Democratic Women Governors may disappear after 2012

[MilesC56]

Full story.

WASHINGTON -- There are currently two Democratic female governors in the entire nation. After November, there may be zero.

While four Republican female governors are currently in office, the only two female Democrats -- Washington's Christine Gregoire and North Carolina's Bev Perdue -- are both stepping down after 2012.

"We might as well turn the clock back 50 years, because that's the last time we were without a sitting woman governor who supported reproductive choices and options, and that's what we're looking at again," said Sam Bennett, president and CEO and of the Women's Campaign Fund.

New Hampshire is the only state that even has the potential to elect a female governor in the fall. Former state Sen. Jackie Cilley and former state Senate Majority Leader Maggie Hassan are locked in a tight primary race, along with firefighter Bill Kennedy. Either Cilley or Hassan would have to win their Sept. 11 primary and then win the general election if the nation is to continue having a Democratic woman leading a state.

I've wondered about this a few times. Why are female Democratic Governors so scarce?

Woman make up 23% of the Senate Democratic Caucus, but out of 20 Governorships, the only women are Perdue and Gregoire.

[smoltchanov]

May be women are better legislators then executives?))))

[Senator Napoleon]

May be women are better legislators then executives?))))

There is actually a lot of truth to that.

[Sibboleth]

uh huh

[Beet]

May be women are better legislators then executives?))))

There is actually a lot of truth to that.

No.

[Supersonic]

May be women are better legislators then executives?))))

There is actually a lot of truth to that.

Wait. What?

[ZuWo]

What a sexist thread!

[Senator Napoleon]

I like female Senators more than I like female Governors on balance. Did not mean to sound as if I wasn't being totally subjective. Patty Murray>Christine Gregoire, Kay Hagan>Bev Perdue, Lisa Murkowski>Sarah Palin, and so on, I could name many examples.

[Beet]

I like female Senators more than I like female Governors on balance. Did not mean to sound as if I wasn't being totally subjective. Patty Murray>Christine Gregoire, Kay Hagan>Bev Perdue, Lisa Murkowski>Sarah Palin, and so on, I could name many examples.

Janet Napolitano, Ann Richards, Linda Lingle, were fine Governors. Even Sarah Palin was okay being Governor, as opposed to circus clown. Since I would like to see a Democratic woman in the White House, I would like to see more Democratic women Governors who I could one day maybe support. Senator is a somewhat more difficult journey to the White House than Governor because you likely have an extensive voting record, you lack the independence and freedom of Governors, and there is only one Governor per state, as opposed to two Senators.

[Ike56]

"We might as well turn the clock back 50 years, because that's the last time we were without a sitting woman governor who supported reproductive choices and options, and that's what we're looking at again," said Sam Bennett, president and CEO and of the Women's Campaign Fund.

Egad!  I'm not sure that the remaining 18 male Democratic governors and the select pro-choice Republicans governors can possibly carry the massive water that those two female Democrats did all by themselves.

Good Lord, I see a ton of hyperbole in the press these days, but this takes the cake for recent comments.  Governors come and go; we may see no female Dems this cycle, but odds are we'll see at least one win in '14.  That this makes news when big things (SCOTUS, anyone?) are in the cycle amazes me.  Legit question: Would Ms. Bennett have her knickers in such a twist if there were a couple of pro-choice GOP governor's like Linda Lingle in office?

[Purch]

"We might as well turn the clock back 50 years, because that's the last time we were without a sitting woman governor who supported reproductive choices and options, and that's what we're looking at again," said Sam Bennett, president and CEO and of the Women's Campaign Fund.

This is actually the most melodramatic quote I've read in months.

[realisticidealist]

"We might as well turn the clock back 50 years, because that's the last time we were without a sitting woman governor who supported reproductive choices and options, and that's what we're looking at again," said Sam Bennett, president and CEO and of the Women's Campaign Fund.

This is actually the most melodramatic quote I've read in months.

Everyone knows all men are pro-life. Duh. Women will be oppressed for sure.

[Frodo]

"We might as well turn the clock back 50 years, because that's the last time we were without a sitting woman governor who supported reproductive choices and options, and that's what we're looking at again," said Sam Bennett, president and CEO and of the Women's Campaign Fund.

This is actually the most melodramatic quote I've read in months.

Considering her position and her organization, is it really all that surprising?  She is trying to scare donors into giving more money.  

[Nichlemn]

I don't see how this is the slightest bit meaningful except as an interesting tidbit. I could maybe understanding wanting Democratic women Senators as a means of giving a woman's perspective in the caucus. But there is no gubernatorial caucus (though there are pretty meaningless associations).

[Vosem]

I don't see how this is the slightest bit meaningful except as an interesting tidbit.

[MilesC56]

I don't see how this is the slightest bit meaningful except as an interesting tidbit.

Well, I thought I'd share this because its odd that the Democratic party relies heavily on the female votes, but its ironic that it will have less female Executives than the Republicans.

"We might as well turn the clock back 50 years, because that's the last time we were without a sitting woman g

I don't see how this is the slightest bit meaningful except as an interesting tidbit.

overnor who supported reproductive choices and options, and that's what we're looking at again," said Sam Bennett, president and CEO and of the Women's Campaign Fund.[/b][/i]

Egad!  I'm not sure that the remaining 18 male Democratic governors and the select pro-choice Republicans governors can possibly carry the massive water that those two female Democrats did all by themselves.

Good Lord, I see a ton of hyperbole in the press these days, but this takes the cake for recent comments.  Governors come and go; we may see no female Dems this cycle, but odds are we'll see at least one win in '14.  That this makes news when big things (SCOTUS, anyone?) are in the cycle amazes me.  Legit question: Would Ms. Bennett have her knickers in such a twist if there were a couple of pro-choice GOP governor's like Linda Lingle in office?

Yes, I do think the language in this article is a bit extreme as well.

[krazen1211]

It's not ironic at all. The Republican party also has many more minority governors.

[MilesC56]

It's not ironic at all. The Republican party also has many more minority governors.

Yes, its quite ironic. The Republican coalition is much less dependent on woman than the Democrats'.

I know you like to say the opposite of what I say, but doing so wouldn't work in this case.

[Beet]

Egad! I'm not sure that the remaining 18 male Democratic governors and the select pro-choice Republicans governors can possibly carry the massive water that those two female Democrats did all by themselves.

This is actually the most melodramatic quote I've read in months.

Everyone knows all men are pro-life. Duh. Women will be oppressed for sure.

I don't see how this is the slightest bit meaningful except as an interesting tidbit.

If you're not a Democrat, this really doesn't concern you. Ideally, Democratic women should be 50% of Democratic Governors or more. The fact that the Democrats hold about 20 Governorships and not a single one might be female next year is notable and unfortunate. It suggests that there are still some sexist elements in society that hold women back. This is nearly a century after women got the vote, so it's not as if we're making fast progress either. Thanks for posting this, Miles.

[Ogre Mage]

The DCCC and DSCC actively recruit women to run, that has certainly been true this cycle with Patty Murray heading the DSCC.  There does seem to be a kind of network among female Democrats in Congress which encourages women to run.  If running women is a particular priority of the DGA, I have not noticed it.

[Senator Snowstalker]

We should recruit the best candidates, no matter their gender.

[Ike56]

Egad! I'm not sure that the remaining 18 male Democratic governors and the select pro-choice Republicans governors can possibly carry the massive water that those two female Democrats did all by themselves.

This is actually the most melodramatic quote I've read in months.

Everyone knows all men are pro-life. Duh. Women will be oppressed for sure.

I don't see how this is the slightest bit meaningful except as an interesting tidbit.

If you're not a Democrat, this really doesn't concern you. Ideally, Democratic women should be 50% of Democratic Governors or more. The fact that the Democrats hold about 20 Governorships and not a single one might be female next year is notable and unfortunate. It suggests that there are still some sexist elements in society that hold women back. This is nearly a century after women got the vote, so it's not as if we're making fast progress either. Thanks for posting this, Miles.

As my societal better, I would like to thank you for pointing out what should and should not concern me, not to mention the broad swath of my ideological kinsmen (and women!). :-)

Now, back to the legitimate discussion; the ONLY thing that the statistics i.e. 2 female Dem governors out of 20, tell us is that while more female Democrats may have run for governor in recent cycles, just two made it past their primaries AND the General Election.  Unless you can cite open and easily identifiable examples of sexism, that charge is pure bunk.  To illustrate, I would point out that areas regularly identified as "bigoted" by the Left (that is to say, the South) have elected women Democrat"ic" (just for you, Miles!) governors just as frequently as have other enlightened (read "Progressive") regions.  If a state is willing to elect a female Democratic Senator but does not elect (!) to choose as its chief executive a Democratic woman, charges of sexism and what not may fly but have no discernible basis in reality.  Being a Senator is just as important as is being a governor, simply in a different way.  My home state of California has elected two female Democratic Senators for two decades now, yet has not seen a Democratic woman come close to winning the governor's mansion (since 1994, nary a single Democratic woman has come close in the primaries).  Are we to ponder that California is now sexist?  Perhaps Kamala Harris will straighten us out when Jerry leaves office in '14 (assuming that he is finally ready for retirement).  Until then, we'll keep the "women need not apply" sign hanging out on Sacto's doorstep.

[Ike56]

We should recruit the best candidates, no matter their gender.

HEAR, HEAR!!!  Someone fetch this man a bottle of his favourite beverage. :-)

[Mercenary]

Egad! I'm not sure that the remaining 18 male Democratic governors and the select pro-choice Republicans governors can possibly carry the massive water that those two female Democrats did all by themselves.

This is actually the most melodramatic quote I've read in months.

Everyone knows all men are pro-life. Duh. Women will be oppressed for sure.

I don't see how this is the slightest bit meaningful except as an interesting tidbit.

If you're not a Democrat, this really doesn't concern you. Ideally, Democratic women should be 50% of Democratic Governors or more. The fact that the Democrats hold about 20 Governorships and not a single one might be female next year is notable and unfortunate. It suggests that there are still some sexist elements in society that hold women back. This is nearly a century after women got the vote, so it's not as if we're making fast progress either. Thanks for posting this, Miles.

I don't understand why the sex of the candidate even matters so much. Perhaps yes it is unusual there would be none, but it doesn't necessarily imply sexism. In general there are less women who want to run than men, so naturally there will be less elective. From the ones who do want to run, perhaps their positions just aren't as satisfactory to voters as another candidates. I don't see why it has to be exclusively about their sex. I don't think an even 50% would actually make sense unless an equal number of women wanted to run for governorships as men, which doesn't seem to be the case.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

It turns out there was no female Democratic governor in 1995 and 1996. There was no female governor for most of 1981 and 1982.