Will the record for # of women Senators be broken again in 2010?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2024, 01:45:58 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Congressional Elections (Moderators: Brittain33, GeorgiaModerate, Gass3268, Virginiá, Gracile)
  Will the record for # of women Senators be broken again in 2010?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Will the record for # of women Senators be broken again in 2010?  (Read 3453 times)
BM
BeccaM
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,261
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: February 03, 2009, 02:08:08 PM »

With Gillibrand and now Newman, the record has been broken twice in 2009.

As you can see, the number of women serving in the Senate has grown steadily over the last 20 years, even if some of them were short term appointments.

102nd Congress - 3
103rd - 7
104th - 9
105th - 9
106th - 10
107th - 13
108th - 14
109th - 14
110th - 16
111th - 18

Six are up for reelection in 2 years - Murkowski, Lincoln, Boxer, Mikulski, Murray, and Gillibrand
One is definitely retiring - Newman
One is probably retiring - Hutchison
One is possibly retiring - Mikulski

They're all likely to be reelected, but that would still be a loss of 1-3 unless women fill the retirees' seats.  Some possible additions are Robin Carnahan, Carol Shea-Porter, Linda Lingle, Kathleen Sebelius, Jan Schakowsky, Jennifer Brunner, and Allyson Schwartz, though most of them aren't favored by any means. 

I think 2010 will be the first decrease in a long time.  I know it technically shouldn't matter, but I do care. Smiley
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: February 03, 2009, 02:19:22 PM »

We will probably have 16 or 17 women in the next Senate. Hutchison will almost certainly be replaced by a man. Newman will probably also be replaced by a man. Carnahan will definitely win the Missouri seat unless she faces Steelman, in which case it would still be a woman. Mikulski, if she retires, would probably be replaced by a man. All of the women running for re-election should win re-election.

So, if Mikulski retires, there will be 16 women. If Mikulski does not retire, there will be 17 women. Since the increase from 17 to 18 is solely the result of an appointment (Newman) in any case, this shouldn't make anyone all that upset.

The one possibility for the number to stay at 18 is Jan Schakowsky and/or Lisa Madigan in Illinois. But I do not think Madigan will run, and I do not think Schakowsky is likely to win the primary.

I suppose Kathleen Sebelius could win the Kansas seat, but I doubt it. Allison Schwartz could win the Pennsylvania seat, but only if Specter has to ward off another serious primary challenge, which is looking less likely. Brunner would lose the primary in Ohio for regional reasons. Lingle will not run for Senate and couldn't win against Inouye anyway. Carol Shea-Porter would probably lose the primary and definitely lose the general.
Logged
Downwinder
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 313


Political Matrix
E: -5.42, S: -6.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: February 03, 2009, 03:23:40 PM »

Did Gillibrand break the record?  I thought that since she replaced Clinton, it didn't change the number of women in the Senate.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: February 03, 2009, 04:41:24 PM »
« Edited: February 03, 2009, 04:44:35 PM by Verily »

Did Gillibrand break the record?  I thought that since she replaced Clinton, it didn't change the number of women in the Senate.

No; Shaheen brought the record from 16 to 17. Clinton then left office, returning the number to 16. Gillibrand was sworn in, tying the record at 17. Newman will raise the record to 18.
Logged
BM
BeccaM
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,261
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: February 03, 2009, 05:11:24 PM »

Hillary was never really a part of this session. Gillibrand brought it back up to 17 after she resigned though.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: February 03, 2009, 07:13:59 PM »
« Edited: February 03, 2009, 07:16:34 PM by Verily »

Hillary was never really a part of this session. Gillibrand brought it back up to 17 after she resigned though.

Clinton was a Senator in the 111th Congress from 3 January, when the Senate began, until 21 January, when she resigned to become Secretary of State. Shaheen, who was sworn in on 3 January, was thus the 17th female Senator at that time.
Logged
BM
BeccaM
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,261
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: February 03, 2009, 07:25:31 PM »

I know that but she was announced as SOS far sooner and was obviously going to leave right away.  It doesn't really matter though.
Logged
Horus
Sheliak5
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,786
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: February 03, 2009, 11:12:25 PM »

There may be a decrease, but it would be a small one. I think by 2020 1/4th of the senate will be female.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: February 06, 2009, 07:29:55 PM »

There may be a decrease, but it would be a small one. I think by 2020 1/4th of the senate will be female.

Your numbers are probably low.  There will come a day when women make up more than a majority of both houses.  Given the ever increasing percentage of women who go to college (compared to men), that day may be sooner than you think.  It will also be the day when feminist laws start to be used against women.
Logged
Landslide Lyndon
px75
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 26,852
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2009, 01:37:17 AM »

It's possible. In two years we might be talking about the swearing in of senators Sebelius, Carnahan, Schakowsky and Schwartz.
Logged
Verily
Cuivienen
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,663


Political Matrix
E: 1.81, S: -6.78

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2009, 10:10:34 PM »

There may be a decrease, but it would be a small one. I think by 2020 1/4th of the senate will be female.

Your numbers are probably low.  There will come a day when women make up more than a majority of both houses.  Given the ever increasing percentage of women who go to college (compared to men), that day may be sooner than you think.  It will also be the day when feminist laws start to be used against women.

Not sooner than he thinks. Women only recently passed men in college attendance, but you need about thirty years of maturation (give or take a decade) after graduating from college to become a Senator, and on average at least fifteen years to enter the House.

And women were already 40-45% or so of college students by thirty years ago.
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,734


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: February 07, 2009, 10:13:57 PM »

All 3 black Democrats ever in the Senate have had the class 3 Senate seat from Illinois.
Logged
pragmatic liberal
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 520


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2009, 09:14:45 PM »

It's highly unlikely, but theoretically, you could have the following women win:

Allyson Schwartz (PA)
Jennifer Brunner (OH)
Crit Luallen (KY)
Jan Schakowsky (IL)
Robin Carnahan (MO)
Kathleen Sebelius (KS)

Given Gregg's decision to stay in the Senate, we're at 17 right now. If we subtract Hutchison and assume Mikulski doesn't retire, then these 6 gains would give the Senate 22 women.

Personally, I think that's unlikely. The only one set to run is Robin Carnahan. The others are possibilities, but nothing is firm yet. Chances are that the number of women in the Senate will remain the same or will increase by 1 or 2 - say, Carnahan and Luallen.
Logged
justfollowingtheelections
unempprof
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,766


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: February 14, 2009, 08:52:17 PM »

I haven't heard anything about Mikulski retiring and Menendez said that no Democratic senators will retire.
I assume that the 112th Congress will have 19 women (Carnahan, Sebelius and Madigan will be added while Hutchison will retire).

Something that I just found out and thought was really interesting:  The New Hampshire state senate has more women than men (the first legislative body in the history of the U.S. to have more females than males).
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.036 seconds with 11 queries.