How the “Electability” Issue May Have Hurt Women Candidates in 2020

Elizabeth Warren, one of the candidates who unsuccessfully ran for President of the United States in 2020.

Quite a few people were devastated when Senator Elizabeth Warren’s campaign for President of the United States ended early with disappointing results on Super Tuesday. Following her departure from the race, there has been much talk of how sexism, not the substance of what she was advocating for, may have affected her campaign.

And, there seems to be truth to the belief that sexism hurt Warren’s candidacy, as well as the candidacies of Senator Amy Klobuchar and Senator Kamala Harris. However, it seems like that sexism is playing out through the veil of a word that has been used time and time again by many a progressive activist in 2020: electability.

There is much terror in progressive circles over what has happened during the Trump administration, particularly with regard to a number of civil rights issues. In response, most Democrats want to nominate someone who can beat President Trump in November…someone who is, well, electable. In fact, the top priority among Democratic voters is beating Trump—a solid majority of respondents in a poll from last November prioritized a candidate who could beat Trump over a candidate who they agreed with ideologically.[1]

This electability argument seems fine and innocent for many progressives…until you consider how that argument likely undermined the female candidates such as Warren, Klobuchar, and Harris. According to an Ipsos poll done in mid-2019, the plurality of Democratic and Independent voters thought that a woman would have a harder time beating Trump than a man would, and only a third of Democratic and Independent voters thought that their neighbors would be comfortable with a female president.[2]

In summary, even Democrats and Independents, who themselves, on average, are ready for a female president,[3] think that female candidates have an electability problem. In an election where electability is by far the top priority of voters, the perceived lack of electability of female candidates put the likes of Warren, Klobuchar, and Harris at a disadvantage from the beginning.

But what should we do about this problem, as this may not be the last time that electability may come up as an issue in primaries at the national level?

It seems like two options tend to be suggested: we either need to stop making electability a priority, or else somehow convince ourselves and others that women are electable.

Suggesting that people should stop making electability a priority is probably the more unpopular of the two options among many progressives; after all, many progressives desperately want to defeat President Trump and would likely feel the same about many prominent Republicans if they were president. At the same time, if people want electability to be a priority, that’s a measurement that, as I have shown, puts all female candidates at the national level, even female candidates in a Democratic primary process, at a major disadvantage even if they had the best policies ever.

However, even if people stop making electability a priority, there’s still that nagging problem that women are often viewed as less electable than men (even if electability is a secondary or tertiary priority). Not making electability the priority doesn’t take away the problem that women are often viewed as inferior presidential candidates because they’re viewed as less electable than men; it only attempts to minimize the problem. Therefore, the better option might be to work towards the point that women are viewed as every bit as electable as men.

But how do we get to a point that women are electable, too? I propose a few ideas, but am open to others:

  1. We need to convince ourselves (and others) that people are, in general, more ready for a female president than many of us realize. That Ipsos poll I cited earlier says that 74% of Democrats and Independents are comfortable with a female president. Yet, only 33% of Democrats and Independents say that they think their neighbors are comfortable with a female president. Some of the other polling I cited earlier notes that 53% of Americans (encompassing all political affiliations) are either “very ready” or “extremely ready” for a female president, yet only 16% of Americans believed that most fellow Americans were ready for a female president. Let these statistics show that most Americans really are ready for a female president.
  2. We need to understand why those who feel “moderately ready” for a woman to be president feel that way. 53% of Americans either feel “very ready” or “extremely ready” for a woman to be president, but there’s another 25% of Americans who feel “moderately ready” (leaving only 22% of Americans who feel only “slightly ready” or “not ready at all”). Namely, we need to understand what makes that 25% feel hesitant about having a woman president, because if those hesitations can be addressed, you then have an overwhelming majority of Americans feeling ready for a woman president.
  3. We need to examine our own biases about women in power. I could probably dedicate a whole post to the topic of biases against women in power, but criticisms such as “bossy,” “strident,” and “abrasive” are levied against powerful, successful women much more than against powerful, successful men.[4] We need to be honest with ourselves and see whether we tend to levy such biases disproportionately on successful women, because if we do, we are making it less likely that we will vote for women (and potentially less likely that we would view women as electable). I say this from experience, because I used to think that Warren was abrasive, and I did not consider voting for her until I realized that this belief came from my own biases about women in power.[5]

“Electability” arguments probably did hurt female candidates this year. However, moving forward, if we want to have the first Madame President of the United States, we need to do all we can to make sure that pro-electability does not result in anti-female attitudes towards candidates.


[1] https://news.gallup.com/poll/268448/democrats-thinking-strategically-2020-nominee-choice.aspx

[2] https://www.ipsos.com/sites/default/files/ct/news/documents/2019-06/daily-beast-gender-topline-2019-06-17-v2.pdf

[3] https://leanin.org/data-about-gender-bias-and-electability-in-the-2020-election

[4] https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/womens-blog/2014/oct/03/when-will-we-stop-calling-successful-women-abrasive

[5] Ultimately, I couldn’t vote for her because she dropped out before my state’s primary.

Coronavirus Update From New York City: March 19, 2020

Let me first start out by saying that this post is being written impromptu, so this will be much less polished than most of my content on here.

That being said, with how much the coronavirus situation has escalated in New York City just in the last couple of days, I thought that it was important to provide my readers an update on how I’m doing and how my city is doing. I hope to do this on a weekly basis, usually on Thursday evenings (though the timing of these updates, just like nearly everything else during this time, is subject to change). Note that this is in addition to, not instead of, my regularly scheduled posts on Monday evenings. Also note that all of these posts will tend to be impromptu in nature, so all these updates will have content less polished than most of my content on here.

Personally, I am doing about as well as I could be, considering the circumstances. I have job stability, so I am in no danger of losing my job. Furthermore, starting next week, I will be working from home. Finally, many (but not all, by any means) of the things I do at work are things I can do at home as well, so the change won’t be quite as jarring for me as it will be for some people.

However, the situation in New York City is not good at all. As of the time I’m writing this, over 3,600 New Yorkers have tested positive for the coronavirus (with 22 deaths). Worse yet, New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio said in a press conference late this afternoon that the city could be 2-3 weeks away from running out of some medical supplies. I am hoping Mayor de Blasio was being hyperbolic about the situation with our hospitals, but fear that he is not.

Needless to say, for those of you who are believers in prayer, please keep New York City in prayer. For those of you who are not believers in prayer, please keep New York City in your thoughts.

How Not to Respond, and How to Respond, to the Coronavirus

I actually had a different post in mind for this week, but given the situation with the coronavirus (COVID-19), I decided to make a quick change in plans. Given the wide range of both unjust and just reactions I’ve seen to the coronavirus, I thought I would make a list of things (with explanations) on how not to respond, and how to respond, to this.

Do not respond with anti-Chinese sentiments.

Anti-Chinese sentiments include a refusal to buy Chinese food from your local Chinese restaurant and getting angry at anyone who is or looks Chinese, simply because this strain of coronavirus was first discovered in China. Just because it first originated there does not mean that we should treat people of Chinese descent as any less than anyone else.

Do listen to medical health experts in your area.

Listen to guidance from people in your city’s and/or state’s Health Department. Those who are actually working on this virus on a day-to-day basis are the ones who will likely have wise advice on how best to proceed. So, listen to them…please.

Do not automatically get angry if you see someone who sneezes or coughs when they are out in public.

The other day, someone absolutely freaked out at me when I sneezed once…once! However, we must realize that there are many reasons for someone to sneeze or cough that do not necessarily involve corthe coronavirus. It could be a cold, it could be allergies, or it could be that someone randomly has the urge to sneeze…all of us have the urge to sneeze once in a while, even if we are perfectly healthy!

But, if at all possible, please do stay home if you feel sick.

Thanks to the lack of sick leave that some people have (a subject I wrote about at length in last week’s blog post), it is not possible for some people to stay home. However, for those who do have sick leave available to them, use it when you feel sick. By staying home when you’re sick, you’re doing a favor to yourself and to others.

Do wash your hands frequently.

People should use discretion, but should also remember to wash their hands with regularity and thoroughly. You want to do all you can to kill the bad germs you may end up coming into contact with.

Do find things to occupy your time, if other things that used to occupy your time (work, school, sports) are getting canceled.

Don’t just sit around. Give your friend a phone call or a video call. Pick up a book. Sing songs, play an instrument, or listen to a CD. Watch a DVD or a favorite show or movie on a service like Hulu or on-demand cable. Pick up a new hobby. Work on a garden. Write something. Do some painting. We need to look out not just for our physical health, but our mental health too, and these are all things that will help us look out for our own and each other’s mental health.


The situation with the coronavirus is a very hectic and fluid situation. However, I hope that these tips I offered are a good place for all of us to start in order to take care of our own and others’ physical and mental health. I am also open to hearing other tips in the comments section below!

On the Refrain of “Don’t Go to Work if You’re Sick”

“Don’t go to work if you’re sick!” This is a refrain I’ve heard all the time in the wake of the spread of the coronavirus.

I’m here to say that there’s a problem with this refrain.

What I just said may have some shock value, but hear me out. I wholeheartedly agree that, in an ideal world, someone should not go to work if they are sick. After all, we do not want the coronavirus, the seasonal flu, or any other sickness spreading around.

The problem, however, is that the laws on sick leave in many states, and in the United States of America, is so broken that many Americans have no choice but to go to work if they are sick. Furthermore, the culture at some employers encourages work while being sick and discourages taking care of yourself when sick.

For starters, there is no national paid sick leave law, and most states also do not have any paid sick leave law.[1] In a country where 40% of Americans are just one paycheck from poverty, it is simply not affordable to take an unpaid sick day, even if there’s an option to take an unpaid sick day.[2] Yes, we want people to stay home when they are sick, but what do we say to people who have to face a choice between being unpaid and facing poverty, and going to work while sick? Because America’s laws on sick leave are broken, we have to ask that difficult question.

Then, there are all the people who do not have any sick leave at all, not even unpaid sick leave. The Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) does provide for some unpaid sick leave,[3] but there are at least two limitations to the law (there may be more I am missing):

  1. Not all companies are covered under FMLA. Namely, companies with fewer than 50 employees are not covered by the law;[4] people who work for those smaller companies would need to hope that their home states have robust sick leave laws, or they’re out of luck.
  2. The common cold and flu are not generally considered to be serious health conditions for the purposes of the FMLA, unless serious health complications arise. In fact, the only condition under which a cold or flu counts as a serious condition for purposes of the FMLA is “if the individual is incapacitated for more than three consecutive calendar days and receives continuing treatment by a health care provider.”[5] I don’t know if the coronavirus will meet the seriousness threshold, but if it doesn’t (just as the flu doesn’t), then there is literally no federal sick leave protection for people with coronavirus. That should give people pause.

Worse yet, some companies, such as Walmart, are accused of punishing their employees for taking sick days.[6] What are you to say to a person who genuinely fears that they would be fired if they tried to take days off because they were sick? Even in places where there are robust sick leave laws, such as New York City, employers have at times still been known to try to (illegally) fire workers for using sick days.[7] Such work cultures are toxic, but for many, staying in that toxic work culture (even if it means working while sick) is the only way they can pay the bills and put food on the table.

So yes, I am in favor of people staying home when they are sick. However, if we are really serious about people staying home when they are sick, we must get to the root of why many people go to work when sick, which is that laws and many company cultures alike do not have a system that allows the sick to take care of themselves. And until we have a system that allows the sick to take care of themselves and stay home, we run the risk of a national health crisis.


[1] https://www.ncsl.org/research/labor-and-employment/paid-sick-leave.aspx

[2] https://fortune.com/2019/01/29/americans-liquid-asset-poor-propserity-now-report/

[3] https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/sickleave

[4] https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/WHD/legacy/files/employeeguide.pdf

[5] https://www.dol.gov/agencies/whd/opinion-letters/fmla/fmla-87

[6] http://www.businessinsider.com/advocacy-group-report-walmart-punishes-employees-sick-days-2017-6

[7] Here’s a story from a Chipotle in New York City: https://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/ny-chipotle-nyc-paid-sick-leave-law-worker-illegally-fired-20200226-alzjufinb5er3esoz2pfo6dvsi-story.html

Shared Post: The Cost of Being Disabled

With the election process in 2020 ongoing, I wanted to share a post that fellow blogger Karly shared on the cost of being disabled. While people with muscular dystrophy (what Karly was diagnosed with at a young age) might experience different costs from someone with a different type of disability, one thing that is universal is that American health care often makes it miserably expensive to have a disability. Since Karly’s hope is “to highlight the importance of voting with disabled people and health care in mind,” I figured that sharing her post at a critical point in the election process is ideal.

You can find Karly’s post here.

You can find Karly’s blog here.