches, buses, nail salons — while Byrd circles the room like a school­teach­er. Then the groups role-play how to re­spond to any an­ti­cip­ated con­cerns from pro­spect­ive can­did­ates they might ap­proach (the for­mula: af­firm, an­swer, then re­dir­ect). The first po­ten­tial ob­jec­tion Adams’s group dis­cusses is, “I don’t have time to run for of­fice”; un­der that head­ing, Adams writes in big let­ters with a red mark­er, “I’m a mom, too.” Then the wo­men talk through ways to ac­know­ledge the vari­ous con­cerns while also push­ing back against them. They are look­ing for ways to con­vince oth­ers that the bar­ri­ers are sur­mount­able, but also con­vin­cing them­selves.

Adams later tells me that the ses­sion changed her mind-set: “One thing I learned to do is stop fight­ing pro­gress, and if something should come up in the next year or so, I would really take a look at it this time and not just say, ‘Oh, no, I’ll help you, but no.’ I feel I’m ma­ture enough in fam­ily and in com­munity and in a lot of dif­fer­ent areas. I’m ready.”

In most cases, however, the in­tern­al evol­u­tion re­quired won’t hap­pen in one con­ver­sa­tion, or even in one day. “Can­did­ates may not beready at this time,” Byrd re­minds the group, “but we’re play­ing the long game.”

What We're Following See More »
Clinton Rips Into Trump
4 hours ago

Just a day after Donald Trump called her a bigot, Hillary Clinton delivered a scathing speech tying Trump to the KKK and so-called “alt-right.” This new frontier of debate between the two candidates has emerged at a time when Trump has been seeking to appeal to minority voters, among whom he has struggled to garner support. Calling him “profoundly dangerous,” Clinton didn’t hold back on her criticisms of Trump. “He is taking hate groups mainstream and helping a radical fringe take over the Republican Party,” Clinton said.

Quinnipiac Has Clinton Over 50%
7 hours ago

Hillary Clinton leads Donald Trump 51%-41% in a new Quinnipiac poll released today. Her lead shrinks to seven points when the third-party candidates are included. In that scenario, she leads 45%-38%, with Gary Johnson pulling 10% and Jill Stein at 4%.

Trump Not on Ballot in Minnesota
9 hours ago
Chelsea to Stay on Board of Clinton Foundation
9 hours ago

Is the Clinton family backtracking on some of its promises to insulate the White House from the Clinton Foundation? Opposition researchers will certainly try to portray it that way. A foundation spokesman said yesterday that Chelsea Clinton will stay on its board, and that the "foundation’s largest project, the Clinton Health Access Initiative, might continue to accept foreign government and corporate funding."

Navy Calls Iranian Ships’ Actions Dangerous, Unprofessional
11 hours ago

"Four Iranian ships made reckless maneuvers close to a U.S. warship this week, the Pentagon said Thursday, in an incident that officials said could have led to dangerous escalation." The four Iranian vessels engaged in a "high-speed intercept" of a U.S. destroyer in the Strait of Hormuz. A Navy spokesman said the Iranina actions "created a dangerous, harassing situation that could have led to further escalation including additional defensive measures" by the destroyer.