Expert Insights: What to Watch in Election 2024

CAWP has called on gender and politics experts in previous election cycles to contribute their thoughts on campaign themes and dynamics. Again in election 2024, we invited over fifty scholars and practitioners to share their research and practice-based insights on gender and intersectional dynamics in this year’s elections. Their expertise should inform the national political dialogue and encourage new and nuanced conversations in the final months of both the presidential and down ballot campaigns. 

This month, we invited experts to respond briefly to two prompts:

• Nearly a month ago, President Joe Biden dropped out of the presidential contest and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris. Since then, Harris has secured the Democratic nomination, selected Tim Walz as her Vice President, and upended the state of play in the presidential election. As you look ahead to the remaining weeks until Election Day, what gender and/or intersectional dynamics are you seeing already and/or watching for that are important to understanding how gender has/will influence this year’s presidential election?
• While much attention has shifted to the top of the ticket, what gender and/or intersectional stories and/or dynamics beyond the presidential contest do you think should be paid attention to for the remainder of this cycle? 

Their responses are below. We will solicit expert insights at least two more times before November 2024. Please stay tuned to CAWP’s Election Watch for future updates. 

The Harris/Walz ticket is closing an enthusiasm gap, especially among voters of color.

Anna Sampaio 
Professor of Ethnic Studies and Political Science, Santa Clara University

One of the most compelling shifts happening in the national and state polls by virtue of Harris’ selection for the Democratic presidential nominee is the closing of the enthusiasm gap, especially among voters of color. In particular, polling from the Berkeley Institute for Government Studies in June indicated that Black, Latina/o/x, Asian, and young voters were dissatisfied with the presidential candidate choices from the major parties, making it less likely these key groups would vote in the general election than both white and older voters. Joe Biden stepping down as the Democratic Party’s presidential nominee and the subsequent ascension of Kamala Harris has appeared to reverse these negative impacts with new polling from both Quinnipiac University and TelevisaUnivision indicating a notable increase in support and enthusiasm for the Harris/Walz ticket in Pennsylvania among women and non-white voters. In addition, polling from Somos PAC and BSP Research among Latina/o/x registered voters across seven key battleground states – Arizona, Nevada, Georgia, Michigan, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin – found a sizable increase in support for Harris as the Democratic nominee as well as increasing enthusiasm to vote in November, especially among Latinas and younger voters. With 36.2 million eligible voters, Latinas/os/xs represent the largest concentration of non-white voters in the 2024 electorate and stand to make a sizable, and even decisive, impact on the presidential race and congressional races across the country.

Strategic networks of women of color will mobilize the 2024 electorate.

Christina Bejarano 
Professor of Political Science, Texas Woman’s University 

Wendy Smooth 
Professor of Women’s Gender and Sexuality Studies, Political Science, and the John Glenn School of Public Affairs and Senior Vice Provost for Inclusive Excellence, The Ohio State University

So far, this presidential election’s focus is marked by novel and unusual political theatrics. However, over the next 68 days, the campaigns must shift attention to the familiar work of executing sound ground-game strategies that will get supporters to the polls. In these next weeks, we are laser-focused on women of color (WOC) groups and organizations involved in connecting communities of color to the democratic process through voting and running candidates for office. 

Our research shows how these organizations can make a difference in election outcomes by expanding the electorate and increasing turnout among low-propensity voters – think of the efforts that resulted in turning Georgia blue by electing two Democratic senators and delivering the state for Joe Biden in 2020. WOC-led and WOC-focused groups and organizations doing this work have grown exponentially since 2008 and are doing the groundwork to broaden the American electorate. In our research, we identified an interlocking ecosystem of groups working at the national level in 2020 focused on increasing voter engagement. We are now uncovering the inner workings of that ecosystem at the state level. These groups’ voter engagement work is deeply rooted in building community attachments to the democratic process, developing relationships with community members, and taking on social/economic policy issues that matter for their communities. Using this approach, they are transforming voting from the type of transactional process so often associated with Get-Out-the-Vote activities. They do this work year-round, independent of election cycles. In battleground states like Arizona, Nevada, Michigan and Georgia, we are learning just how significant their roles are in building the type of infrastructures necessary to expand who votes. 

Over the next few weeks of the campaign, we are watching the turnout game with this ecosystem in mind. The more progressive-leaning organizations can attract voters that are likely to see themselves in Vice President Harris’ economic opportunity agenda and embrace the historic breakthrough of electing a president who looks like them and has lived a life similar to their own.  

Harris is forging a new intersectional electoral coalition.

Malliga Och 
Associate Professor of Politics and Public Affairs, Denison University

If elected, Kamala Harris will make history: the first woman, the first Black woman, the first South Asian president, highlighting her intersectional identity. Yet, media coverage often overlooks or downplays her biracial identity, especially her South Asian heritage. Harris herself has always fully embraced both identities. She speaks about her Jamaican father and her Indian mother, her HBCU education and her Alpha Kappa Alpha membership. She bonded with actress Mindy Kaling over their Indian heritage while making masala dosa. 

By ignoring her dual identities, journalists and pundits overlook a broadening Democratic coalition, including the 33.8 million multiracial Americans and the 4.4 million Indian Americans who share her experiences. Roughly half of South Asian voters identify as Democrats while a quarter are independent. In 2020, the Indian American turnout rate was 71%. This year, Indian American voters could help Harris win in swing states such as Georgia. And South Asians are fired up: within two hours, 10,000 South Asians raised over $300,000 on an organizing zoom call for Harris’ presidential bid. They are also registering to vote and signing up to volunteer for the Harris/Walz campaign. Embracing both identities, Harris is forging a new intersectional electoral coalition. Whether the media and pundits will take note remains to be seen. 

The Harris/Walz ticket will have to contend with racism and sexism on both sides of the aisle.

Erin C. Cassese 
Professor of Political Science and International Relations, University of Delaware

With a woman at the top of the ticket, a question many people are asking is: will sexism play a role in the election? Some of my past research has linked sexism to voting for Donald Trump in 2016. Yet, sexism doesn’t just shape candidate choice, it also influences how engaged people are in the campaign. Studies show that hostile gendered rhetoric (e.g., accusing a female candidate of “playing the woman card”) can bolster engagement and campaign participation among people who hold sexist attitudes. But the relationship between sexist beliefs and political behavior isn’t entirely straightforward. In an article written with Kevin Banda, we find that discriminatory attitudes toward both gender and race depressed political behavior among white Democrats because beliefs about gender and race can cross-pressure Democratic identification. Collectively, this research suggests the Harris/Walz ticket will have to contend with racism and sexism on both sides of the aisle.

How will Kamala Harris communicate with communities that she descriptively represents while also appealing to an incredibly large and diverse electorate? 

Nadia E. Brown 
Professor of Government and Chair of the Women's and Gender Studies Program, Georgetown University

Sarah Allen Gershon 
Professor of Political Science, Georgia State University

We are watching Vice President Kamala Harris’s messaging around identity and shared experiences. Specifically how she shapes her messaging to speak to a broader base in the American electorate as well as the specific populations that she shares one or more identities with. Our research on women of color’s political communication leads us to believe that minority women political elites draw on their personal experiences and identities to convey complex issue positions to constituents. Scholarship shows that women of color can reach out to multiple marginalized groups because of their shared understanding of the issues faced by intersectional oppression. Because she is the first woman of color presidential nominee, our previous research which is based on minority Congresswomen is instructive but insufficient to understand how Harris will square this circle. This fall, we are interested to see how Harris communicates with communities that she descriptively represents while also appealing to an incredibly large and diverse electorate as a presidential candidate.

Our country is closer than ever to realizing a multiracial democracy, and the door has opened to women of color.

Aimee Allison
Founder and President, She the People

We are in the midst of a profound change in our political culture as a large, diverse coalition coalesces around Vice President Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party nominee for president. Commonly held assumptions about which leaders can and should ascend as the leader of a major party, and ultimately the nation, have been turned on their heads. Now, Kamala Harris – in her full identity as a child of immigrants, a middle-class kid from Oakland turned prosecutor, a Black woman from California – is a winning profile. To more Americans than ever, she is perceived as authentic and savvy, competent and experienced, able to reestablish freedoms like abortion and voting rights, and stand in the way of the Project 2025 policy plan. Now, the majority of Americans prefer a woman of color to be president. 

Because belief and values are beneath our political culture, this shift will have an impact for generations. The work of establishing a strong, multiracial democracy is deeply dependent on giving Americans the language of solidarity and a practice of expressing love for their own communities and others. This language includes reclaiming and redefining words like patriotism, freedom, and values. It includes a deeper appreciation for intersecting identities like those integral to Kamala Harris’ personal story. Both the language and identities which have often been used in the past as weapons that dismiss and denigrate have prevented women of color and have prevented marginalized people from gaining political power. 

The result of this culture shift is likely to be felt at the polls in November. As the Harris campaign continues to demonstrate that they are a political home for previously unengaged voters, these voters become more likely to register and return their ballots. This engaged group is also more likely to bring friends and family along. 

Our country is closer than ever to realizing a multiracial democracy, and after centuries of exclusion, beliefs, and practices that limited the political aspirations of women of color, the door has opened. America turns to women of color in their time of great need, and the possibility of expanding racial, gender, and economic justice is now more real than ever.

Women are responding to the Vice President.

A'shanti F. Gholar
President, Emerge

Gender stereotypes about female candidates are waning.

Kathleen Dolan 
Distinguished Professor of Political Science, University of Wisconsin Milwaukee

Jennifer L. Lawless 
Leone Reaves and George W. Spicer Professor of Politics, University of Virginia

As Vice President Kamala Harris approaches Election Day, journalists, pundits, and strategists continue to ask the perennial question, “Is the United States ready to elect a woman as president?” The question persists despite Hillary Clinton’s three million popular vote margin in 2016. At its heart is an assumption that voters hold gendered stereotypes that work to female candidates’ detriment. 

Our current research suggests that’s simply not true. In 2022, we conducted surveys of voters in Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Maryland, and Wisconsin – each of which was holding an open-seat primary election for governor. Each race saw one woman running against one man. We asked voters to evaluate the candidates on three traits and three issues. On each measure, voters rated the woman at least as highly as the man. The same was true when it came to candidate favorability and vote choice. In short, our analysis uncovered no evidence that voters evaluate or select candidates through a gendered lens.  

 And our results are a worst-case scenario. After all, we focused on primary elections, where voters can’t rely on a party cue. Additionally, we assessed gubernatorial candidates, despite research that has suggested that voters are more likely to engage in gender stereotyping for executive offices.  

This isn’t to say that gender stereotyping never occurs, that female candidates never confront episodes of bias or discrimination, or that Kamala Harris will smoothly sail to the White House. But it does suggest that gender stereotypes among the public are waning – a finding we should keep in mind when analyzing this election cycle and placing it in a broader context.

How much hope and enthusiasm has Kamala Harris’ presidential nomination inspired among women voters?

Stephanie DeMora 
Assistant Professor, Stony Brook University

Jennifer Merolla 
Professor, University of California, Riverside

Maricruz Osorio 
Assistant Professor, Bentley University

One dynamic we are looking at over the coming weeks is how individual’s partisan, gender, and racial identities influence how much hope and enthusiasm they have about Kamala Harris, since these emotional attachments are important drivers of voter turnout and campaign engagement. In a national survey fielded by Verasight a few days after Joe Biden dropped out of the race and endorsed Harris, we asked “how often would you say you have felt hopeful because of the kind of person Kamala Harris is or because of something she has done?” In preliminary analysis of this data, we find that women are slightly less hopeful about Harris compared to men. This may reflect memories of 2016. That is, women may be hesitant to get their hopes up about breaking the glass ceiling given the feelings of disappointment and frustration many felt after 2016. However, if we look only at women, we find that Democrats are more hopeful about Harris compared to Republicans. While we are also interested in exploring intersections between gender, partisanship, and race, the national sample is mostly white, so we are unable to reliably look at these relationships.

How will Kamala Harris’ lived experiences impact her policy priorities?

Michele Swers 
Professor of American Government, Georgetown University

In the sprint to Election Day, Kamala Harris is racing to put together her policy platform. Her agenda will reflect Democratic Party positions on the issues on voters’ minds from the economy to immigration. Her perspective as a Black and South Asian woman will uniquely influence her decision-making. My research on Congress demonstrates that legislators’ lived experience plays an important role in determining the issues they prioritize and the shape of their proposals.

Already as Vice President, Harris was the leading Administration voice on abortion. She became the first sitting Vice President to visit an abortion clinic as part of her "Fight for Reproductive Freedoms" tour. Harris began her legal career prosecuting child sexual assault cases. As a senator, she prioritized maternal health, especially reducing racial disparities in maternal mortality. It is clear from Harris’ economic policy rollout that she is focusing on the care economy. Harris highlights her mother’s struggles as a single mother and reliance on a neighbor to help with childcare. As governor, her chosen running mate, Tim Walz, invested in childcare and signed paid family leave into law in Minnesota. If elected, the looming expiration of the Trump tax cuts could provide Harris her first opportunity to increase the child tax credit.

In ongoing research Danielle Thomsen and I find that when conservatives, especially conservative men, support expanding the social safety net, it is through changes to the tax code. Indeed, JD Vance wants an expansion of the child tax credit and House Republicans recently passed a tax reform bill that increases it. A narrowly divided Congress will present many challenges. The child tax credit could be a first step to enhancing the care economy.

How does the Harris/Walz campaign frame abortion rights?

Rachel VanSickle-Ward 
Professor of Political Science, Pitzer College

One of the most interesting aspects of the transition from a Biden nomination to a Harris nomination is the candidates’ approach to reproductive rights. While both Biden and Harris opposed Dobbs v Jackson, the Supreme Court decision ending Roe v Wade, Harris has been more outspoken in her support of abortion rights. She has also selected a running mate with a clear pro-choice history. Harris won’t be the first nominee to come out forcefully in support of reproductive rights. In the 2016 primary, Hillary Clinton was the first Democratic candidate to come out in opposition to the Hyde Amendment and was praised by abortion rights advocates for historically powerful support. But since this is the first presidential campaign since the demise of Roe, debates over abortion access take on new levels of significance. Moreover, my research (with Kevin Wallsten) on reproductive health policy illustrates that the gender of the speaker and/or the policymaker impacts how the message is framed, how it’s received, and how policy is created and implemented. In other words, having a woman at the top of the ticket matters both in terms of how she talks about abortion on the campaign trial, and in terms of how she governs regarding abortion rights if elected.

Do parties’ policies actually reflect the priorities of American parents?

Laurel Elder 
Professor and Chair of Political Science, Hartwick College

As many have noted in the wake of vice presidential candidate JD Vance’s comments about childless cat ladies and accusation that the Democratic Party is anti-family, parenthood has emerged as a major theme of the 2024 election. Vance’s comments paint a picture of an America where decisions about parenthood and family have come to mark a dramatic partisan cleavage. The empirical data, however, tell a different story. My colleague, Professor Steven Greene and I have been researching the politics of parenthood for over 20 years. Using data from Pew and GSS we find that Americans’ experiences having and raising children are surprisingly similar across partisan lines. Republicans and Democrats are very similar in terms of when they start their families, how many kids they have, and in the percent of moms working outside the home. 

This election cycle we will be paying attention to the way parents and families are portrayed by the candidates and the extent to which the parties’ purported pro-family policies actually reflect the priorities of American parents – which include affordable childcare, quality public education and healthcare, and help managing the near impossible task of balancing work and time with their kids. 

Democrats, Republicans, and independents are more likely to mention feminine traits in what they like about the Democratic Party, but it’s not clear that candidates, the media, and parties know that.

Erin Cassese 
Professor of Political Science and International Relations, University of Delaware

Heather L. Ondercin 
Associate Professor, Appalachian State University

We are interested in how candidates and parties strategically employ gendered traits. With a woman at the top of the ticket, we anticipate that this will further increase the use of gendered language in politics. Our research shows that gender and partisanship have become interwoven in voters’ minds. Voters tend to use feminine traits (e.g., helping, compassionate) to describe the Democratic Party and masculine traits (e.g., responsible, powerful) to describe the Republican Party. We are interested in seeing how candidates, the media, and parties reinforce or attempt to counter the gendered image people hold of the parties. 

For example, Jesse Watters, a Fox News commentator, suggested the Democratic Party lacked traditional masculine traits, stating, “It’s not the party of virtue, security — it’s not the party of strength.”  He also commented that when a man votes for a woman, “he actually transitions into a woman.” While Watters sees feminine traits as a negative for the Democrats, this does not fit our research, which shows that Democrats, Republicans, and independents are more likely to mention feminine traits in what they like about the Democratic Party. Furthermore, voters are equally likely to mention masculine traits in what they like and dislike about the Republican Party.

A traditional gendered trope – the woman rescuer – may just win Harris the White House.

Jennifer M. Piscopo 
Professor of Gender and Politics, Royal Holloway University of London

In 2020, pundits feared Kamala Harris was “too ambitious” to settle for the vice presidency. Presidential contenders Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton had also been called “too ambitious.” All three women were popular senators – but once they entered the Democratic primary, their likability fell, perhaps because expressing ambition violates gendered ideas about women as selfless public servants. As The New York Times’s Maggie Astor quipped, Americans want a woman president, “just not that woman.”

As the 2024 Democratic nominee, however, Harris’ favorability is soaring. The difference is how she attained the nomination. This time, she expressed no ambition. She did not compete in an open primary, where she might have displayed some unlikeable traits. (Recall how, in 2020, Harris was lambasted for expressing “no remorse” for attacking Joe Biden during a debate.)

Instead, Vice President Harris played a gendered role: loyal to her president until the end. When Biden renounced his candidacy and named Harris as his successor, she transformed into the unicorn that Astor alluded to: the woman who got the promotion without saying she wanted it. Anointed as the party’s savior, she could then become its warrior. This traditional gendered trope – the woman rescuer – may just win her the White House.

This year’s presidential and vice presidential contenders are presenting different portraits of masculinity.

Jennie Sweet-Cushman 
Associate Professor of Political Science, Chatham University

I’m interested in how gendered traits are being showcased on the Democratic side of the ticket. My research has shown that executive political offices (e.g. mayor, governor, president) are more likely to be thought of in traditionally masculine ways – those that more closely align with how voters think of men and male candidates. But Harris is being portrayed in some crucial ways that combat traditional gender stereotypes that are incongruous with these executive expectations, such as being characterized as a “tough prosecutor.” Meanwhile, her vice-presidential pick has been introduced to the American people with the (supposed) requisite masculine leadership traits, while also possessing a gentle, thoughtful, kinder set of traits. This presents quite the stark contrast to the portrait of masculinity being showcased by Donald Trump and J.D. Vance. Party identification likely makes much of this irrelevant to vote choice, but I wonder which vision of leadership those with weak or nonexistent partisan attachments prefer. 

Progressive PACs are continuing to use abortion-related messages in fundraising appeals while conservative women’s PACs are not.

Rosalyn Cooperman 
Professor and Chair, Department of Political Science and International Affairs, University of Mary Washington

2024 is a presidential and congressional election year. I am paying close attention to the campaign finance picture of 2024 federal races. Specifically, I am tracking how political action committees (PACs) – especially those who support women candidates – are fundraising on behalf of endorsed candidates now that Vice President Kamala Harris is the Democratic nominee for president. Progressive women's PACs, including EMILY's List and Reproductive Freedom for All (formerly NARAL Pro-Choice America) feature Harris and her support for abortion rights as a central fundraising appeal to donors. By contrast, conservative women's PACs, including VIEW PAC and Elevate PAC, House Republican Conference Chair Representative Elise Stefanik's PAC, neither feature Republican nominee and former President Donald Trump nor mention abortion in their fundraising appeals.

Campaign finance data from recent federal elections tells us that centering fundraising around abortion-related messages is a very successful tool for Democrats and progressive women's PACs but less successful for their Republican and conservative counterparts. With Vice President Harris as the first female main-party presidential nominee after the 2022 Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade, I am tracking how the parties and PACs use those messages to fundraise.  

The rise of Native women in politics is more than just a milestone – it's a revolution in representation.

Anathea Chino 
Co-Founder and Executive Director, Advance Native Political Leadership

While much attention has understandably shifted to the top of the ticket in this election cycle, a critical intersectional story that deserves our focus is the potential historic elevation of Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan (White Earth Ojibwe). If Minnesota’s Governor Tim Walz is elected Vice President or appointed to a federal position, Flanagan could become the first Native American woman governor in U.S. history – a milestone of immense significance. Throughout her career, Flanagan has worked tirelessly to create pathways for future Native leaders, particularly for Native women. Her role in forming Minnesota’s Native legislative caucus, her work leading Wellstone Action's Native American Leadership Program, and her co-founding of Advance Native Political Leadership all underscore her commitment to empowering Native voices in politics.

Flanagan’s potential ascension to governor would not only break barriers but also ignite a powerful movement for Native women across the country. This historic moment is part of a larger trend, as Native women and Two Spirit, non-binary, and transgender candidates rise in unprecedented numbers. In 2024, Advance has identified 111 Native candidates at federal, state, and local levels who are cisgender women and five who are Two Spirit, non-binary, or transgender, a significant increase from 2022. The rise of Native women in politics is more than just a milestone – it's a revolution in representation that demands our attention and support in the months ahead.

A decreasing number of Latinas running for congressional office is concerning for representative democracy and policy influence.

Anna Sampaio 
Professor of Ethnic Studies and Political Science, Santa Clara University

Beyond the presidential contest, I am concerned this election cycle about the notable decrease in women candidates vying for office at the national level and specifically the decrease in the number of Latina candidates running for the U.S. House of Representatives. Latinas/os/xs constitute the largest non-white population in the country and the largest percentage of non-white voters and yet they continue to be vastly underrepresented in national politics. Latinas in particular constitute over 9% of the total U.S. population and over 18% of all women in the U.S.; however, they represent just 3.6% of Congress. Similarly, as my research shows, despite the important legal issues surrounding immigration, pay equity, voting rights, and racial disparities addressed by the federal courts, Latinas constitute only two percent of all sitting federal judges, and Justice Sonia Sotomayor stands alone as the only Latina ever appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Over the course of the past three general elections, these enduring patterns of exclusion were starting to be reversed as a record number of Latinas ran for national office as major party candidates in 2018, 2020, and 2022 (51 in 2018, 75 in 2020, and 88 in 2022). In fact, by 2023 the number of Latina candidates for Congress had grown by more than 50% and the number of Latinas elected to Congress as voting members doubled from 10 (2018) to 20 (2023).  In addition, during these periods of growth both the number and diversity of Latina candidates grew, drawing more opportunities for Afro-Latina candidates, first-time candidates, and Latina Republicans. 

However, this election season, while there is an increase in the number of Latinas who filed as candidates for the U.S. Senate (up from 3 in 2020 to 4 in 2024), the number of Latinas running for the U.S. House decreased from a high of 85 in 2022 to 57. This is especially concerning because Congress retains plenary power over issues such as immigration (including admissions, citizenship, detention, deportation, enforcement, workforce authorization, and access to public services) and has an important role to play in access to abortion and voting, all of which are key issues that have particular significance for Latinas/os/xs. A decreasing number of Latinas running for congressional office not only decreases the opportunities for diverse democratic representation for the largest non-white population in the country; it also minimizes their voices on issues such as immigration that have profound impact on the population. 

In the Republican Party, women’s representation in state and national office has barely increased over the past three decades.

Laurel Elder 
Professor and Chair of Political Science, Hartwick College

As many have pointed out, Kamala Harris is the first woman of color to be one of the major party presidential nominees. Yet, Harris’ ascendency to this position is in some ways not particularly surprising. It is an outgrowth of the strikingly different partisan dynamics characterizing women elected officials in the two parties. As of 2024, women still remain underrepresented in elective office, but the reason for this is almost entirely rooted in the Republican Party, where women’s representation in state and national office has barely increased over the past three decades. In contrast, women are close to being 50% of elected Democrats. 

In my book, The Partisan Gap, I demonstrate that a main reason for this is the strong performance of women of color, the vast majority of whom are Democrats. Black, Hispanic, Asian Pacific Islander, and Indigenous women have been running for and winning congressional seats at higher rates than white women. This fall I will be looking to see how Kamala Harris’ position at the top of the Democratic ticket influences these racial/partisan dynamics and whether it results in a further widening of the partisan gap among women in Congress. 

See CAWP’s data on 2024 women candidates by race and ethnicity for additional context.

Harris is a champion of women's leadership.

A'shanti F. Gholar
President, Emerge

This year’s elections are poised to mark important milestones for gender parity and racial diversity in California politics.

Susannah Delano 
Executive Director, Close the Gap California

Here in California, our state Senate is a lock to reach and surpass gender parity for the first time in history, and several closely watched state Assembly races could bring the entire legislature to that momentous milestone.* We’ll be tracking voter turnout and early returns to see if surging enthusiasm for Vice President Harris’ candidacy will provide a boost down ballot to women candidates for state legislature.

Numerous “firsts” in the making for women and women of color could include California’s first Filipina American legislator Jessica Caloza, first transgender legislator Lisa Middleton, and first Hindu Assemblymembers Tara Sreekrishnan and Darshana Patel.

Black women legislative candidates could see an extra boost. We’re watching swing district candidate Porsche Middleton’s runoff against an incumbent white Republican man especially closely, along with four additional Black women in key runoffs (Rhodesia Ransom in AD 13, Sade Elhawary in AD 57, Dr. LaShae Sharp-Collins in AD 79, and Michelle Chambers in SD 35). Of the 12 competitive swing legislative districts in California, seven feature progressive women candidates, including three women of color and two LGBTQ+ women.

Among the women who have secured runoff spots in November’s state legislative elections, seventeen are members of Close the Gap’s Class of 2024. 

The strong fundraising performance of diverse women candidates in the 2024 cycle, both in the primary and general elections, indicates to us that Californians are ready to support and elect women who reflect our communities and that California’s path to parity may include a narrowing of the fundraising gap between women and men.

At the national level, swing congressional district elections in California – and with them perhaps control of the U.S. House – will be decided by just a few percentage points. With surging enthusiasm for Vice President Harris’ candidacy, and the resulting prospect of greater turnout from women, young people, and occasional voters, this year could see progressive women, LGBTQ+ candidates, and candidates of color winning in toss-up districts. Of the 10 competitive swing congressional districts in our state, half include a candidate of color, woman, or LGBTQ+ candidate.

*Those whose outcomes will determine the Assembly’s progress towards parity this cycle include Porsche Middleton in AD 7, Tara Sreekrishnan in AD 26, Christy Holstege in AD 47, Jessica Caloza in AD 52, Sade Elhawary in AD 57, Clarissa Cervantes in AD 58, and Dr. LaShae Sharp-Collins in AD 79.

The Maryland Senate contest between Angela Alsobrooks and Larry Hogan is an important race for women to watch.

Christine M. Slaughter
Assistant Professor of Political Science, Boston University

We should pay attention to the competitive U.S. Senate contest in Maryland between Democrat Angela Alsobrooks and Republican Larry Hogan, who are nearly tied. This race is pivotal since it could determine which party has power in the U.S. Senate. If elected, Alsobrooks would be a historic first. She would be the first Black woman to represent Maryland in the U.S. Senate and the fourth Black woman to serve in the Senate. Alsobrooks is a champion for reproductive rights, too, which is a stark difference from Hogan. It’s an important race for women to watch.

Will women exercise their political voices through campaign contributions?

Kira Sanbonmatsu
Professor of Political Science and Senior Scholar, CAWP

We are watching the role of money in the 2024 elections at CAWP’s Women, Money, & Politics Watch project in collaboration with OpenSecrets. In past research, we’ve seen that women’s voices are underrepresented in politics because their campaign contributions lag behind men’s. Women candidates need resources to succeed; and without sufficient funds, women can’t make it onto the ballot in the first place.

This cycle, we’ve been following the amount of money women and men are raising as they run for seats in Congress and for state offices. We’re seeing gendered patterns in how women and men raise money. And we’re following the inequalities in 2024 campaign contributions from the donor perspective. We’re finding that women of color are particularly underrepresented as donors, meaning their preferred candidates may lack the campaign resources to run and win.

Racially restrictive voting laws will shape voters’ experiences and voter confidence in election 2024.

Christine M. Slaughter 
Assistant Professor of Political Science, Boston University

Despite the enthusiasm of Democratic voters toward the Harris/Walz ticket, I am watching how racially restrictive voting laws have been implemented across states, and the ongoing redistricting lawsuits mainly in the South that will shape voters’ experiences and voter confidence in elections. The most common restrictive voting legislation includes limited access to mail-in voting, consolidating polling locations, reducing the number of ballot drop boxes, and increases in photo identification laws. These changes can lead to longer wait times to vote and a less satisfactory voter experience, potentially leading some voters to sit out. We’re already seeing voter intimidation tactics in states that would have previously been covered under Section 4 of the Voting Rights Act. In Texas, a criminal appeals court is reconsidering an “illegal voting” charge against a Black woman, Crystal Mason. A local board in Georgia is changing election certification rules. Black women voters are the strongest supporters of renewing the Voting Rights Act and are concerned about threats to democracy. 

The Democratic Party is well-served by keeping abortion at the forefront of campaign messaging.

Erin Cassese 
Professor of Political Science and International Relations, University of Delaware

Heather L. Ondercin 
Associate Professor, Appalachian State University

Abortion has been a key issue for Democrats since the Supreme Court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization. A clear majority of the American public – about 63 percent – thinks abortion should be legal in all or most cases, including 41 percent of Republicans. This “frustrated majority” is poised to play a critical role in 2024. In our research on abortion and elections with Jordan Randall, we find that preference intensity is critical for understanding how voters' opinions about abortion connect with their political behavior. Voters with intense preferences about abortion can exert a disproportionate influence on elections and leaders by virtue of their sustained engagement in politics and their willingness to bear the costs associated with high levels of engagement. Our analysis suggests the Dobbs decision has shifted the distribution of preference intensity about abortion in the electorate, boosting intensity among Democrats relative to Republicans. This suggests the Democratic Party is well-served by keeping abortion at the forefront of campaign messaging. Check out Chapter 7 of our forthcoming monograph from Cambridge University Press for more about how abortion will shape 2024 and future elections! 

It is not just the presidency. The race for Congress will determine the future of abortion policy.

Michele Swers 
Professor of American Government, Georgetown University

Abortion is a primary focus for Harris and Democratic congressional campaigns. Democratic candidates, particularly women candidates, are sharing personal stories about abortion and their struggles with IVF. Harris’ running mate, Tim Walz and some Republicans have also focused on protecting IVF. While the presidential race is important, the future of abortion policy depends on the balance of power in Congress.

In 2024, control of both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate are up for grabs. The primacy of abortion in the 2022 election helped Democrats hold the Senate and shrink the Republican House majority. Democrats hope ballot initiatives in this election in multiple states will drive up turnout. However, in 2022, abortion did not help Democratic candidates win House races in states where voters did not believe abortion rights were endangered, such as New York. This year Republicans are defending multiple swing seats in blue states like New York and California that won’t see significant presidential race spending. These contests could determine the majority.

Regardless of who controls the presidency, lasting changes to abortion policy must come through Congress. As my research demonstrates, most legislating on abortion is done through the appropriations process where lawmakers can work to prohibit funding for abortion or expand government support for access to contraception. Because legislators must pass appropriations bills to keep the government open there is some urgency for compromise. Efforts to pass laws such as a national ban or increased protections will be stymied by Senate rules which require a 60-vote majority to circumvent the filibuster, a threshold that will be hard to meet in our closely competitive electoral environment.

Is women’s political leadership contagious?

Jennie Sweet-Cushman 
Associate Professor of Political Science, Chatham University

I am watching the haves and the have-nots, that is, the states that have established patterns of women’s leadership (i.e., Michigan, Nevada) and those where women have not increased representation in recent years (i.e., West Virginia, Louisiana). States where women have pronounced and high-profile political leadership appear positioned to continue to add to their numbers, while other states don’t seem to have caught the bug.   

For additional context and data on gender and the 2024 election, see CAWP's Election Watch. CAWP's post-election reports from previous cycles are also available here. In addition, see expert contributions to CAWP analyses from elections 2016, 2018, 2020, and 2022.