A COLLECTION OF STUDIES EXAMINING BLACK WOMEN’S EXPERIENCES AS CANDIDATES AND LATENT CANDIDATES By Kesicia A. Dickinson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Political Science – Doctor of Philosophy 2023 ABSTRACT Black women are underrepresented at elected office of all levels. However, even in the face of structural challenges, Black women are pursuing political office in unprecedented numbers, and having electoral success in many instances. In 2022, a record number of women ran for congressional and state elective executive offices. Moreover, a record number of Black women serve in congressional, state elective executive, and state legislative offices due to that election (Dittmar 2023). Race and gender scholars have explored obstacles Black women candidates face when running for office, including their own political ambition, voter biases, informal gatekeepers, and voter suppression efforts which negatively impact nonwhite voters. But extant scholarship offers few explanations about the ways in which Black women’s political participation increase their electability. Furthermore, recent research on Black women political elites has shed light on what motivates their behavior and decision making. In this dissertation, I seek to further our understanding of the experiences of Black women political elites. Specifically, I seek to understand the experiences of Black women candidates and latent candidates and ways in which they can win voter support. I focus on one intervention which I believe helps them achieve this – candidate training program participation. I rely upon survey experiments, observational data from a large public opinion dataset, a conjoint experiment, and semi-structured interviews to elucidate challenges Black women face when running for office and ways in which they meet those challenges like making the strategic choice to participate in efforts such as candidate trainings. The results further suggest candidate training program participation as a candidate characteristic increases the likelihood voters will choose to support Black women and white women candidates. Generally, findings show voters prefer candidates with candidate training than candidates without candidate training. These findings highlight ways in which Black women can use participatory efforts like candidate training to build their network, garner more support from voters, and increase their electability. I dedicate this dissertation to my mama in heaven. Thank you for teaching me there are no limits to what I can do. I hope you are proud. iii . ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to express deep gratitude to my committee chair, Dr. Eric Gonzalez Juenke. I truly appreciate his invaluable guidance, and endless support and motivation throughout this journey. I have learned so much about how to be an amazing mentor through the example he set with his efforts. I would also like to give a very special thank you to my committee member, Dr. Nazita Lajevardi. I am sincerely appreciative of her kindness and patience – from workshops discussing survey research, to last minute meetings to provide detailed feedback, she has shown me tremendous support and I am truly grateful. I would like to express sincere appreciation to my committee members Dr. Matt Grossmann, and Dr. Ana Bracic. I am grateful for their thoughtful feedback and continued encouragement. As a whole, my committee provided me with endless support as well as many learning and development opportunities that helped me grow as a teacher, researcher, and well- rounded scholar. I would like to thank Dr. Sarah Reckhow and Dr. Jennifer Wolak for their continued support, mentorship, and insightful feedback. I would also like to thank the Department of Political Science, the Minority Politics Lab, the College of Social Science, the Alliances for Graduate Education and the Professoriate, and the Michigan Political Leadership Program for supporting my research. I express sincere gratitude to my academic peers and lifelong friends for their support as writing and accountability partners – Jamil Scott, Jaleah Rutledge, Jonathan King, Aliyah Mcilwain, Shayla Olson, Erika Vallejo, Dara Gaines, Kelly Richardson, Nadiia Hutcherson, Jasmine Jackson, and India Lenear. Lastly, I would like to express deep and sincere gratitude to my family and friends for their love, prayers, and encouragement. I would especially like to thank my amazing grandparents Parnell and Ernestine Dickinson, aunt Kenya Dickinson-Rowe, and best friend Courtney Body. I could not have done this without their unwavering love, encouragement, and support. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION ……………………………………...…………………………1 CHAPTER 2: HOW SHE WINS: THE ROLE OF FORMAL TRAINING IN EVALUATIONS OF BLACK WOMEN CANDIDATES ……………………………………...……………………7 CHAPTER 3: UNPACKING VOTERS’ PREFERENCES ABOUT CANDIDATE TRAINING PROGRAMS ………………………………………………………………………..……………35 CHAPTER 4: IN HER OWN WORDS: HOW BLACK WOMEN PERCIEVE THEIR CHALLENGES AS CANDIDATES AND LATENT CANDIDATES …………………………64 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION …………………………………………………………………...99 REFERENCES …………………………………………………………………………………102 APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL TABLES AND FIGURES ..….…...…………………………...113 APPENDIX B: RECRUITMENT MATERIALS ...………...……………………………………118 APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW MATERIALS .....………...………………………………………122 v CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION 1 In 1972 Shirley Chisholm ran for president, the first Black woman to do so on a major party ticket. A few years earlier, in 1968, Chisholm ran for and was elected to serve as the first Black congresswoman of New York’s newly redrawn, strongly Democratic 12th Congressional district (Michals 2015). She was impactful, introducing over 50 pieces of legislation to improve poverty and race and gender equality and end the war in Vietnam (Michals 2015). Despite her efforts, Chisholm did not make it out of the presidential primaries. America was not yet ready for a Black woman presidential candidate or president. Fast forward a half century and much has changed but many things are the same. Black women sought congressional and state elective executive offices in unprecedented numbers in 2022 and a record number of those candidates were elected to serve in those positions (Dittmar 2023). Black women also won big elections on the local level. Eight Black women won mayoral elections in top 100 largest cities in the United States such as Karen Bass mayor of Los Angeles, Muriel Bowser mayor of Washington, D.C., and LaToya Cantrell mayor of New Orleans (Dittmar 2023). Black women’s representation as candidates and officeholders has improved, but the racism, sexism, and systemic barriers that constrained Chisolm continues to work against Black women candidates, making it difficult for them to win. Kamala Harris made history as the first Black woman Vice-President, but her bid for president was unsuccessful despite her extensive political background. Furthermore, despite viable candidates like Stacey Abrams running competitive races for state elective executive positions, no Black woman has been elected as governor. The efforts of Black women political elites demonstrate that they can run competitive races and win, but they also still struggle to achieve electoral success. In race, ethnicity, and gender politics literature, we know who supports Black women candidates (Brown and Lemi 2021; Gershon and Lavariega Monforti 2021; Lemi and Brown 2019; Byron D. Orey and Zhang 2019; Philpot and Walton Jr. 2007), where they win (Black Women in Politics 2021; Dittmar 2015; Hardy-Fanta et al. 2 2006; Juenke and Shah 2016; Lublin et al. 2020; Tate 2003), and how their intersectional identity influences how they are evaluated as candidates (Gershon and Lavariega Monforti 2021; Lemi and Brown 2019; Philpot and Walton Jr. 2007). Moreover, recent work has centered the voices of Black women using the intersectionality framework and relied upon qualitative research methods to understand the dynamism of Black women elite’s political behaviors and experiences. The concept of intersectionality suggests identity categories like race and gender overlap and produce unique experiences of marginalization (Crenshaw 1989, 1991; Nash 2011; Taylor 2017; The Combahee River Collective 2014). The intersectionality framework allows scholars to examine the political behaviors and experiences of those who sit at the intersection by taking the concurrent effects of race and gender into consideration rather than focusing on one identity or the other. In terms of the research, Dowe (2020) explores the nuances of Black women’s political ambition through focus groups finding that Black women’s desire to run for office is largely shaped by their want to impact their communities. Brown and Lemi (2021) apply a mixed methods approach to understand how Black women present themselves as candidates and how their self-presentation is evaluated by voters. They found appearance matters to Black women and voters who evaluate them. With this dissertation research, I seek to further our understanding of the political behavior and experiences of Black women elites. Specifically, I seek to understand the experiences of Black women candidates and latent candidates and ways in which they can win voter support1. I focus on one intervention which I believe helps them achieve this – candidate training program participation. Like the aforementioned scholars, I rely upon the intersectionality framework and apply a qualitative approach to understand Black women’s experiences as candidate and latent candidates. I rely upon observational data and survey experiments to understand the role of candidate training 1 Latent candidates are defined in this context as someone with political experience who is interested in running for public office, and plans to, but has not yet run or been elected. 3 program participation on Black women’s candidate’s likelihood of garnering voter support. Candidate training programs recruit, train, and occasionally fund women interested in running for office (Kreitzer and Osborn 2019a; J. S. Scott 2018). Though we know who these programs recruit (Kreitzer and Osborn 2019a), what these programs do (Kreitzer and Osborn 2019a; J. S. Scott 2018), and how they influence women’s political ambition (Burrell 2010; Sanbonmatsu, Carroll, and Walsh 2009; Sanbonmatsu and Dittmar 2020; Schneider and Sweet-Cushman 2020), we know less about the influence candidate training program participation as a signal or characteristic has on how Black women candidates are evaluated. My work seeks to explain that. In the chapters to follow, I lay out three independent yet synergistic research papers covering Black women’s experiences as latent candidates and candidates as well as the role of candidate training on candidate evaluations. Each paper offers illuminating results. In chapter two, How She Wins, I seek to understand whether voter’s perception of a woman candidate’s quality can be manipulated by a signal of formal training and whether the strength of the signal is influenced by the race of the woman. I rely upon a survey experiment which demonstrates fictional candidates with and without training program experience are evaluated differently by survey respondents, particularly when it comes to gender. The findings reveal that when it comes to vote choice, candidate training experience significantly shapes whether respondents would cast a ballot for a Black or white woman candidate but matters far less in improving the chances that respondents would cast a ballot for a Black or white male candidate. Ultimately, this research supported my expectations that voter’s perception of a woman’s electability can be manipulated by a signal of formal training. In chapter three, Unpacking Voters’ Preferences About Candidate Training Programs, I examine how candidate training experience as a characteristic influence voters’ preference for a candidate. I use observational data from a large public opinion dataset to assess the extent to which voters evaluate 4 their preferences for candidate training in the abstract. Moreover, I rely upon a conjoint experiment to explore whether findings extend when prospective voters are given more information about a candidate, such as race, gender, prior employment, candidate training background, and prior political experience. The results from the observational data finds non-white respondents prefer candidates who have participated in these programs while white respondents do not prefer these candidates. The results from the conjoint experiment show across the board respondents value candidate training experience as a characteristic. Candidate training experience is often the most important candidate characteristic shaping voter’s evaluations, with large substantive effect sizes. It is only among minority respondents that race, and candidate training experience seem to equally matter in shaping voter evaluations. In chapter four, In Her Own Words, I turn to semi-structured interviews to understand how Black women perceive challenges they face as candidates and latent candidates and actions they take to overcome said challenges. The narratives of the Black women in my sample reveal participants perceive lack of voter and elite support, intersectional disadvantages, and personal hindrances as challenges they endure as candidates and latent candidates. Their stories show that these women meet these challenges by using candidate training and political leadership programs to their advantage, making thoughtful and strategic efforts, and addressing intrapersonal concerns head on. Participants provided rich narratives which suggest Black women view their experiences as distinct in comparison to white women, white men, and Black men. Moreover, these women believe they have a unique perspective to offer and view their intersectional identity as an advantage In chapter five, I offer concluding remarks delineating how findings from each paper work together to further our understanding of Black women as candidates and latent candidates and the ways in which candidate training act as a useful mechanism to help these women overcome intersectional voter biases and garner support from the broader electorate. 5 Ultimately, the findings in this dissertation show Black women candidates consider candidate training when seeking to overcome challenges that hinder their success as political candidates and voters consider candidate training program experience when deciding who to support at the ballot box. Given this, participation in candidate training programs could help Black women appeal to voters, ultimately helping these women win more elections. 6 CHAPTER 2: HOW SHE WINS: THE ROLE OF FORMAL TRAINING IN EVALUATIONS OF BLACK WOMEN CANDIDATES 7 INTRODUCTION In 2018 an unprecedented number of Democratic women ran for office. Among those were Black women looking to increase their presence in state and federal elections and chip away at the glass ceiling that has stifled their political representation in American politics. In Georgia, former state legislator Stacey Abrams competed to become the first Black woman governor in the United States. Though she suffered a narrow defeat, losing to her opponent by a mere 55,000 votes, Abrams ran a competitive campaign in the closest race for governor of Georgia since 1966. On the congressional level, a record number of Black women candidates saw success against tremendous odds. Lauren Underwood, a former registered nurse and policy advocate, was elected to the United States House of Representatives to serve the residents of the Illinois’s 14th Congressional District, defeating a Republican incumbent and becoming the youngest Black woman to serve in Congress. Similarly, Lucy McBath, a former flight attendant and gun safety advocate, became the first Democratic candidate to represent Georgia’s 6th Congressional District since it was redrawn in 1993. Abrams, Underwood, and McBath’s pursuits push back against the notion that Black women cannot win outside of majority-minority districts (Black Women in Politics 2021; Dittmar 2015; Lublin et al. 2020; Tate 2003), an assumption that has limited opportunities for Black women candidates. The political experiences of these women highlight lingering questions within racial, ethnic, and gender politics subfields. How are Black women preparing themselves to run in competitive elections? Though Abrams, Underwood, and McBath have had different journeys, their paths to candidacy feature a common thread weaving their experiences together— participation in candidate training and political leadership programs. Abrams is an alumna of Georgia WIN List, while both Underwood and McBath are alumnae of Vote Run Lead. Programs such as these recruit potential women candidates and provide them with the skills and resources to run for office (Black Women in Politics 2021; Kreitzer and Osborn 2019a; J. S. Scott 2018). This similarity is becoming more 8 common among women candidates generally. In fact, recent qualitative research shows Black women latent candidates are strategic and use such programs to their advantage when thinking about entering politics (Dickinson 2023b). Black women continue to show high level of political participation as voters, activists, and now as political candidates. Even in the face of barriers such as intersectional voter biases, they are emerging as candidates in unprecedented numbers and running in competitive races. I am interested in the signals Black women send to voters about their qualifications to overcome such biases. I argue that Black women, aware of their positionality, participate in political activities, such as formal training programs, to signal their qualifications and overcome the unique obstacles they face due to their race and gender identities. While qualitative interviews and focus groups are necessary to understand Black women’s intention behind pursuing formal training, in this manuscript, I test how voters respond to an increasingly common signal that Black women use to relay their qualifications — formal training. I report the results of two survey experiments to examine whether perceived candidate quality can be manipulated by a signal of formal training and, whether the strength of the signal is influenced by the race of the woman. I expect respondents will evaluate women with formal training experience more positively than those without, suggesting a signal of formal training can influence perceived candidate quality. I suspect this works similarly to incumbency in that it signals to respondents that this candidate is informed and knows about competing for office. Furthermore, I expect voters to differentially evaluate fictional candidates with and without candidacy training depending on the candidate’s race. Given the negative attitudes and stereotypes voters hold about women and Black individuals (Bauer 2020; Ditonto 2017; Schneider and Bos 2011a; Visalvanich 2017), I expect voters to evaluate Black women candidates more negatively than their White counterparts. Nonetheless, I expect additional “qualifications” to serve as a unique benefit for Black 9 women candidates. Previous scholarships shows that Black women with extensive background and political experience can attract support from Black and white voters regardless of gender (Philpot and Walton Jr. 2007). The signal of formal training provides respondents with more information about Black women’s qualifications which I expect to result in more positive evaluations than their Black women counterparts without candidacy training. Findings from this first study confirm my expectations that women with training are evaluated by respondents more positively than those without training experience, regardless of the candidate’s racial background. Nonetheless, the Black candidate without training is solely penalized when it comes to evaluations of how personable or competent, they are deemed to be: they are penalized more than all other candidates – even the White candidate without a training background, all else constant. In the second experiment, I replicate these studies, and also include treatments for Black and white men with and without candidacy training experience. Across the board, I find that candidate training experience is a net benefit to fictional candidates of both racial backgrounds but provides a bigger bump to female candidates over male candidates. In the aggregate, those with candidate training experience are perceived to be more qualified by respondents compared to a candidate of the same race and gender without candidate training experience. When it comes to voting, however, candidacy training significantly shapes whether respondents would cast a ballot for a Black and White woman candidate but appears to matter far less in improving the odds that respondents would cast a ballot for a Black or even White male candidate. Moreover, those candidates with training experience are perceived to be more competent than their same race/gender counterparts without training, and these differences are more pronounced for female candidates than for male candidates. Finally, candidate training experience also impacts evaluations of how personable a candidate is perceived to be for all groups apart from Black men. Looking at how partisanship moderates these findings, I find that Republicans discriminate by gender: they are less sensitive to 10 signals that candidate training sends for male candidates but are sensitive to the signal when it comes to female candidates of either racial group. In contrast, Democratic respondents are sensitive to these signals that candidate training send and positively evaluate these people, regardless of race or gender of the candidate. Taken together, findings from these two studies suggest that perceived candidate quality of women candidates, especially, can be bolstered when accompanied by a signal of formal training — a finding that could benefit Black women considering formal training, or some similar signal, to overcome the qualifications gap. Scholars have considered how candidate training and political leadership programs influence women’s political ambition and interest in seeking office (Sanbonmatsu and Dittmar 2020; Schneider and Sweet-Cushman 2020) and examined program’s networking functions (Sanbonmatsu 2015a). This research furthers our understanding by highlighting formal training’s utility as a crucial mechanism by which women candidates can signal their qualifications to voters. Furthermore, this work adds to a growing literature about perceptions of Black female candidates and voters’ evaluations of them. REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE BLACK WOMEN AS POLITICAL CANDIDATES Black women face structural barriers when pursuing political office. They experience disadvantages raising campaign funds (Brown and Gershon 2021; Sanbonmatsu 2015b), consistently raising significantly less money from big donors than any other group across all elections (Bryner and Haley 2021). Moreover, Black women represent less affluent districts therefore are less likely to receive significant donations from their base (Dittmar 2014). Fundraising advantages perceived to help women help white women the most and fundraising advantages perceived to help people of color primarily help men the most (Bryner and Haley 2021). Financial hurdles as such uphold the lack of diversity in politics and suppress Black women candidates from emerging. 11 Black women’s racialized gender identity makes them particularly vulnerable to negative assumptions and stereotypes about their ability and competence as candidates, which in turn negatively impacts the possibility of electoral success (Hancock 2007). For instance, party leaders from both parties view Black candidates as less likely to win the support of their base so they are hesitant to recruit and support them (Doherty, Dowling, and Miller 2019). Political recruitment, or the lack thereof, play a significant role in suppressing women’s engagement (Fox and Lawless 2010) and party chairs contribute to that (Crowder-Meyer 2013). Issues in the partisan pipeline are even more glaring when considering intersectionality. Research finds that minority women candidates tend to run in majority-minority districts (Hardy-Fanta et al. 2006; Juenke and Shah 2016). However, Shah, Scott, and Juenke (2019) conclude that historically the parties have not recruited women of color to pursue office in majority-white districts, so underrepresentation persists. Stereotypes and assumptions also impact how voters evaluate Black women candidates. The double-disadvantage and double-advantage arguments are imperative to our understanding of this. The double-disadvantage argument suggests race and gender stereotypes combine to hinder Black women candidates (Beale 1979a; D. K. King 1988). On the other hand, the double-advantage argument suggests that race and gender stereotypes work together to provide Black women with positive qualities that show them as strong political leaders and ultimately benefits them as candidates (Dowe 2020; Gonzalez and Bauer 2022; W. Smooth 2006). Black women face additional negative evaluations due to their physical appearance, particularly Black women with darker skin tones and natural hairstyles (Brown and Lemi 2021). Lighter skin tone serves as a positive racial cue for white voters (Messing, Jabon, and Plaut 2016; Terkildsen 1993; Weaver 2012) and hair texture serves as an indicator for racial identity (Robinson 2011) with tightly coiled hair being particularly tied to blackness (Banks 2000). Black women voters, however, respond positively to Black women candidates with said characteristics, displaying gender 12 race linked fate (Lemi and Brown 2019; Byron D. Orey and Zhang 2019; C. Stout 2015). Furthermore, research finds that Black candidates who make positive racial appeals showing their connection to the Black community obtain more votes from Black and Latinx voters as well as support of white voters (C. Stout 2015). In sum, this research suggests that though Black women candidates’ characteristics make them vulnerable to negative evaluations, they also create support from their racial group and perhaps others. Similar to these structural barriers, political ambition is also a hindrance to women’s electoral success. Many scholars find that there is a gender gap in ambition, with women having less than men, which negatively impact women’s office seeking behavior (Costantini 1990; Fox and Lawless 2014; Lawless and Fox 2013; Pate and Fox 2018). Some scholars suggest that women lack ambition because they were not taught to consider politics as a career, exposed to politics, involved in competitive sports, or encouraged to run for office during girlhood (Fox and Lawless 2014; Lawless and Fox 2008, 2013). This perspective, however, is narrow and does not consider how race and gender simultaneously impact socialization. Moreover, ambition theory often neglects the sense of community that leads Black women to engage in politics. Black women focus more on how to provide the most impact for their communities when deciding to run for office (Dowe 2020). This could lead Black women to run for local office and remain in that position rather than display progressive ambition and seek higher office (Dowe 2020), but this does not make them less ambitious. Black women have higher levels of ambition than anticipated along with high levels of participation (W. G. Smooth 2018). Dowe (2020) concludes Black women’s political socialization, networks, and gendered racial identity influences the high levels of ambition we continue to see. She also argues Black women have ‘radical imagination’ which motivates their engagement individually and collectively. They activate this ‘radical imagination’ through networking, political mobilization, and pursuing political office (Dowe 2020).. Other scholars have found Black women’s political 13 participation predicts being asked to run or thinking about running (J. Scott et al. 2021). The question of how and when modern tools of participation, like candidate training and political leadership programs, motivate office-seeking behavior among Black women come into play here and remains somewhat unanswered. Gender scholars interested in women candidates have examined the contribution of women’s recruiting groups in their path to office. Research shows participation in training programs increase women’s ambition and confidence (Burrell 2010; Sanbonmatsu, Carroll, and Walsh 2009). Moreover, scholars have concluded alumnae candidates are more likely to run for office after participating (J. S. Scott 2018). Though limited, some research suggests women of color are utilizing the resources and networks of candidate training and political leadership programs to overcome electoral barriers (Sanbonmatsu 2015a; J. S. Scott 2018). FORMAL TRAINING AS A SIGNAL OF PERCEIVED CANDIDATE QUALITY Candidate training and political leadership programs recruit, train, and occasionally fund women interested in running for office (Kreitzer and Osborn 2019b). These programs tend to apply an “abortion litmus test” when recruiting women, targeting either a Democratic leaning, pro-choice woman, or a Republican leaning, pro-life woman (Kreitzer and Osborn 2019b). These trainings emphasize instruction in one or more of the following: fundraising and budgeting, governance, campaign planning and/or strategy, voter outreach, media training, or ethics in campaigns (J. S. Scott 2018). More recently, women’s recruitment and support groups have created opportunities specifically for Black women. Emerge —a national organization that recruits and trains Democratic women interested in running for office— launched Seated Together earlier this year. Seated Together is an advanced leadership program for Black women interested in running for higher office and its programming focuses on their specific needs (Seated Together n.d.). Their inaugural cohort is made 14 up of elected officials on the state and federal level. Similarly, Higher Heights Leadership Fund— a national civic engagement organization seeking to expand and support Black women’s leadership pipeline — launched their Senior Civic Leadership Cohort earlier this year as well. This program amplifies Black women’s leadership with workshops ranging from budgeting and fundraising to coalition building. Their inaugural cohort consists of women in leadership across government, policy, and business. The efforts of these programs, and those like them, highlight the importance of investing in Black women’s leadership and developing more Black women to enter the candidacy pipeline. The burgeoning programs described above represent the two types of programs that comprise what I refer to in this paper as formal training. Candidate training programs like Seated Together focus primarily on running a successful campaign and leadership programs like Higher Heights Senior Civic Leadership Cohort emphasize civic leadership across several sectors. Candidates who have received this kind of formal training have had huge electoral moments in recent election cycles. In 2018, 80 percent of alumnae from VoteRunLead, the largest and most diverse candidate training program, advanced to their primaries (Higgins 2019) with two participants, Lauren Underwood and Ilhan Omar, going on to win congressional elections. Such success has led to growing participant cohorts. Emerge touts a 90 percent increase in applicants since Trump’s inauguration (Margolin 2018). While scholars have begun to examine the role formal training play in candidate emergence, our understanding of whether participation in trainings affect voter evaluations of alumnae candidates, particularly in this case Black women candidates, remains unclear. I seek to add some understanding and lay out my hypotheses below. I argue that formal training signals candidate credibility which could be especially important for getting women elected. Though implicit bias may work against women candidates in the real world, recent research shows that women candidates are not penalized for their ambition (Corbett et 15 al. 2022; Saha and Weeks 2022). I argue that respondents will see women’s participation in formal training as an example of their ambition and reward them for it with positive evaluations. Hypothesis 1: Respondents will evaluate women with formal training experience more positively than those without formal training experience. A signal of formal training, indicated through participation, arguably acts as an additional qualification which will increase women’s perceived candidate quality in the eyes of potential voters. Research shows that women who run for office are often higher quality than their men counterparts (Anzia and Berry 2011; Fulton 2012) and sometimes receive a boost over men (Teele, Kalla, and Rosenbluth 2018). Furthermore, with formal trainings associated with women’s recruiting groups becoming increasing popular, men may be punished for their participation in such programs due to gendered perceptions. Given this, the signal of candidate training should garner positive evaluations for women but not work the same for men. Hypothesis 2: Respondents will evaluate women with formal training experience more positively than their men counterparts with the same experience. Lastly, formal training signals more information about Black women’s qualifications to respondents, which I expect to result in more positive evaluations than their counterparts. Previous scholarships shows that Black women with extensive background and political experience can attract support from Black and white voters regardless of gender (Philpot and Walton Jr. 2007). And, due to the negative attitudes and stereotypes voters hold about women and Black individuals (Bauer 2020; Ditonto 2017; Schneider and Bos 2011a; Visalvanich 2017) additional qualifications such as formal training should serve as a unique benefit for Black women candidates. Hypothesis 3: Respondents will provide differential evaluations depending on the woman’s race, with Black women with formal training experience being evaluated more positively than their white women counterparts. 16 Black women are among the most loyal Democrats and display this loyalty as a voting bloc, but they feel consistently marginalized as candidates (Brown and Gershon 2021; Brown and Lemi 2021). They feel the party values their votes during elections but ignore their leadership (Gillespie and Brown 2019). Given this, Black women are exploring other ways to navigate the candidacy process. This manuscript tests one of the ways they are achieving this and the ways in which it benefits how they are evaluated when they emerge as candidates. DATA AND METHODOLOGY I turn to two survey experiments to examine whether perceived candidate quality can be manipulated by a signal of formal training and whether the strength of the signal is influenced by the race of the woman. Experiments are high in internal validity which allow me to assess how formal training influences the ways in which women candidates are evaluated by the public and evaluate public perceptions of formal training as a candidate trait. I seek to not only identify what respondents thinks about women who participate in candidate training and political leadership programs, but to establish formal training as a signal of perceived candidate quality and identify it as a useful mechanism for Black women seeking office to overcome intersectional voter biases and run competitive campaigns. The experiments are synergistically designed. While the first test establishes formal training as a signal of perceived candidate quality, the second test emphasizes the differential benefits evoked by race and gender identity. I conducted both experiments through Lucid. The sample overrepresents women, leans Democratic, is slightly more educated (beyond high school), and is slightly older than the average American. Research shows these characteristics are among those who most likely support women candidates (Sanbonmatsu 2002). Because these respondents are women candidate friendly, the effect of formal training and its influence on respondents’ perception of candidate quality is especially able to shine through. 17 STUDY 1: ESTABLISHING A SIGNAL The first study was fielded in March 2019, and it examines whether candidate training impacts respondents’ evaluations of women candidates to establish a signal of perceived candidate quality. Further, it evaluates if the signal of perceive candidate quality leads to differing evaluations of Black women in comparison to white women. The survey experiment is a 2x2 design consisting of two manipulated categories: race (Black, white) and experience (completed a candidate training program, did not complete candidate training program)— with a total of four conditions (see Table 1.1). The total sample size is 1,068 and the sample size in each condition ranges from 264-274 participants. Table 1.1: Study 1 Experimental Design Candidate Training No Candidate Training Black Black Jessica With Training (N=274) Black Jessica No Training (N=264) White White Jessica With Training (N=260) White Jessica No Training (N=270) I begin the survey experiment by isolating respondents who were not familiar with candidate training programs and randomly assigning them to one of four conditions. Each condition starts with a brief vignette that states, "Candidate training programs often target women who are interested in being elected officials. Most women candidates participate in these programs though some don’t." Respondents are asked to consider a candidate profile. Each profile features the same race neutral name determined by census data (Jessica Smith;), age (42), occupation (Accountant), and party (Democrat), as well as the varying categories race and experience. Since I wanted to present a realistic profile, I leaned on literature when deciding specifics. Scholarship shows women and people of color tend to affiliate with the Democratic Party. Continually, most women of color candidates are Democrats (Sanbonmatsu 2015b), so it is likely they would appear on the party ticket. Candidates traditionally emerge from professions that are close to politics (Lawless 2012; Moncrief, 18 Squire, and Jewell 2000). Given this, I refrained from traditional candidate occupations such as attorney, educator, or business executive. Though an accountant is in the business industry, it is not a notable position, consequently it is not expected to provide a differential benefit in either of the four conditions. Furthermore, an occupation such as activist or organizer may have made the white women conditions appear as ideologically extreme to respondents. After viewing the candidate profile, respondents are asked several questions, which form the basis of my key dependent variables. To begin, they are asked: “How likely would you be to vote for this candidate?”. This vote choice variable is measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from extremely likely to extremely unlikely. The variance of candidate training participation in the conditions combined with the vote choice dependent variable tests whether formal training signals perceived candidate quality by resulting in more favorable perceptions of those with candidate training. Following the experimental condition respondents are given a battery of questions designed to examine how candidate training participation influence the public’s perception of other alumnae women candidates. Each of the dependent variables are measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from strongly disagree to strongly agree. The questions employed to examine public evaluation read as: "Women candidates who have completed Emerge America are more are more personable / are more competent /are qualified to be state legislator or governor." Emerge America is a political organization that recruits, trains, and provides a large network of support to Democratic women interested in running for office. They have networks in 28 states and conduct candidate trainings in 24 states. They report having a 90 percent increase in applicants since the 2018 election (Margolin 2018). Given this, I expect their program to have more name recognition than most. Consideration for each dependent variable—personable, competent and qualified for state office – are derived from the gender politics and Black politics literature regarding attitudes 19 and stereotypes. One perspective argues female stereotypes hinder women’s electoral chances because they do not align with masculine expectations of voters (Bauer 2015a, 2015b; Ditonto 2017; Huddy and Terkildsen 1993a) and because women candidates are held to a higher qualifications standard than male candidates (Bauer 2020). Another perspective suggests Black candidates are viewed as less competent (Huddy and Feldman 2009; Visalvanich 2017) and possess fewer leadership traits than similar white candidates (Jordan-Zachery 2009; Schneider and Bos 2011a). Black women face additional challenges due to their intersectional identities, meaning they must navigate the challenges of being Black and female. However, research suggests Black female candidates can amass support from Black and white voters if she possesses significant political experience (Philpot and Walton Jr. 2007). Altogether, the battery of questions gauge respondents’ perception of women candidates’ traits and political experience considering race, which is held constant by the condition, and formal training. This provides us a more complete understanding of the signal of perceived candidate quality. STUDY 2: IDENTIFYING HOW THE SIGNAL INFLUENCES EVALUATIONS OF BLACK WOMEN CANDIDATES The second study was fielded in October 2022 and replicates the first test while adding additional treatment arms. This study not only tests whether perceived candidate quality can be manipulated by a signal of formal training, but it also examines whether there is an intersectional benefit for Black women by testing the influence of race and gender. The survey experiment consists of three manipulated categories: gender (male, female), race (Black, white), and experience (completed a political leadership program, did not complete a political leadership program). There are a total of eight treatments conditions. The total sample size is 1,991 subjects, and each treatment condition has between ranging from 247-252 respondents per condition. Table 1.2 shows the experimental design. See Table 1.3 in Appendix A for the balance across the treatment groups. 20 Table 1.2: Study 2 Experimental Design Treatment Groups N T1: Black Jessica No Training 248 T2: Black Jessica With Training 252 T3: White Jessica No Training 249 T4: White Jessica With Training 247 T5: Black Jonathan No Training 248 T6: Black Jonathan With Training 249 T7: White Jonathan No Training 247 T8: White Jonathan With Training 251 Respondents were randomly assigned to one of eight conditions. Each condition begins with a vignette that read, “On the next page, you will learn a little bit about a political candidate. Candidates differ with respect to their backgrounds, prior occupations, and previous political experience. Some candidates even participate in political leadership programs. These programs emphasize fundraising, campaign planning, voter outreach, and other skills needed to run for office. We are interested in how you would rate the profiles of the candidate that you will read about next. Please read the profile carefully and answer the questions that follow.” The refined vignette provides all respondents with the same baseline of information about formal training without any language that could possibly penalize those who do not have formal training experience. Like the previous study, each profile features the same race-neutral name determined by census data (Jessica/Jonathan Smith;), age (42), occupation (Accountant), and party (Democrat), as well as the varying categories gender, race, and experience. It was important to add gender to identify whether this signal of perceived candidate quality communicated by the presence of formal training is unique to women. While there are candidate training and political leadership programs for 21 both men and women, previous work finds that women candidate groups focus explicitly on asking women to run for office (Hennings 2011). “The ask” is especially important when recruiting women candidates given they rely on encouragement when making the decision to run (Dittmar 2015). After viewing the candidate profile, respondents are asked “How likely would you be to vote for this candidate?”. This vote choice variable is measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from extremely likely to extremely unlikely. Following the experimental condition, respondents were given a battery of questions designed to examine the influence of race, gender, and political leadership experience on respondent’s perception of additional candidate characteristics. Respondents were asked “How would you rate the candidate on each of the following characteristics? For each one, please indicate how well the attribute describes the candidate.” The dependent variables here are trustworthy, competent, qualified, hardworking, personable, and cares about people like you. Each of the dependent variables are measured on a 5-point Likert scale, ranging from not well at all to extremely well. Like the previous study, consideration for each dependent variable is derived from the gender politics and Black politics literature regarding negative attitudes and stereotypes that hinder women and Black individuals’ success. However, the refined battery allows a more complete understanding of how the signal of perceived candidate quality works here. For example, whereas the previous design asks respondents to evaluate how qualified one may be for a particular office, the question about how qualified one may be for office is general here. Taken together, the synergistic design of these two experimental tests not only establish formal training as a signal of perceived candidate quality but also examine the influence of formal training experience, race, and gender on how other candidate traits are evaluated. ANALYSES AND DISCUSSION I turn now to a discussion of the experimental results across each study. Recall that I expect 22 respondents to evaluate women with formal training experience more positively than those without, suggesting a signal of formal training can influence perceived candidate quality. Furthermore, I expect differential evaluations depending on the woman’s race. The analyses of this experimental data provide some support to my hypotheses. STUDY 1 FORMAL TRAINING MATTERS TO RESPONDENTS Figure 1.1 shows the treatment effects on a) vote choice, b) qualified for state office, c) competent, Figure 1.1: The Role of Race and Candidate Training 23 and d) personable across all respondents. With respect to vote choice, both Black and White Jessica with training are evaluated more positively than the two Jessicas with no training. This difference is statistically significant and supports my expectations. On qualified for state office, the differences between treatment groups are indistinguishable. Respondents do not evaluate White or Black Jessica with training as any more or less qualified for state office than White or Black Jessica without training. The difference between treatment groups on competence and personable are in the right direction but do not approach traditional levels of statistical significance. Both Black and White Jessica with training are evaluated as more competent and personable than their counterparts without training. However, Black Jessica with no training is viewed as less competent and less personable when compared to White Jessica with no training. Taken together, candidate training participation influences the ways in which women candidates are evaluated. While the positive difference on vote choice is the only significant finding, there is something to be said about the null results across the other three variables. The null finding on qualified for state office in particular might suggest candidate training participation is not a qualifications mechanism. In other words, participation alone does not signal candidate quality. However, the significant support for the two “Jessicas with training” on vote choice lends support to my argument that participation gives an additional signal of credibility. Whether this signal of credibility is associated with the values aligned with the missions of the trainings remains to be understood. The null findings on the candidate trait variables, competent and personable, are in some ways aligned with gender politics findings that suggest voters do not like women candidates despite them being significantly more qualified than male candidates (Bauer 2020). RACE MATTERS TOO In Figure 1.2, I consider how the respondent’s own racial background might moderate their orientation to the treatment. This is particularly important for understanding respondents’ 24 Figure 1.2: The Role of Race and Candidate Training Among White Respondents evaluations of Black Jessica treatment groups. In line with initial findings, candidate training participation matters for white and non-white respondents. Black and White Jessica are evaluated more positively than their counterparts without training. This difference is statistically significant among white and non-white respondents. The results on qualified for state office are most interesting here. Among white respondents, the difference between their evaluations of White Jessica with training and White Jessica without training is indistinguishable. However, though not significant, Black Jessica with training is evaluated 25 as less qualified for state office than her counterpart with no training— white respondents penalize Black Jessica with training for participating in candidate trainings. Among non-white respondents, we see the opposite. The difference between their evaluations of White Jessica with training and White Jessica without training is indistinguishable. But Black Jessica with training is evaluated more positively than her counterpart without training, though not statistically significant. They further our understanding of the struggles of Black women candidates endure when trying to build support among white voters. We could argue that this is due to stereotypes and biases which inhibits their success (Hutchings and Valentino 2004; Kinder and Dale-Riddle 2012; Piston et al. 2018). Participating in candidate trainings does not change the negative assumptions these candidates face. Among non-white respondents, both Jessicas with training are evaluated as more competent and personable than their counterpart without training, however, the boost for Black Jessica with training is more evident and approaching significance. This lends some support toward my theory that the credibility signal associated with candidate training means more for Black women candidates. There is some evidence that white respondents evaluate the treatment groups with training more positively than those without, but there is no statistical difference. On competent and personable, white respondents evaluate White Jessica with and without training slightly more positively than the Black Jessica treatment groups though not significant. In comparing between treatment groups, Black Jessica with no training is viewed as less competent and personable when compared to White Jessica with no training among all respondents. These null findings suggest there may be race effects, but more analyses are needed to confirm. STUDY 2 FORMAL TRAINING MATTERS TO RESPONDENTS Like with Study 1, I interpret the results in Study 2 using a difference in means approach. Difference in means measures the absolute difference between the mean value of two or more 26 Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Vote (Among All) 3.4 3.38 DV: Vote 3.2 3.21 3.12 3.11 3 3.04 2.8 2.81 2.90 2.71 2.6 om TE an TE an TE an TE an ,C om ,C m ,C m ,C w om w an ck an te an k an te Bl Whi ac W om a m m Bl w hi w T5 ck T7 te T1 ck te : Bl : Whi : T3 : W a Bl a hi T6 T8 T2 : : : T4 : Treatments 90% confidence intervals DV:Vote ranges from 1 = Extremely Unlikely ... 5 = Extremely Likely Figure 1.3: Mean Difference Between Treatments on DV Vote Choice groups which helps understand how much difference there is between the averages of the treatment groups, and whether these differences are statistically significant. First, I evaluate the mean difference between treatments across the key dependent variables in the aggregate – vote choice, qualified, competent, and personable. 2 Similar differences emerge from the data. Generally, candidate training experience matters, but especially for women, providing support for hypotheses one and two. Figure 1.3 displays the results for vote choice. With respect to vote choice, there are noticeable differences between the women treatments with candidate training experience and those without. The women treatments with candidate training experience (T2 and T4) are evaluated most favorably by respondents. Candidate training experience does seem to matter for the male 2 For brevity I am not looking at every single dependent variable that I queried in the survey. I am focusing on dependent variables that mirror that from study one. 27 treatments, but not to the same degree as it does for the women treatments. The women treatments without training (T1 and T3) are evaluated less favorably than the comparable men treatments (T5 and T7) but benefit the most from candidate training experience. Respondents seem more likely to vote for either Jessica with candidate training experience than either Jonathan with candidate training experience. For the qualified and competent questions (see figure 1.4 and figure 1.5), there are differences across all treatments based on candidate training experience. This seems gendered but not by much. Respondents rated those with candidate training experience are perceived to be more qualified by respondents compared to a candidate of the same race and gender without candidate training experience. Moreover, while those candidates with training experience are perceived to be more competent than their same race/gender counterparts without training, these differences are again more pronounced for female candidates than for male candidates. Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Qualified (Among All) 3.4 3.29 DV: Qualified 3.2 3.17 3.14 3 3.00 2.8 2.78 2.79 2.74 2.6 2.63 2.4 an TE an TE an TE an TE m ,C m ,C m ,C m ,C wo an wo an ck an te an ck m te m Bl m Whi m W a Bl a wo hi wo T5 ck T7 te T1 ck te : Bl : Whi : T3 : W a Bl a hi T6 T8 T2 : : : T4 : Treatments 90% confidence intervals DV: Qualified ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well Figure 1.4: Mean Difference Between Treatments on DV Qualified 28 Competent Competent 3.28 3.15 3.12 3.02 3.03 3.00 2.84 2.89 Figure 1.5: Mean Difference Between Treatments on DV Competent On personable (see figure 1.6), there clear differences among women treatments with candidate training experience (T2 andT4) and those without (T1 and T3), suggesting candidate training experience matters for women. This is also true for the white male treatments. White Jonathan with candidate training experience (T8) is evaluated as more personable than White Jonathan without candidate training experience (T7). What’s interesting is that there are no distinguishable differences in how Black Jonathan with candidate training experience (T6) is evaluated compared to Black Jonathan without candidate training experience (T5). We see this in on vote choice as well (see figure 3). Black Jonathan does not seem to receive the same boost from candidate training experience as the other treatment groups. Taken together, candidate training experience matters. The treatment groups with candidate training experience were evaluated more favorably than those without. However, this finding is mostly gendered. This trait greatly benefited both white and Black Jessica but not always Black 29 Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Personable (Among All) 3.4 DV: Personable 3.21 3.2 3.0 3.0 3.0 6 6 6 3.01 3 2.9 6 2.8 2.8 2.8 7 5 2.6 an TE an TE an TE m TE m ,C m ,C m ,C an ,C wo an wo an k an te an k ac W ac m te m Bl m hi m Bl wo Whi wo T5 k T7 te k : ac : W T1 ac T3 te Bl hi : Bl : Whi T6 : T8 : T2 : T4 : Treatments 90% confidence intervals DV: Personable ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well Figure 1.6: Mean Difference Between Treatments on DV Personable Jonathan. Moreover, the women treatments were consistently evaluated less favorably comparted to the men treatments. Candidate training experience has a noticeable impact on how the women treatments were evaluated. These findings offer some support to hypotheses one and two which suggest training matters but especially among women. Furthermore, these same relationships existed even among all subgroups. See the Appendix A for the figures. One important subgroup perspective to examine is that of Democrats and Republicans respondents. Candidate training and political leadership programs tend to be recruit Democratic, Pro-Choice woman or Republican, Pro-Life woman, but there are more options for the former (Kreitzer and Osborn 2019). Further, recent research found that such programs could be especially helpful for Republican women due to party leaders and elites general lack of support for women (Carson 2022). 30 Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Vote (Among Republicans) 3 DV: Vote 2.5 2 1.5 an TE an TE an TE an TE m ,C m ,C m ,C m ,C wo an wo an ac an te an ac te k Whi k m W m Bl m m Bl wo hi wo T5 ac T7 te ac te : k : Whi T1 : k T3 Bl Bl : Whi T6 T8 T2 : : : T4 : Treatments 90% confidence intervals DV:Vote ranges from 1 = Extremely Unlikely ... 5 = Extremely Likely Figure 1.7: Mean Difference Between Treatments on DV Vote Choice Among Republican Respondents Among Republican respondents on vote choice (see figure 1.7), both Black and white Jessica with candidate training experience (T2 and T4) are evaluated more positively than their counterparts without candidate training experience (T1 and T3). This suggests candidate training matter for women. Republican respondents are more likely to vote for the Jessicas with training. Neither Black nor white Jonathan receive a boost from candidate training experience. To the contrary, it seems that Black Jonathan with candidate training experience is penalized. Republican respondents are less likely to vote for Black Jonathan with candidate training experience (T6) than Black Jonathan without training (T5). Findings among Democratic Respondents on vote choice mirrored the aggregate (see figure 1.8). Generally, candidate training experience matters. Each treatment group with candidate training experience were evaluated more positively than those without. However, it does seem that the 31 Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Vote (Among Democrats) 4 DV: Vote 3.5 3 an TE om TE an TE an TE om ,C an ,C m ,C m ,C w w k te k om te om ac an W an ac an W an Bl m hi m Bl w hi w T5 k ac T7 te T1 k te : : Whi : ac T3 : W Bl Bl hi T6 : T8 T2 T4 : : : Treatments 90% confidence intervals DV:Vote ranges from 1 = Extremely Unlikely ... 5 = Extremely Likely Figure 1.8: Mean Difference Between Treatments on DV Vote Among Democrat Respondents women received more of a boost than males. Taken together, Democratic respondents are more likely to vote for either Jessica or Jonathan with candidate training experience. Ultimately, findings among Republican and Democratic respondents suggest formal training could be beneficial for women interested in running for office, especially Republican women and women who are historically oppressed like Black women. Black Jonathan not receiving a boost from candidate training experience and being penalized is of particular interest to me. On one hand, I suspect that respondents who are knowledgeable about these programs associate them with women’s recruiting groups thus the Black male treatments are facing a sort of gendered backlash. On the other hand, it remains an open question whether Black male treatments are being penalized due to racial stereotypes. Recent research finds that Black candidates are less likely to receive support from white voters because they are viewed as incompetent or ideologically extreme (Visalvanich 2017). Stereotypes as such could be being reinforced as respondents are evaluating the 32 Black Jonathan conditions. More research is necessary to pinpoint what is happening, but it is an interesting and unexpected finding. CONCLUSION Overall, findings show candidate training matters for women candidates and lend support to my theoretical argument that perceived candidate quality can be manipulated by a signal of formal training. Voters, holding negative attitudes and stereotypes about Black women, limit Black women candidates’ ability to garner broad support. But perceived candidate quality gained from association with candidate trainings improves their electoral chances. The signal of perceived candidate quality from formal training may especially be helpful in attracting nonwhite voters. Nonwhite respondents perceived alumnae more positively across all outcome variables in study 1, this was especially the case for Black Jessica treatment groups. The findings suggest formal training legitimize Black women candidates for nonwhite respondents. This was the case among white voters on vote choice in the first empirical test, but not as apparent for the other outcome variables. Further analyses are necessary to understand if there are other conditions that will signal credibility through along with participation. For instance, maybe other qualifications mechanisms such as issue positions or previous experience should be included in the next iteration of the study. Study 2 emphasized the ways in which formal training can be helpful for women generally. While all respondents with candidate training experience were evaluated more positively, this was especially the case for the women treatment groups regardless of race. Men did not seem to receive the same boost, especially Black men who were penalized on some dependent variables for their participation in candidate training. Ultimately, both experimental tests provide support for two of the three hypotheses. If participation in candidate trainings allow Black women to better appeal to the mass 33 electorate, they can possibly enhance their probability of becoming viable candidates which attract party and donor support. More Black women than Black men have been elected in recent years (W. Smooth 2010), however, Black women still struggle getting elected. Candidate training programs can be used as a tool to appeal to more voters despite professional credentials or experience. This research provides a picture of how formal training experience affects candidate evaluation adding to burgeoning gender politics scholarship about the role of these programs. These results also add to a growing literature about Black women’s political experiences. As Black women continue to pursue office at unprecedented rates, it is important that we understand their candidacies, the barriers they face on their path to office, and the ways in which they represent, not only women and Black Americans but all marginalized groups with whom they share similar experiences. 34 CHAPTER 3: UNPACKING VOTERS’ PREFERENCES ABOUT CANDIDATE TRAINING PROGRAMS 35 INTRODUCTION Despite their long history, candidate training programs have had a renewed resurgence in recent years. Emerge America’s recent efforts capture the essence of this. Their leadership team has appeared at events like the National Democratic Party’s Women’s Leadership Forum Conference to discuss their programs – which include their signature six-month training, as well as their more specialized programs like Gavel In, a program for women interested in judicial roles, and Seated Together, a program for Black women elected officials interested in running for higher office. Emerge America has also used their broad social media reach to organize live forums and trainings for women interested in running for office. The moves of Emerge America demonstrate an effort to fortify the organization’s relationships with political elites and expand their recruiting reach to the masses by removing barriers for women to participate. President of Emerge America, A’shanti Gholar, stated in an interview with the While Black Podcast in November 20223 that of the 5000 women Emerge America has trained, over 1000 women are currently holding office. Notable among their alumnae is Congresswoman Lucy McBath. Though the efforts of organizations like Emerge America and their current successes are on display, we know little about voter preferences toward these programs in general, and more specifically, toward candidates with and without training program experience. As chapter one demonstrated through two survey experiments, fictional candidates with and without training program experience are evaluated differentially by survey respondents, particularly when it comes to gender (Dickinson 2023a). The results show that when it comes to vote choice, candidate training significantly shapes whether respondents would cast a ballot for a Black and White woman candidate but appears to matter far less in improving the odds that respondents would cast a ballot for a Black or even White male candidate. This is a noteworthy finding, but what remains unknown 3 https://emergeamerica.org/teach-me-how-to-politic-w-ashanti-gholar/ 36 is the substantive effect of candidate training program participation compared to other attributes that voters evaluate in the ballot box. In other words, which factors matter to voters casting a ballot for a candidate and how do these characteristics vary in importance to voters? Given this remaining gap, I address the following research question: How does the candidate training characteristic influence voters’ preferences for a candidate? I argue that the candidate training characteristic influences voters in this study to evaluate candidates as more qualified, more committed to understanding and finding solutions for issues they face, more likely to receive their neighbor’s vote, and more likely to receive their vote. The presence of the candidate training characteristic acts as a cue to voters about the candidate’s political background and electability which benefits candidates when they are being evaluated. Specifically, this chapter explores the extent to which voters evaluate candidate training programs in the abstract by analyzing a large public opinion dataset, and then turns to a conjoint experiment to assess whether these findings extend when prospective voters are given more information about a candidate, such as candidate race, gender, prior employment, candidate training background, and prior political experience. The results for this chapter shed light on how candidate training experience can matter to voters and help candidates get elected. I begin by turning to the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (CMPS) which is unique insofar as it includes large oversamples of racial and ethnic minorities. I was able to add a question to this dataset which asked voters to evaluate how important candidate training experience is to their electoral evaluations of candidates. Here, I find a great deal of variation in respondents who appreciate candidate participation in these programs. Without being prompted about other candidate characteristics or being asked to rank how different attributes, when respondents are simply asked to indicate how much they value this experience, I find that white respondents value candidate training experience less than their Black, Asian, and Latino counterparts. 37 The results from the 2020 CMPS also reveal that these stark racial differences extend even to partisan subgroups. Non-white Republicans, non-white Democrats, and non-white Independents across the board indicate they prefer candidates who have participated in these programs, while white respondents do not prefer candidates who have participated in these programs. The only non- white group that sometimes mirrors white respondents are respondents who indicate their race is “other.” Next, I turn to a conjoint experiment fielded on the 2022 Cooperative Election Study (CES) survey to evaluate how voters actually value candidate training experience when also provided with information on other candidate attributes known to shape voter evaluations. Together, this conjoint experiment enables me to evaluate how race, ethnicity, gender, job experience, candidate training experience, and political experience all factor into voters’ evaluations and assess the extent to which candidate training experience shapes these preferences more or less than these other attributes. Across the board, for every subgroup, and for every dependent variable examined, I find all respondents value candidate training experience as a characteristic. What’s more, candidate training experience is often the most important candidate characteristic shaping voter’s evaluations, with large substantive effect sizes. It is only among minority respondents that race, and candidate training experience seem to equally matter in shaping voter evaluations. Surprisingly, several candidate characteristics did not have a large effect on voter evaluations, as previously identified in the extant literature. For instance, candidates with working class backgrounds and previous political experience are not preferred. Female candidates are at times more preferred than male candidates, but this result is largely inconclusive. Across every dependent variable but one, respondents indicate that they prefer minority candidates more than or as much as white candidates: respondents consistently indicated that Black and Latinx candidates would not garner support from their neighbors. 38 Together, these two sets of findings expand our understanding of the value that voters attribute to candidate training programs and the ways in which they shape voters’ preferences. Voters strongly prefer candidate training experience which suggest the characteristic could be helpful for candidates seeking public office, especially minority and women candidates who often face an uphill battle. REVIEW OF RELEVANT LITERATURE VOTERS BIASES AND THEIR IMPACT ON CANDIDATE EVALUATIONS In race, ethnicity, and gender politics, scholars have examined stereotypes voters hold about women and minority candidates in an effort to understand why both are underrepresented in American politics. Generally, stereotypes that influence women and minority candidates are in regard to traits, ideology, partisanship, or policy positions. For Black candidates, voters view them as compassionate and empathetic but incompetent (Sigelman et al. 1995). Previous research has found white voters stereotype Black candidates as more liberal and Democratic than white candidates (Karl and Ryan 2016; Lerman and Sadin 2016; McDermott 1998). Voters perceive Black candidates as most capable to address racial issues such as welfare and unemployment (Schneider and Bos 2011b). There is some evidence that Black candidates can overcome this by providing some information about their ideology (Karl and Ryan 2016). Still, it is difficult to overcome white voter’s assumption that they will solely support minorities and their issues (Schneider and Bos 2011b). These findings taken together highlight the ways in which stereotyping hinders Black candidates from gaining support from the broader electorate. This extends to Latinx candidates in some instances as well. Latinx candidates are stereotyped as unambitious and uneducated (Eagly and Chin 2010; Gershon and Lavariega Monforti 2021; Ghavami and Peplau 2013; Madon et al. 2001; Niemann et al. 1994). Continually, Latinx candidates are stereotyped as more liberal and Democratic than white candidates (Jones 2014; McDermott 1998). As it relates to gender stereotypes, Huddy and Terkildsen (1993) found that voters associate 39 women candidates with feminine characteristics because of assumptions about gender roles. Women tend to care for the children and take care of the home so characteristics such as being warm, empathetic, and kind are assumed (Deaux 1984). Other research supports this, finding women are stereotyped as possessing such feminine traits more than men candidates (Alexander and Andersen 1993; Banwart 2010; Bauer 2015a; K. Dolan 2010). Rather, men are thought to have masculine traits such as being competent, intelligent, and strong and effective leaders (Alexander and Andersen 1993; Fox and Lawless 2004; Huddy and Terkildsen 1993a; Lawless 2004; Leeper 1991; Sapiro 1981). Women candidates are seen as more liberal, Democratic, and feminist than men (Huddy and Terkildsen 1993a; McDermott 1997). Further, voters perceive women to care more about issues like education, health care, poverty, and civil rights than issues like war and terrorism (Alexander and Andersen 1993; Huddy and Terkildsen 1993a, 1993b; Koch 2002). Some research suggests the effects of racial and gender bias voters exhibit due to stereotypes are waning. Women candidates are just as likely to win when they run for public office (K. A. Dolan 2014; Lawless and Pearson 2008; Smith and Fox 2001). Further, women who lose in close elections are just as likely as men to run for office again later (Bernhard and de Benedictis-Kessner 2021). In terms of racial bias, it does not influence candidate evaluations as decisively as before – other traits matter when voters are deciding who to support (Abrajano and Alvarez 2005; Bateson 2020; Highton 2004; Juenke and Shah 2016; Mas and Moretti 2009). Minority candidates does indeed have challenges, but voters do not solely rely upon racial characteristics when evaluating candidates so they can garner support in other ways. It is important that we understand how biases influence the ways in which voters assess candidates. Previous research shows that voters use cues and assumptions as shortcuts to assess candidates (Conover and Feldman 1989; Kam 2005; Lupia 1994; Popkin 1994; Rahn 1993). This is especially true in low information elections due to the lack of party labels (Alexander and Andersen 40 1993; Matson and Fine 2006; McDermott 1997, 1998). Party and ideology are the most relied upon (Popkin 1994; Rahn 1993). In the absence of party and ideology, voters may rely upon race (Karl and Ryan 2016; McDermott 1998; Philpot and Miller 2020; Terkildsen 1993), gender (Huddy and Terkildsen 1993a; McDermott 1998; Sanbonmatsu and Dolan 2009; Schneider 2014), or class (Carnes and Lupu 2016; Carnes and Sadin 2015) cues. EVIDENCE FROM CONJOINT CANDIDATE CHOICE EXPERIMENTS In addition to turning to observational data, scholars interested in voters’ candidate preferences and characteristics that improve candidates’ electability have pushed the field forward by turning to experimental designs, such as candidate choice conjoint experiments. Much of what we know about candidate evaluations through conjoint design examine whether voters will support candidates based on various characteristics. Party signals and prior political experience: Kirkland and Coppock (2018) conducted a conjoint experiment using a nationally representative and convenience sample to examine what characteristics voters rely upon when party labels are not present. Their findings show that when party information is not included, Republicans rely upon job experience when evaluating candidates while Democrats rely upon political experience. Ultimately, they find that voters from both parties prefer an experienced candidate with a background in politics (Kirkland and Coppock 2018). Gender: Schwarz and Coppock (2022) apply a comprehensive approach to reanalyze conjoint studies about how gender influences voters’ support of women candidates. Among men and women respondents, the effect of gender is positive. However, there is a more positive effect among women respondents. All respondents will support a woman candidate, but women respondents especially. (Schwarz and Coppock 2022). Their findings also show that Democrats and Independents will support a woman candidate, but Republicans likely will not. Class and work experience: Carnes and Lupu (2016) apply the conjoint design to explore 41 whether voters dislike working class candidates. Their findings show that across the United States, Britain, and Argentina voters view working class candidates as equally qualified, more relatable, and just as likely to receive votes. Their findings suggest voters will support working class candidates. Candidate race: Recent work also examines how voter’s perceptions of others beliefs influence how women and minority candidates are evaluated. Doherty, Dowling, and Miller (2019) conducted a national survey that featured a conjoint experiment of local party chairs to investigate how they view minority and women candidate’s likelihood of winning state level elections. They find local party chairs feel women are just as likely, and in some instances slightly more likely, to win the support of their base than men. On the contrary, they feel Black and Latinx candidates are less likely to win the support of their base. This is true for both Democrat and Republican chairs. They feel minority candidates struggle to be seen as viable candidates. Local party chairs’ perceptions of who can win influences who they choose to recruit and support which may lead them to recruit and support Black and Latinx candidates much less (Doherty, Dowling, and Miller 2019). Extant scholarship has also found that voter attributes also shape support for perspective candidates running for political office. Heterogeneous treatment effects can show us whether respondent subgroups evaluate candidate characteristics differently. Research especially has pointed to gender, party, and race as important respondent factors shaping candidate evaluations, particularly through experimental studies. Bateson (2020) offers strategic discrimination as a way to understand why women candidates and candidates of color struggle to obtain support from the broader electorate. They define strategic discrimination as occurring when an individual hesitates to support a candidate because they are concerned that others will not support a candidate because of the candidate’s identity (Bateson 2020). They rely upon three experiments and find that strategic discrimination is at play. The first experiment’s results are intersectional, finding that white males are considered more electable than 42 equally qualified Black and white women and Black men to a smaller extent. Black women considered less electable than Black men and white women. The second experiment was conducted during the 2020 Democratic presidential primary. Findings show that when primed to think about the strategic importance of male and white voters, respondents evaluate Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris as significantly less likely to beat Donald Trump in 2020. These findings suggest anti- Trump respondents consider race and gender when deciding who is most capable of defeating Trump. Results from experiment three find that discouraging strategic discrimination and attempting to change respondent’s misconceptions of other’s biases does not change how respondent’s evaluate women and minority candidates. Ultimately, (Bateson 2020) finds evidence that voter’s support candidates for strategic reasons not because of their true preferences. Taken together, scholars have explored how race, ethnicity, gender, class, job experience, and political experience may influence voter’s candidate preferences. Research also show us that it matters what voter’s think of their peer’s preferences. I extend our understanding of voters’ preferences to include perceptions of candidate training as a characteristic. Because of challenges faced by women and minority candidates, it is important to understand how various characteristics can help them garner support from voters. Candidate training participation is a characteristic among those with the potential to help voters. CANDIDATE TRAINING AS A CANDIDATE CHARACTERISTIC Scholars interested in candidate training programs have taken a comprehensive approach to understand how many programs there are and what they do (Kreitzer and Osborn 2019a; J. S. Scott 2018). Kreitzer and Osborn (2019a) find there are over 600 women’s candidate recruitment groups across the United States. These groups recruit, train, and occasionally fund women interested in running for office. These groups tend to recruit a Democratic, pro-choice woman, or a Republican, pro-life woman to participate in their candidate trainings (Kreitzer and Osborn 2019b). These 43 trainings cover various topics focused on training women to run successful campaigns such as fundraising, campaign planning, voter outreach, and media training (J. S. Scott 2018). Further, women’s recruitment groups and the trainings they host tend to offer participants a strong network (Sanbonmatsu 2015a). There is some evidence that participating in these programs influence women’s political behaviors as well. Jamil Scott's (2018) work examining candidate emergence shows women who participate in candidate training are more likely to emerge as a candidate after participating in the candidate training than women who did not participate. Other work has found candidate training program participation increase women’s confidence and interest in running for office (Burrell 2010; Sanbonmatsu, Carroll, and Walsh 2009; Sanbonmatsu and Dittmar 2020; Schneider and Sweet- Cushman 2020). Though we know how a bit about the innerworkings of candidate training programs as well as its influence on women’s political behavior, we know little about the influence of candidate training program participation on voter’s candidate preferences. While research on candidate training programs focus on those put on by women’s recruiting groups, there are others with various focuses. Organizations such as colleges and universities put on nonpartisan programs that recruit, train, and support both men and women. For example, the Sorensen Institute for Political Leadership at the University of Virginia hosts a candidate training program that is bipartisan in nature and accepts men and women.4 The primary requirement is that individuals are interested in running for office or working on campaigns. On the other hand, interest groups put on candidate training programs to recruit, train, and support individuals whose interests aligns with theirs. For instance, the Victory Institute provides bipartisan candidate training for LGBTQ+ individuals interested in running for office and representing their interests.5 Their notable 4 https://sorenseninstitute.org/programs/ctp 5 https://victoryinstitute.org/trainings/candidate-campaign-trainings/ 44 alumni is Jared Polis, Governor of Colorado. While more research is needed to understand the impact of candidate training on candidate emergence and political behavior, it is necessary to also seek to understand its impact on electoral outcomes. My approach to this is by examining voters’ preferences considering the candidate training characteristic some candidates may possess. In this chapter, I ask: how does the candidate training “characteristic” influence voters’ preferences for a candidate? I argue that the candidate training characteristic influences voters in this study to evaluate candidates as more qualified, more committed to understanding and finding solutions for issues they face, more likely to receive their neighbor’s vote, and more likely to receive their vote. The presence of the candidate training characteristic acts as a cue to voters about the candidate’s political background and electability which benefits candidates when they are being evaluated. Previous research finds that communicating an ability to win through political background may improve diverse candidates ability to garner support from the broader electorate (Bateson 2020; Philpot and Walton Jr. 2007). I expect the candidate training participation cue to operate in that way. I lay out my hypotheses below. Hypothesis 1: Respondents will prefer candidates with candidate training. will have a positive effect on how respondents evaluate candidates with training backgrounds. In the proceeding sections, I discuss the observational study and conjoint experimental design which I rely upon to examine the influence of candidate training as a characteristic. DATA AND METHODOLOGY How does the candidate training characteristic influence voters’ preferences for a candidate? I turn to data from two surveys to address this. STUDY 1: ASSESSING VOTERS’ PREFERENCES USING OBSERVATIONAL DATA In study one, I rely upon to the 2020 Collaborative Multiracial Post-Election Survey (referred to as CMPS), which has large oversamples of racial and ethnic minorities. The study was fielded online 45 in a respondent self-administered format from April to October 2021. The total sample size is 17,556. To examine who among voters appreciate candidate training experience as a trait, I ask the following question: “Which of the following traits do you prefer in a candidate you might support?” Respondents are asked to answer this using a three-point Likert scale with 1 indicating do not prefer, 2 indicating prefer moderately, and 3 indicating prefer a great deal. The candidate characteristic variables here are shares my race, shares my gender, devoted to their religion, young, working-class background, wealthy/rich, has experience, is a newcomer to politics, endorsements from interest groups I support, and candidate training experience. The dependent variable I am most concerned with is candidate training experience. Though this observational study gives us some understanding of voter’s feelings about candidate training as a characteristic, it is limited insofar as it does not allow us to examine how individuals rate candidate training experience alongside other traits. The conjoint design featured in study two allows me to accomplish this. STUDY 2: ASSESSING VOTERS’ PREFERENCES USING CONJOINT EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN While experiments are ideal for internal validity, traditional survey experiment designs aiming to examine voters’ preferences are limited. They do not quite reflect real elections. Conjoint experiments allow scholars to choose between one of two hypothetical candidates with multiple, varying characteristics, like a real election, and ensures those characteristics are not confounding (Hainmueller, Hangartner, and Yamamoto 2015; Hainmueller, Hopkins, and Yamamoto 2014). This makes it ideal for understanding voters’ preferences. In study two, I rely upon a conjoint experiment fielded on the 2022 Cooperative Election Study (referred to as CES) to unpack how important candidate training experience is relative other characteristics previously known to influence voter preferences. The survey was administered by 46 YouGov from September to November 2022. The survey was administered to 836 respondents, with each respondent randomized into evaluating 3 pairs of fictional candidate profiles, resulting in a total of 5,016 observations. In this conjoint candidate choice experiment, I asked respondents to evaluate three sets of candidate pairs. At the start of each candidate pair, respondents are asked to consider two hypothetical candidates from their own party for city council.6 Given previous work which finds party as a cue voters tend to rely on when making decisions about who to support (Popkin 1994; Rahn 1993), I offset its impact by ensuring the candidate’s party affiliation matched the respondent’s. Respondents were shown a grid of two hypothetical candidates with five varied characteristics: gender (man, woman), race/ethnicity (white, Black, Latinx), job experience (lawyer, retail worker), candidate training experience (none, participated in a three week training program for people interested in running for office, participated in a six month program for people interested in running for office), and political experience (served on the local school board, volunteers for local charities and nonprofits). These characteristics are randomly varied independently which allows me to measure the independent effect of each characteristic (Hainmueller, Hopkins, and Yamamoto 2014). After considering the set of hypothetical candidates, respondents were asked to evaluate five dependent variables: “Which candidate would you guess that: (1) you would be more likely to vote for? (2) your neighbors would be more likely to vote for? (3) better understands the problems facing people like you? (4) is more qualified for elected office? (5) is more capable of finding the solution for the problems facing people like you? Respondents are asked to repeat this task two additional times. Each set up the same way. This allows me to maximize the number of observations in the study. 6 Democrats saw hypothetical candidates who were Democrat. Republicans saw hypothetical candidates who were Republican. Independents who leaned toward one of the parties saw the party they leaned toward. Party label was omitted for Independents who did not lean toward either party. 47 Ultimately, I am most interested in the influence of candidate training experience relative to other traits that previous work has found to influence voters’ preferences. The five questions proceeding the grid allow me to measure the effect of candidate training experience on other important aspects of voters’ preferences. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION STUDY 1: DEMOCRATS AND MINORITY VOTERS WANT CANDIDATE TRAINING To begin, I start by analyzing the CMPS data. Respondents were asked to evaluate how they would rate candidate training experience. The variable is measured as do not prefer (-1), moderately prefer (0), and prefer a great deal (1). Figure 2.1 displays these averages across the sample by race and partisanship. Overall, the results indicate that Latino Black and Asian respondents – no matter their partisan stripes – are more likely Candidate Training Experience Preferences By Race and Party Candidate Trait: Candidate Training Experience (mean) 0.20 0.14 0.12 0.12 0.11 0.11 0.09 0.04 0.03 -.1 0 .1 .2 0.01 -0.00 -0.02 -0.03 -0.09 -0.10 Whi tin o k ac n ia e ac Whi tin o k ac n ia e ac Whi o tin k ac n ia e ac te La Bl As rR te La Bl As rR te La Bl As rR Oth Oth Oth e e e an t ra rty lic oc Pa ub em er ep D nt R /O th de en ep In d Source: CMPS 2021. Note: Variable is measured -1 = Do not prefer, 0 = Moderately Prefer, 1 = Prefer a great deal Figure 2.1: Candidate Training Experience Preferences by Race and Party 48 to indicate that they prefer candidate training backgrounds compared to their white counterparts. At times, respondents belonging to other racial groups mirrored White respondents, but this finding is less robust. Among Republican and Democrat respondents, Latinx, Black, and Asian respondents more than moderately prefer candidate training experience. While white respondents across all parties trend toward not preferring candidate training experience, it is Black and Latinx Democrats who prefer candidate training experience the most. Taken together, these findings indicate the candidate training experience characteristic may be especially beneficial for those interested in gaining support among Democrats and minority voters. It may be less beneficial for candidates looking to gain support from White voters. STUDY 2: VOTERS VALUE CANDIDATE TRAINING AS A “CHARACTERISTIC” I next turn the conjoint study I fielded on the 2022 CES. Table 2.1 below delineates the list of attributes and their randomly varied levels that respondents were randomized into: As described in the data and methods section, respondents evaluated five dependent variables after exposure to each of the randomly varied two sets of profiles that they were exposed to. In these analyses, I calculate the Average Component Marginal Effect (ACME) for each dependent variable for the entire sample, among partisan groups, and among racial groups. ACME shows the expected change in the evaluation of a candidate profile when a given characteristic is compared to the baseline (Hainmueller, Hopkins, and Yamamoto 2014; Vecchiato and Munger 2021). The baseline characteristic is excluded and conveyed in the figure as a dot on the Y-axis. 49 Table 2.1: List of Attributes and Their Randomly Varied Levels Attribute Randomly Varied Attribute Levels Candidate Gender 1. Male 2. Female Candidate Race 1. White 2. Latinx 3. Black Candidate Job Experience 1. Lawyer 2. Retail Worker Candidate Training Background 1. None 2. 6-month training program 3. 3-week training program Prior Political Experience 1. Volunteers at a local charity 2. Local school board member VOTE CHOICE Figure 2.2 presents the varying characteristics influence on vote choice. In the aggregate, candidate training experience has large substantive and positive effect on vote choice. Race/ethnicity also has a positive effect on vote choice. Respondents are more likely to vote for a Black or Latinx candidate than a white candidate. Gender has a slightly positive effect; respondents are slightly more likely to vote for a woman candidate than a man candidate. Neither job experience nor political experience influence vote choice. Turning to subgroups, more variation is present: among, whites, Republicans and Independents, candidate training background had the largest effect size, though for Democrats and minority respondent’s candidate training experience and candidate race were equally important in shaping voting evaluations. Other results are important of note as well. Among white respondents, gender and race/ethnicity has a slightly positive effect on vote choice. White respondents are slightly more 50 ACME: Vote Choice - All Respondents ACME: Vote Choice - Among Whites ACME: Vote Choice - Among Minority Respondents Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Man Man Man Woman Woman Woman Candidate Race Candidate Race Candidate Race White White White Latinx Latinx Latinx Black Black Black Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Retail Worker Retail Worker Retail Worker Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background None None None 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Local School Board Local School Board Local School Board -.2 0 .2 .4 -.2 0 .2 .4 -.2 0 .2 .4 ACME: Vote Choice - Among Democrats ACME: Vote Choice - Among Republicans ACME: Vote Choice - Among Independents Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Man Man Man Woman Woman Woman Candidate Race Candidate Race Candidate Race White White White Latinx Latinx Latinx Black Black Black Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Retail Worker Retail Worker Retail Worker Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background None None None 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Local School Board Local School Board Local School Board -.2 0 .2 .4 -.2 0 .2 .4 -.2 0 .2 .4 Figure 2.2: ACME Results for DV: Vote Choice Among All Respondents and Subgroups likely to vote for a woman candidate than a man candidate. Also, white respondents are slightly more likely to vote for a Black or Latinx candidate than a white candidate. Candidate training experience has a strong positive effect on vote choice among white respondents. Candidates with six-month and three-week candidate training are strongly preferred over candidates with none. Six- month candidate training experience is strongly preferred over all other traits among white respondents. Among minority respondents, race/ethnicity and candidate training experience both have a strong positive effect on vote choice. Respondents are more likely to vote for Black or Latinx candidates than white candidates with Black candidates being most preferred. Continually, minority respondents prefer candidates with candidate training experience. Minority respondents are more likely to vote for candidate with six-month or three-week candidate training experience than 51 candidates with none. While both have strong positive effects on vote choice, race/ethnicity matters more than candidate training. Among Democrat respondents, race/ethnicity and candidate training experience have strong effects on vote choice. Candidates who are Black or candidates with six-month candidate training experience are most preferred among Democrats. Also, gender has a strong positive impact on vote choice; Democrats are more likely to vote for a woman candidate than a man candidate. Among Republicans, prior political experience has a slightly positive effect. Republicans are more likely to vote for candidates who served on the local school board than candidates who volunteers with local charities. Prior political experience is important to Republicans. Moreover, gender has no effect among Republican respondents. There is no preference for women candidates among Republican respondents. Race/ethnicity has some influence on vote choice. Republican respondents are more likely to vote for a Black candidate than a white candidate but are less likely to vote for a Latinx candidate over a white candidate. Candidate training experience has a strong positive effect on vote choice among Republicans. Candidates with six-month candidate training experience are strongly preferred over all other traits among Republicans. Preferences among Independents are consistent with that of the aggregate. Gender and race/ethnicity have a slightly positive effect on vote choice. Candidate training experience has a strong positive influence on vote choice. And prior political experience and job experience have no effect. What remains consistent across all subgroups is that candidate training has a strong positive influence on vote choice. All respondents care about candidate training and prefer that a candidate has it over none at all. This supports my expectations. This is especially interesting given how little of an effect prior political experience and job experience have on respondents’ preferences. Respondents prefer candidate training over the typical variables which signal competency and 52 electability. NEIGHBOR’S VOTE CHOICE Figure 2.3 presents the ACME results for neighbor’s vote choice. This dependent variable allows respondents to shed the responsibility of discriminating, and instead indicate how their neighbors – and not themselves – would evaluate said candidates. Strikingly, these results indicate that while respondents do not appear to discriminate against minorities themselves, as seen in Figure 2.2, the results consistently show that among all respondents and among every subgroup examined, that there is an expectation that one’s neighbors would discriminate against minority candidates. In contrast, and perhaps surprisingly, across the board, respondents indicate that candidate training background is a characteristic and trait that their neighbors would largely prefer over other randomly varied attributes. More specifically and in the aggregate, gender and race/ethnicity have a negative effect on respondent’s perception of who their neighbors would vote for. Respondents are less likely to believe their neighbor’s will vote for a woman candidate over a man candidate. Continually, ACME: Neighbor Vote Preference - All Respondents ACME: Neighbor Vote Preference - Among Whites ACME: Neighbor Vote Preference - Among Minority Respondents Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Man Man Man Woman Woman Woman Candidate Race Candidate Race Candidate Race White White White Latinx Latinx Latinx Black Black Black Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Retail Worker Retail Worker Retail Worker Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background None None None 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Local School Board Local School Board Local School Board -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 ACME: Neighbor Vote Preference - Among Democrats ACME: Neighbor Vote Preference - Among Republicans ACME: Neighbor Vote Preference - Among Independents Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Man Man Man Woman Woman Woman Candidate Race Candidate Race Candidate Race White White White Latinx Latinx Latinx Black Black Black Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Retail Worker Retail Worker Retail Worker Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background None None None 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Local School Board Local School Board Local School Board -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 Figure 2.3: ACME Results for DV: Neighbor's Choice Among All Respondents and Subgroups 53 respondents are strongly less likely to believe their neighbor’s will vote to support a Black or Latinx candidate over a white candidate. Black candidates are especially disadvantaged here. Job experience also has a negative effect on respondent’s perception of their neighbor’s preferences. Respondents are less likely to believe their neighbors will vote for a retail worker over a lawyer. Respondents believe prior political experience will influence their neighbor’s preferences. They are slightly more likely to believe their neighbors will vote for a candidate who served on the local school board over a candidate who volunteers with local charities. These findings hold when you look among subgroups. Candidate training experience and prior political experience have positive effects on voter’s perceptions of their neighbor’s preference. Candidate trainings have the most positive influence, supporting my expectations. On the other hand, gender, race/ethnicity, and job experience have a negative influence on voter’s perception of their neighbor’s preferences. Respondents do not believe their neighbors will vote for a woman candidate, Black or Latinx candidate, or a working-class candidate. This these findings are especially interesting when you juxtapose the influence of varied characteristics on neighbor’s vote choice with their influence on vote choice. Though most respondents will vote for a woman or minority candidate, they do not believe their neighbor’s will do the same. Furthermore, respondents believe their neighbor’s value prior political experience, but it does not influence their own preferences very much. Such differences call into question whether respondents will vote according to their own preferences in real elections, especially contentious elections that feature a diverse candidate. These findings support Bateson's (2020) findings and suggest that voters may not vote according to their own preferences but strategically with considerations about the candidate’s ability to garner support from others based on other’s feelings about their gender or identity. There is not direct support, but such differences indicate that voters’ preferences largely differ from their perception of other’s preferences. On the other hand, such differences make me wonder whether 54 there is some sort of desire to appear unbiased showing up in how respondents are evaluating whether they would vote for a candidate that does not extend to their perception of their neighbor’s preferences. Particularly, when considering a candidate’s gender and race/ethnicity identity. BETTER UNDERSTANDS PROBLEMS FACING PEOPLE LIKE YOU Figure 2.4 presents the varying characteristics influence on respondent’s belief a candidate would better understand the problems facing people like them. Across the board, candidate training experience continues to have a large and substantive positive impact on shaping voter responses to this question. For all respondents and for most subgroups, in fact, it has the largest substantive effect size (apart from Democrats and minority respondents, who also weigh candidate race just as similarly important). In the aggregate, many of the examined characteristics have a significant and positive effect. Respondents are slightly more likely to believe a woman better understands problems they are ACME: Cand Understands Your Probs - All Respondents ACME: Cand Understands Your Probs - Among Whites ACME: Cand Understands Your Probs - Among Minority Respondents Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Man Man Man Woman Woman Woman Candidate Race Candidate Race Candidate Race White White White Latinx Latinx Latinx Black Black Black Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Retail Worker Retail Worker Retail Worker Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background None None None 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Local School Board Local School Board Local School Board -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 ACME: Cand Understands Your Probs - Among Democrats ACME: Cand Understands Your Probs - Among Republicans ACME: Cand Understands Your Probs - Among Independents Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Man Man Man Woman Woman Woman Candidate Race Candidate Race Candidate Race White White White Latinx Latinx Latinx Black Black Black Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Retail Worker Retail Worker Retail Worker Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background None None None 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Local School Board Local School Board Local School Board -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 -.2 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 Figure 2.4: ACME Results for DV Better Understands Problems Among All Respondents and Subgroups 55 facing, and they are more likely to believe a Black or Latinx candidate better understands problems they are facing. Job experience has a positive effect; respondents believe a retail better understands problems they are facing than a lawyer. Prior political experience has a slightly negative effect; respondents are slightly less likely to believe a candidate who served on the local school board better understands problems they face when compared to a candidate who volunteers with local charities. Among all respondents, candidate training experience has the strongest positive effect. There is a more variation when you look among subgroups. White respondents are slightly more likely to believe a Black candidate understands problems they face than to a white candidate, and just as likely to believe a Latinx candidate understands their problems as a white candidate. Among minority respondents, race/ethnicity and candidate training experience have a strong effect but race/ethnicity matters more. Minority respondents are more likely to believe a Black or Latinx candidate understands problems they face than a white candidate — though a Black candidate is most strongly preferred. Among Democrats, gender, race/ethnicity, and candidate training experience have a strong effect on who respondents believe will understand the problems they face. Prior political experience has a slightly positive effect; Democrats are slightly more likely to believe a retail worker better understands problems they face than a lawyer. Among Republicans, gender and race/ethnicity have a negative effect. Republican respondents are less likely to believe a woman understands problems they face than a man candidate. Moreover, Republicans are less likely to believe a Black or Latinx candidate understands problems they face. Republicans prefer an experienced candidate. They believe a local school board member is just as likely to understand problems they face as a volunteer of local charities. Candidate training has a strong positive effect. Republicans strongly believe candidates with six-month or three-week training understand the problems they face. This is true among Independents as well. Six-month candidate training experience has the strongest effect of all characteristics among Independents. 56 Overall, candidate training experience has a strong positive effect. Respondents prefer candidates have candidate training. This supports my expectations. What is interesting is that all respondents believe a retail worker would more understand problems they face, but they are not willing to vote for a retail worker, nor do they believe their neighbor will vote for a retail worker. In some ways, this contradicts Carnes and Lupu (2016) who find voters will vote for a working class candidate. However, it could be the case that positions such as executive assistant yield different effects. Generally, these findings support what we know. Minority respondents believe Black and Latinx candidates better understands problems they face indicating a sense of linked fate (Dawson 1994; McClain et al. 2009; Sanchez 2006; Sanchez and Masuoka 2010). Moreover, Democratic women more often get elected than Republican women (Elder 2021; Thomsen 2015; Schwarz and Coppock 2022). And, minority candidates struggle to obtain electoral success as Republicans (Doherty, Dowling, and Miller 2019). That Republican respondents do not feel women and minorities understand their problems and interests comports with the extant literature. QUALIFIED Figure 2.5 presents the ACME results of candidate characteristics on how qualified the candidate is for electoral office. These results get to the most important feature of candidate training programs, to help perspective candidates get training to understand and handle the job of being an elected official. And the results show that voters understand this feature of these training programs. Across the board, in the aggregate and for every subgroup examined, candidate training programs had among the largest substantive positive effect sizes. Only for minorities did one other feature shape their evaluations: candidate race. In the aggregate, respondents feel candidates with candidate training experience are more qualified than those with none. Continually, candidate training, six-month training especially, have the strongest effect among all characteristics. All respondents evaluate candidates with candidate 57 ACME: Qualified for Office - All Respondents ACME: Qualified for Office - Among Whites ACME: Qualified for Office - Among Minority Respondents Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Man Man Man Woman Woman Woman Candidate Race Candidate Race Candidate Race White White White Latinx Latinx Latinx Black Black Black Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Retail Worker Retail Worker Retail Worker Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background None None None 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Local School Board Local School Board Local School Board -.2 0 .2 .4 -.2 0 .2 .4 -.2 0 .2 .4 ACME: Qualified for Office - Among Democrats ACME: Qualified for Office - Among Republicans ACME: Qualified for Office - Among Independents Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Man Man Man Woman Woman Woman Candidate Race Candidate Race Candidate Race White White White Latinx Latinx Latinx Black Black Black Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Retail Worker Retail Worker Retail Worker Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background None None None 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Local School Board Local School Board Local School Board -.2 0 .2 .4 -.2 0 .2 .4 -.2 0 .2 .4 Figure 2.5: ACME Results for DV: Qualified Among All Respondents and Subgroups training as more qualified than candidates with none. Turning to subgroups, among white respondents, gender and race/ethnicity have little to no effect. White respondents are just as likely to believe women are qualified as men. They are also just as likely to believe a Latinx candidate is qualified as a white candidate. On the other hand, Black candidates are perceived as slightly more qualified than white candidates. White respondents perceive the candidate who is a retail worker as less qualified in comparison to the candidate who is a lawyer. Prior political experience has little to no effect; white respondents are just as likely to perceive a candidate who served on the local school board as qualified as a candidate who volunteers with local charities. Among minority respondents, gender has little to no effect. They believe women candidates are just as qualified as men candidates. Race/ethnicity and candidate training have a strong positive effect. Race/ethnicity has a positive effect. Minority respondents perceive Black or Latinx candidates as more qualified than white candidates. Minority respondents also perceive candidates with six-month or three-week candidate training experience as more qualified than 58 candidates with none. Minority respondents believe candidates who are retail workers are less qualified than candidates who are lawyers. Continually, they feel candidates who served on the local school board are slightly more qualified than candidates who volunteer with local charities. Among Democratic respondents, gender, race/ethnicity, and candidate training experience have a positive effect on who respondent perceive as more qualified. Experience has a negative effect; Democratic respondents believe candidates who are retail workers are less qualified than candidates who are lawyers. They also believe candidates who have served on the local school board are less qualified than candidates who volunteer with local charities. Among Republicans, candidate training and prior political experience have a strong positive effect. Republican respondents believe candidates with candidate training are more qualified than candidates with none. They also believe candidates who served on the local school board are more qualified than candidates who volunteered with local charities. Gender, race/ethnicity, and job experience have a negative effect. Republican respondents believe women candidates are less qualified than man candidates and minority candidates are less qualified than white candidates. They also perceive candidates who are retail workers as less qualified than candidates who are lawyers. Independent respondents’ preferences are similar to that of Republican respondents across every characteristic but race/ethnicity. Independent respondents perceive Black or Latinx candidates as slightly more qualified than white candidates. Taken together, candidate training experience has a positive effect. Gender and race/ethnicity also have a positive effect. Respondents perceive women, Black, and Latinx candidates as more qualified than their comparisons. Candidates with candidate training are also viewed as more qualified than candidates with none. Ultimately, findings support my expectations and suggests candidates interested in being viewed a qualified for elected office could benefit from candidate training experience. Six-month programs have a slightly more positive effect than a three-week program, but both have a strong positive effect on voter’s candidate preferences. 59 CAPABLE OF FINDING THE SOLUTION Finally, Figure 2.6 presents the ACME results for the last dependent variable examined: whether the candidate is capable of finding the solution for the problems facing people like them. Like with the previous dependent variable, these results again demonstrate how important candidate training program experience is to voter evaluations of perspective candidates. Among all respondents, and among every subgroup examined, candidate training experience either had the largest substantive effect size on this dependent variable. The only subgroup that also rated another candidate feature just as high was minority respondents, who valued candidate race just as much. In the aggregate, gender, race/ethnicity, and candidate training experience have strong effects. Respondents believe women candidates are more capable of finding the solution for the problems facing people like them than men candidates. Moreover, respondents believe Black or Latinx candidates are more capable of finding the solution for their problems than white candidates. ACME: Capable Solutions For Ppl Like You - All Respondents ACME: Capable Solutions For Ppl Like You - Among Whites ACME: Capable Solutions For Ppl Like You - Among Minority Respondents Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Man Man Man Woman Woman Woman Candidate Race Candidate Race Candidate Race White White White Latinx Latinx Latinx Black Black Black Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Retail Worker Retail Worker Retail Worker Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background None None None 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Local School Board Local School Board Local School Board -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 ACME: Capable Solutions For Ppl Like You - Among Democrats ACME: Capable Solutions For Ppl Like You - Among Republicans ACME: Capable Solutions For Ppl Like You - Among Independents Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Candidate Gender Man Man Man Woman Woman Woman Candidate Race Candidate Race Candidate Race White White White Latinx Latinx Latinx Black Black Black Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Candidate Job Experience Lawyer Lawyer Lawyer Retail Worker Retail Worker Retail Worker Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background Candidate Training Background None None None 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 6-Month Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program 3-Week Training Program Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Prior Political Experience Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Volunteers Local Charity Local School Board Local School Board Local School Board -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 -.1 0 .1 .2 .3 Figure 2.6: ACME Results for DV: Solutions Among All Respondents and Subgroups 60 Respondents believe candidates with six-month and three-week candidate training experience are more capable of finding the solution for the problems they are facing. Both job experience and prior political experience have a negative effect. Respondents are less likely to perceive candidates who are retail workers as more capable of finding the solution to their problems than candidates who are lawyers. Continually, respondents are less likely to believe candidates who served on the local school board as more capable of finding solutions to their problems. Respondents believe candidates who are lawyers or candidates who volunteer with local charities are more capable of finding solutions to their problems than their counterparts. These findings are consistent across most respondent subgroups. The most interesting variation is among minority respondents and Republican respondents. Among minority respondents, race/ethnicity and candidate training experience both have a strong effect, but race/ethnicity matters more. Minority respondents perceive women candidates as more capable of finding a solution for their problems than men candidates. Also, minority candidates believe Black or Latinx candidates are more capable of finding solutions to their problems than white candidates, Black candidates especially. Minority candidates perceive candidates with candidate training as more capable of finding solutions for their problems. Julian Wamble's (2022) community signaling concept is important to consider to understand these findings. He finds that signaling community commitment or accountability to Black voters is important for gaining their support. This works for all candidates. The presence of the Black or Latinx characteristic in this study signals some ingroup linked fate to minority voters which they may digest as candidates a having a commitment to the community and issues the community uniquely face. Also, due to linked fate, minority respondents believe candidates from their ingroup will represent their interests (Dawson 1994; McClain et al. 2009; Sanchez and Masuoka 2010). Among Republican respondents, candidate training has a strong positive effect. Six-month 61 training has the strongest effect, but three-week training has a positive effect as well. All other characteristics have a negative effect. Republican respondents perceive women candidates, Black candidates, or Latinx candidates as less capable of finding solutions to their problems than their counterparts. Republican respondents are slightly less likely to perceive a candidate who is a retail worker as more capable to finding solutions to their issues than a candidate who is a lawyer. They are just as likely to view a candidate who served on the local school board as more capable of finding solutions to their problems as a candidate who volunteered with local charities. This aligns with previous scholarship. Republicans are less likely to support diverse candidates and so they are also less likely to feel represented by them. Taken together, candidate training experience has a strong positive effect which supports my expectations. CONCLUSION Together, this chapter reveals that candidate training experience is an important characteristic shaping voters’ evaluation. The observational component to the data showed how valued it is among different subgroups of the population, especially among minority respondents. The conjoint experiment, however, challenged these findings some. While observational studies reveal what people “say they want”, conjoint studies reveal what people really want. That makes the conjoint design so powerful. Ultimately, the findings from the conjoint experiment showcased how when placed among other candidate features that voters typically evaluate, candidate training had a positive and substantively large effect in shaping these evaluations. I find all respondents prefer candidate training as a characteristic. For minority respondents, race matters more than candidate training but both characteristics are strongly preferred. For Republicans, candidate training matters more than any other characteristic. Consistently, job experience and previous political experience have negative effects. Candidates who are retail workers 62 are perceived as understanding of respondent’s issues, but they are not perceived as qualified or worthy of their vote. Interestingly, respondents prefer Black and Latinx candidates when compared to white candidates, but they feel those candidates will not garner support from their neighbors. This leads to the question of whether voters vote according to their preferences or use strategy based on their perception of others preferences as Bateson (2020) suggests. If voters are using strategy, women and minority candidates face strategic discrimination which negatively influences their electoral outcomes due to voter’s incorrect assumptions about their peer’s preferences. It is important to note that the fictional candidates in the conjoint experiment were participating in a local election. Findings may differ for candidates pursuing public office on the state or federal level. My findings expand our knowledge of candidate training programs and their influence on voters’ preferences. Voters strongly prefer candidate training experience, which suggests the characteristic could be helpful for candidates seeking public office, especially minority and women candidates who often face an uphill battle. Given the positive influence of candidate training on candidate evaluation, it may benefit women and minority candidates to cue this information to voters to be seen as electable and viable. It may help diverse candidates communicate to voters that they are qualified, competent, and viable and that they can win. 63 CHAPTER 4: IN HER OWN WORDS: HOW BLACK WOMEN PERCEIVE THEIR CHALLENGES AS CANDIDATES AND LATENT CANDIDATES 64 INTRODUCTION First-hand narratives from Black women political elites expand our knowledge of their political experiences and behavior. An example of this lies within the narrative of Denise, a political elite I interviewed for this chapter. Denise is an elected official in an appointed position. She is the first Black woman to serve in this seat. When asked whether she will run for reelection, she stated: “If I feel, after reflecting on my experience for maybe six months, if I feel like I'm making a difference then I will more than likely campaign and run, you know, run a race and compete for the job again. But if I don't feel like I'm making a difference, then I will more than likely step aside.” Denise’s narrative emphasizes the need for Black women political elites’ perspectives and the nuances of their experiences to be represented in scholarship (Brown 2014, 2022; Brown and Lemi 2021). Sophisticated quantitative analyses have advanced our understanding of the various ways in which race and gender impact how Black women are evaluated as candidates (Beale 1979b; Darcy and Hadley 1988; Gonzalez and Bauer 2022; G. Moncrief 1991; Philpot and Walton Jr. 2007; Simien 2005). However, rich narratives like Denise’s are only burgeoning in our field. Some scholars are prioritizing qualitative approaches to expand our knowledge of Black women’s self-perceptions and extend our conventional theoretical understanding. For instance, traditional theories of political ambition are limited and do not consider the sense of community that drives Black women’s political ambition, but recent qualitative efforts by scholars like Pearl Dowe have reimagined the political ambitions of Black women elites (Brown 2014; Dowe 2020). Denise’s narrative above emphasizes Dowe’s findings. While Denise has political ambition, it is motivated by her perception of whether she’s filling a need in her community. With Dowe’s (2020) theory of “ambition on the margins”, we can now explain and understand the tenacious efforts Denise demonstrated as a latent candidate, and the commitment to her community’s needs that led her to seek an appointed position and may lead her to run for reelection. Like Dowe, I seek to further our understanding of Black women elites’ self-perceptions and path to politics through their own words. 65 This chapter relies upon the narratives of Black women political elites to address the following question: How do Black women perceive the challenges they face as candidates and latent candidates, and what actions do they take to overcome these challenges? Latent candidates are defined in this context as someone with political experience who is interested in running for public office, and plans to, but has not yet run or been elected. I apply an intersectionality framework to investigate the multiplicative effects of race and gender, as they perceive it, on their path to candidacy and as candidates (Collins 2000; Crenshaw 1989, 1991; Nash 2011; Taylor 2017; The Combahee River Collective 2014). I conducted semi-structured interviews with three Black women who are candidates or latent candidates. To ensure participants have political ambition, I promoted the study among the Michigan Political Leadership Program (MPLP) Black women alumna. MPLP is a bipartisan, public policy and leadership program and requires participants to have an interest in running for office to apply. During the interviews, respondents were asked questions about their race and gender identity, political engagement, decision making, and MPLP experience. I interviewed three Black women whose experiences are different, but whose perspectives weave together to tell an interesting story about challenges as they perceive them, and the ways in which they work to meet these challenges. I applied an inductive coding approach to thematic analysis which allows the codes and themes to emerge from the narratives (Braun and Clarke 2006). The observations reveal that participants perceive lack of voter and elite support, intersectional disadvantages, and personal hindrances as challenges they endure as candidates and latent candidates. Their stories show that these women meet these challenges by using programs like MPLP to their advantage, making thoughtful and strategic efforts, and addressing intrapersonal concerns head on. While this study is limited in scope, it provides foundational understanding for how Black women perceive their 66 chances and challenges as candidates and is the starting point for future work about strategies Black women employ to get elected. MOTIVATING LITERATURE INTERSECTIONAL PERCEPTIONS The intersectionality framework posits that race, gender, and other identity categories overlap and function simultaneously to create experiences of marginalization, and in some instances, privilege (W. Smooth 2006). The term intersectionality was coined by Kimberle Crenshaw (1989, 1991) and developed in Black feminist theory to describe the lived experiences of Black women in America (Collins 1990; Taylor 2017; The Combahee River Collective 2014). In political science, intersectionality has been applied to understand the experiences, behaviors, and attitudes of political actors with one or multiple marginalized identities (Brown, Caballero, and Gershon 2021). Ultimately, intersectionality expands our understanding of those who live at the intersection of multiple identities. Black women’s intersectional identity impacts how they are perceived by voters and how they perceive themselves as candidates. On the voter side, how Black women candidates are evaluated is directly influenced by their identity due to race and gender stereotypes. There are two main arguments that seek to explain this: the double disadvantage argument and the double advantage argument. The double disadvantage argument suggests that Black women struggle to appeal to a wide audience and achieve electoral success due to being disadvantaged twice, once by race and once by gender (Darcy and Hadley 1988; G. Moncrief, Thompson, and Schuhmann 1991). The presence of gender and race stereotypes concurrently weakens their electoral chances (Gonzalez and Bauer 2022). Some scholarship, on the other hand, suggests that there are instances by which Black women may not face a double disadvantage due to their overlapping identities. Black voters 67 prioritize descriptive representation which may lead to them electorally favoring Black women candidates (Mansbridge 1999; Byron D’Andra Orey and Zhang 2019; C. T. Stout, Tate, and Wilson 2021; Tate 2001; Wamble 2022). Moreover, previous work finds Black women share a gendered linked fate that influences their behaviors (Simien 2006). We see this in action when we consider the tremendous support Black women voters show to Black women candidates at the ballot box (Philpot and Walton Jr. 2007). Black women candidates’ physical features that emphasize their racial identity (i.e. dark skin tones and natural hair) may help to garner more positive evaluations from Black women voters and Black voters generally (Lemi and Brown 2019; Byron D’Andra Orey and Zhang 2019). Recent work finds gender and race stereotypes come together to emphasize positive traits that helps Black women candidates win voter support (Dowe 2020; Gonzalez and Bauer 2022; W. Smooth 2006). Taken together, the double advantage argument characterizes intersectionality as a benefit for Black women. Recent qualitative work highlights various ways in which Black women’s intersectional identity impacts their own self-perception. Using focus groups, Pearl Dowe (2020) develops “ambition on the margins” which suggests that Black women’s decision to seek office depends on their desire to have the greatest impact their communities. This could mean running for higher office, staying in a local or state level position, or not running at all. Her study further reveals radical imagination, ambition, and marginalization most impact their decision. Black women activate this radical imagination and respond to marginalization by networking and increasing their political engagement. Dowe’s research centers the voices of young Black women to further our understanding of what affects Black women’s choices to seek public office and the ways in which they respond to negative stereotypes. Nadia Brown's earlier qualitative work (2014) on Black women political elites finds that their experiences are linked to what they look like. Findings further suggest Black women’s appearance 68 influences how they perceive themselves. Her most recent book “Sister Style: The Politics of Appearance for Black Women Political Elites” builds on that work to extend our understanding of the politics of appearance and the ways in which Black women make sense of it (Brown and Lemi 2021). Brown and Lemi's (2021) observations from one-on-one interviews demonstrate how Black women elites craft how they look in response to voters’ expectations. Their narratives further show Black women elites vary in their self-presentation, yet all acknowledge that racism and sexism constrain their choices. Their focus group observations highlight intragroup differences among Black women. Though participants discussed feeling judged based on how they present themselves by all voters and elites, younger Black women emphasized feeling discriminated against by older Black women because of their self-presentation. Brown and Lemi also use quantitative analyses to learn how voters process appearance finding that appearance matters, and voters’ perceptions of Black women candidates vary based on their appearance. Ultimately, this research uses Black women’s narratives to explain the impacts of their appearance on their self-perception and self- presentation. Like Brown and Lemi (2021), I rely upon qualitative research methods to obtain rich narratives from Black women political elites. Specifically, I seek to examine the double advantage and double disadvantage arguments with respect to how Black women evaluate their own identity relative to their experience as candidates and latent candidates. Do Black women feel their race and gender identity combine to create challenges or opportunities for them as candidates and latent candidates? How do they respond to these opportunities and challenges? What actions do they take? This research extends our field’s knowledge of how Black women view themselves and what motivates their behaviors. 69 METHODOLOGICAL APPROACH DATA COLLECTION This study draws on observations gathered from three semi-structured interviews held on Zoom in April 2023. I accessed participants using convenience sampling. To obtain a contact list of Black women elites, I reached out to the Michigan Political Leadership Program (MPLP) at Michigan State University. MPLP is a bipartisan political leadership program with a public policy focus that requires participants to have interest in running for office to apply. This requirement is important given my focus on Black women who are candidates or latent candidates. MPLP provided me with the names and email addresses of their Black women alumni. I sent a recruitment email and infographic describing the study to each woman (see Appendix B). Those who were interested in the study self-selected in by clicking the link in the email or scanning the QR code on the infographic which directed them to a pre-screener survey. This pre-screener asked questions about their demographics and preferences for time and date of the interview (see Appendix B). I followed up via email to finalize a date and time. Once a date and time was finalized, I sent an email with the Zoom information and a consent form to be returned to me before the interview (see Appendix B). Three women agreed to participate in the study. These subjects are highly engaged in their communities and are interested in continuing to serve their communities in the future, even if it’s in a different capacity. They also had early political experiences, before the age of 18, which helped to shape their current behavior and attitudes. Their respective rich perspectives weave together to accentuate the experiences of Black women as candidates and latent candidates. I refer to each participant in this chapter by using pseudonyms which ensures respondent confidentiality. These women were asked questions about their political participation, racial and gender identity, MPLP experience, and decision making (see Appendix B). 70 My positionality and own identity as a Black woman worked to my advantage since my sample consisted of Black women elites. Still, it was important that I create a safe environment for participants to discuss their experiences. I started each interview building a rapport to ensure participants felt comfortable. Though I received written informed consent, I obtained verbal consent and reassured participants that identifiable information would not be used before clicking record via Zoom. Generally, participants appeared excited to share their experiences. They spoke candidly, and at times interjected to add more details about a previous statement or question. THEMATIC ANALYSIS I used thematic analysis to understand the qualitative data. Thematic analysis allows one to identify, analyze, organize, and describe the data and ultimately identify themes (Braun and Clarke 2006). The method is derived from the field of psychology, but is used across a range of fields and research questions (Nowell et al. 2017). Previous research has relied on thematic analysis as a useful method for examining the perspectives of participants as it highlights similarities and differences among participants while allowing unanticipated insights to arise. (Braun and Clarke 2006; N. King 2004). The advantages of thematic analysis make it an ideal method to make sense of this data. I applied an inductive coding approach in which the codes and themes to emerged from the data without a preexisting coding scheme. In doing this, I iteratively cycled through the six main phases of thematic analysis: familiarize yourself with the data, create initial codes, search for themes, review themes, define and name themes, and write the report (Braun and Clarke 2006). I used Otter to transcribe each interview, listening to each transcript several times to ensure it is accurate and that I am familiar with the data. I used Delve to create initial codes, tentatively labeling chunks of data. After producing initial codes, I looked for emerging themes to get an idea of how the data fits together. I reviewed the codes and themes several times more before defining and 71 assigning a final name to each code and theme. Two themes and six sub themes emerged from the data (see Figure 3.1 and Figure 3.2). In the next section, I present my analysis. Figure 3.1: Thematic Analysis Theme 1 Figure 3.2: Thematic Analysis Theme 2 RESULTS This study addresses the following question: How do Black women perceive the challenges they face as candidates and latent candidates, and what actions do they take to overcome these challenges? CHALLENGES AS THEY PERCEIVE THEM Participants grouped the challenges they experience as Black women into three main categories: 1) lack of voter and elite support, 2) intersectional disadvantages, and 3) personal hindrances. 72 LACK OF VOTER AND ELITE SUPPORT Participants are highly engaged in elite behavior. Essie, the young Black woman who aspires to be mayor of her home city, has worked as extensively in politics and government. Sally, an older Black woman who is an appointed elected official, worked as a phone banker for presidential campaigns and canvassed door to door for candidates she supported. Denise, a middle-aged woman with a plethora of political experience, has served across government and government agencies. Though these women have proven to exhibit high levels of political participation, they worry about how their political background will be perceived by voters and elites. When asked to describe the challenges she expects to experience as a candidate, Essie stated: “I expect to experience lack of experience, I think that, as a Black woman, we try to, we try to do as much as we can, as we should. And naturally, we can't do it all. And I know, for me, personally, I do try to do it all. And in that I know that, whenever I do run, um, I don't want to be like, super old, like, I don't want to be 50. I want to have enough experience, but even then, it won't be the amount that may be acceptable to some.” Essie’s narrative highlights that she is thoughtful about when to emerge as a candidate with respect to how her political experience will be perceived. Though she wants to be evaluated as a qualified candidate, she mentions not wanting to be older when she finally does run, suggesting she is thoughtful about striking a balance between age and experience as an elite. It is not clear whether her concerns are with voters or elites primarily from this statement. But she followed this up by mentioning how she is using her job in the mayor’s office to build her resume and establish relationships to support her ambitions. Given this, I infer that her concern about being perceived as experienced is among both voters and elites. In response to the same question, Sally stated: “In the district that I represent, I'm the first Black female to hold this position for my district…My, my district is, I think it's predominantly Caucasian. And a challenge for me then will be to get out there and let people know who I am and what I'm capable of.” 73 Sally is currently serving in an appointed position. Though she may have the advantage of incumbency if she decides to run for reelection, she still faces running a campaign for the first time in a majority white district. Her concerns for being known in her district are directly related to voter’s perceptions of her political background. In my one-on-one interview with Denise, she was blunt about the lack of support she has experienced, who from, and how it continues to be a challenge. She stated: “I've been discouraged from running for all kinds of seats I might have thought I wanted. It's usually some guy who's in the political world that tells me no. Yeah, if I run I'm gonna definitely be like quietly doing it on my own. Because I know, if I tell any of my guys friends, they always come up with some reason why its … I'm not well known enough. I should, I haven't done enough. Not enough people know me and what? I'm sorry, who knew Laurie [last name]?” By making mention of Laurie [last name], a white woman elected official, she highlights how the levels of support she obtains as Black woman is different from that of men and white women. Later in the interview she stated, “And when we [Black women] seek to run for office, they're [Black men] the first ones to say maybe we should wait our turn, maybe we should sit back or maybe we should wait for somebody to select us but white women don't do that. They get up and go on. Leave that little, their little block club and go on and put their name on that ballot and go ahead and write it in and so we don't do that. We don't have anybody saying Yeah, funny. Sure you should do it. We don't have that, we have just the opposite.” Throughout the interview, she continued to voice the ways in which Black women are shut out, even among elites in their own racial group. Denise also expressed consideration for other elite gatekeepers. For example, she remarked: “I guess because I haven't kissed the right political rings, maybe, you know, the union rings and the funder, the finance, the financier rings of the party, but I know, it's not my style, you know what I’m saying.” Taken together, subjects are thinking somewhat about voters, but more so about gatekeepers and who is keeping them out at this stage in the process. Sally’s fears about being known in her mostly white district are valid considering conventional wisdom. Previous literature has shown that 74 Black women candidates have had more electoral success in majority minority districts (Black Women in Politics 2021; Dittmar 2015; Lublin et al. 2020; Tate 2003). However, recent elections like Stacey Abrams 2018 gubernatorial bid have shown that Black women can run competitive elections outside of those districts. Sally’s thought of district make-up suggests that she is strategizing to push back against this notion as well. Denise’s narratives highlight gendered, racial, and intersectional differences that set Black women’s ability to garner support among elites apart from everyone else. What’s most interesting is her explicit mention of the ways in which Black male elites discourage and do not support Black women’s desires to pursue public office. This highlights gendered differences within the racial group. Her additional concerns with not having the right relationships with party leaders and financial contributors underscores the huge undertaking it is to build support as a Black women candidate especially among the gatekeepers. See Table 3.1 for the full thematic analysis. Table 3.1: Challenges, Lack of Voter and Elite Support Theme Lack of Voter and Elite Support Worry about how they will be perceived by voters and feel shut out by gatekeepers – elite peers, financial contributors, party leaders Codes Worried they will be perceived as inexperienced (2): possess significant political and leadership experience but are worried it will not be acknowledged if they run for office - “I expect to experience lack of experience, I think that, as a black woman, we tried to, we tried to do as much as we can, as we should. And naturally, we can't do it all. And I know, for me, personally, I do try to do it all. And in that I know that, whenever I do run, um, I don't want to be like, super old, like, I don't want to be 50. I didn't want to have enough experience, but even then, it won't be the amount that may be acceptable to some. And so I think that just knowing that I am preparing myself for that.” - “This is just one of the challenges that I think we all face, I look at [Black woman elected official], I used to intern for her. And we had a meeting. And she said, that was one of the things that she was, I want to say nervous about but that's something that she was preparing herself for is for people to say that she didn't have the experience. And I mean, you'll see her background, it's like, Oh, you got all of this experience, but it's just something you know, when people see black women, they it's like they make an excuse for us 75 Table 3.1 (cont’d) not to get the job. And in that one of the things that's usually experience.” Worried about not being well known in her district (1): concerned about notoriety when considering reelection - “In the district that I represent, I'm the first black female to hold this position for my district…My, my district is, I think it's predominantly Caucasian. And a challenge for me then will be to get out there and let people know who I am and what I'm capable of.” Worried about negative feedback (1): concerned about being discouraged from pursuing public office - “And then also, you know, in those conversations you get, you might get that feedback. Why you doing that? Oh, you running for office? oh, you know, and you got to be able to be ready no matter what they're saying, either encouraging or discouraging in that in that timeframe.” (1) Discouraged from running for office (4): told no and kept out by peers and gatekeepers - “I know women right now, who are where they are right now. But when they first started their little run, people were telling them no. Yeah, they did it anyway. And then eventually, here comes the party.” - “Oh, no, I'm not qualified. You know, enough. I guess because I haven't kissed the right political rings, maybe, you know, the union rings and the funder, the finance, the financier rings of the party, but I know, it's not my style, you know what I’m saying.” - “I've been discouraged from running for all kinds of seats I might have thought I wanted. It's usually some guy who's in the political world that tells me no. Yeah, if I run I'm gonna definitely be like quietly doing it on my own. Because I know, if I tell any of my guys friends, they always come up with some reason why its … I'm not well known enough. I should, I haven't done enough. Not enough people know me and what? I'm sorry, who knew Laurie [last name]?” - “And when we seek to run for office, they're [Black men] the first ones to say maybe we should wait our turn, maybe we should sit back or maybe we should wait for somebody to select us but white 76 Table 3.1 (cont’d) women don't do that. They get up and go on. Leave that little, their little block club and go on and put their name on that ballot and go ahead and write it in and so we don't do that. We don't have anybody saying Yeah, funny. Sure you should do it. We don't have that we have just the opposite.” INTERSECTIONAL DISADVANTAGES When asked about her intersectional identity, Denise described it as “a blessing and a curse.” It was obvious after all three interviews that by “curse” she meant that there are particular disadvantages Black women face due to their identity. It was also clear that each woman felt this in some way. While this was inferred in their exemplifying the lack of support they receive, participants also discussed these disadvantages directly. Denise said, “It's hard being a Black woman, we don't have protection in any form. Black men don't protect us. We can get dragged by the world, nobody comes for us, but just to come for us. So you have to be … and that's one of the reasons why I haven't always jumped to get in office is because like, the very things that I see my Black male legislators doing let me do even an ounce of that, right, and I will get drug from here to there and be called everything what, you know.” She highlights the double standards Black women experience when compared to Black men. She is not free to behave in the same way. She also identifies double standards when compared to white women. She reflected, “I think about my senator right now. And, you know, she comes from a political family. Nice, sweet lady, but she's had some issues with like, you know, alcohol and drugs, different kind of drugs … publicly, you know. Love her to death, but it's in the paper. You know, saying why, whatever, whatever. Let that had been me. Yeah, uh uh. You know, she's still, she got her office anyway. Let me have been running for office, and I got pulled over with a DUI, you think I’d be senator right now? You know what I'm saying, so that's that privilege. Like, we know that we have to, like, be ultra perfect, almost. And that's a lot of burden, because you can't be perfect, right? And so, it’s a lot.” A tone of exhaustion and depletion permeates Denise’s narrative. She has so much knowledge of the ways in which things just do not work the same for her as a Black woman. She 77 must be beyond reproach, free of mistakes and scandal, and bursting at the seams with leadership and political experience. This is a burdensome expectation, one that does not seem fair to her. Despite how she keeps showing up as an elite, she feels unsupported and unprotected. There’s a tone of disappointment with every mention of how these feelings also exist within her own house, in her own racial group. The politics of appearance is identified as a distinct challenge to navigate for Black women elites. Essie reflected, “For Black women, I feel like I can speak to that the most, I think one of our biggest needs is to be heard, and to felt as if we are heard. A lot of times we go into the workplace, we have to worry about how we dress, how we look, we have to worry about our hair, we have to worry about our tone, we have to worry about the things that we say. And it's like you change yourself so much at the workplace, if you don't revert back to who you are, quickly, you kind of lose a piece of yourself. And I think that that's not so much a policy thing, because it's more of a people thing.” Essie has a career in politics so her concerns regarding her self-presentation in the workplace is relevant to her political experience. She highlights how her appearance influences how she perceives herself so adjusting to fit the mold is a sacrifice to her individual personhood. This finding supports earlier findings by Brown and Lemi (2021) which finds that Black women elites craft their look in response to expectations of others. Generally, Essie seems to feel constrained. She mentioned later in the interview that she feels censored. Given the intersectional disadvantages, it is difficult for Essie to show up in politics as her authentic self. In discussing the importance of authentic self-presentation, Essie reveals further concerns: “But if you have those like [Black woman political elite], [Black woman political elite], if you have those people that are in office, and they are being their most authentic selves, and now gives you almost like permission to be like, okay, I can do, I can be myself, and be accepted and not be considered, you know, the angry Black woman. I can have a confrontation with a co- worker, about a work problem. And I'm not going to be considered that angry Black woman.” 78 Essie’s mention of the angry Black woman trope further emphasizes her feelings of being censored and constrained in politics. She is careful not to present herself in a way that may comprise how she is viewed but is also happy there are others like her in politics to improve the situation for the group. Overall, participants discussed how double standards holds them back. They spoke candidly about how their experience is distinct and different from that of white women and Black men. They don’t feel like they have the same choices and chances as either group. They are worried about how they will be scrutinized and feel censored as Black women elites because they’re not allowed to do the same things as other people. The burden of perfection is an added layer of mental exhaustion for participants. These intersectional disadvantages are especially challenging because they influence how Black women are perceived by voters and elites as well as how they perceive themselves. The words of Essie truly capture each Black woman’s perception of their intersectional disadvantages. She states, “The things that black people face are not the things, especially black women, are not the things that white people are facing. The things that black men face are not the things that black women are facing.” Their challenges are unique and distinct. Table 3.2 lays out the complete thematic analysis. Table 3.2: Challenges, Intersectional Disadvantages Challenges as They Perceive Them Theme Intersectional Disadvantages Feel they face race based, gendered, and intersectional disadvantages as candidates and latent candidates Codes Sexual harassment (1): politics is not a safe place for women - “I think in politics, also, you know, you as a Black woman, you have to be careful. We get sexually harassed all the time. I mean, sexual harassment, I don't know if anybody talks about that, but it is real. And I think about how many times you know, as a survivor of assault, sexual assaults, but then also just in this political space, it is so so so, like, grimy, real grimy, and, yeah, it's a cesspool. So you know, it's hard, I think in this space to navigate and still be respected as a lady, you know.” 79 Table 3.2 (cont’d) Double standards when compared to Black men (3): they do not have the same choices and chances as black men - “It's hard being a Black woman, we don't have protection in any form. Black men don't protect us. We can get dragged by the world, nobody comes for us, but just to come for us. So you have to be, and that's one of the reasons why I haven't always jumped to get in office is because like, the very things that I see my black male legislators doing let me do even an ounce of that, right, and I will get drug from here to there and be called everything what, you know.” - “If you are in the space, you might end up dating in the space because you are in the space, but then you have to be careful with that because you want to still be respected. The men can do whatever they want, you know. So I think that's part of it too, the double standards, especially black men. Of all the folks that you think would be on our side, they actually sometimes are the ones that are very much so against us.” - “If you are single as a woman and you're running for office, people immediately say— You don’t got no man? Do you have kids? Do you have a babydaddy? It's just so many like, questions that come at you sideways. Black men, like, aren't getting those questions. If he's single, I mean, its oh eligible bachelor, you know, that's what it's called. So just those things that, you know, we potentially face/already faced.” Angry Black woman (1): worried stereotypes such as angry black woman will impact how they are perceived - “But if you have those like [Black woman political elite], [Black woman political elite], if you have those people that are in office, and they are being their most authentic selves, and now gives you almost like permission to be like, Okay, I can do, I can be myself, and be accepted and not be considered, you know, the angry black woman. I can have a confrontation with a co-worker, about a work problem. And I'm not be considered that angry black woman.” Appearance, especially hair (2): concerned hair texture or hairstyle will be deemed unprofessional in politics - “I have a friend. And I interviewed her but with the Deputy Chief of Staff, and she asked, Is it okay for my ponytail? Is it okay? If I have a ponytail and her ponytail was like curly at the end and it was going like past her butt. And I was like, you're fine. Like we don't in 80 Table 3.2 (cont’d) our office. That's not something that we really care about. But the fact that she had to ask me that, it’s a question that we all wonder. Like, I don’t really get color in my hair all the time, because I'm like, mmm, that's not gonna be deemed professional. You know, and white people do it all the time. It’s something, it's a constant battle.” - “For Black women, I feel like I can speak to that the most, I think one of our biggest needs is to be heard, and to felt as if we are heard. A lot of times we go into the workplace, we have to worry about how we dress, how we look, we have to worry about our hair, we have to worry about our tone, we have to worry about the things that we say. And it's like you change yourself so much at the workplace, if you don't revert back to who you are, quickly, you kind of lose a piece of yourself. And I think that that's not so much a policy thing, because it's more of a people thing.” Double standards when compared to white women (1): different standards for white women - “I think about my senator right now. And, you know, she comes from a political family. Nice, sweet lady, but she's had some issues with like, you know, alcohol and drugs, different kind of drugs … publicly, you know. Love her to death, but it's in the paper. You know, saying why, whatever, whatever. Let that had been me. Yeah, uh uh. You know, she's still she got her office anyway. Let me have been running for office, and I got pulled over with a DUI, you think I’d be senator right now? You know what I'm saying, so that's that privilege. Like, we know that we have to, like, be ultra perfect, almost. And that's a lot of burden, because you can't be perfect, right? And so, it’s a lot.” Intersectional challenges (1): facing different challenges than white people and black men - “The things that black people face are not the things, especially black women, are not the things that white people are facing. The things that black men face are not the things that black women are facing.” 81 PERSONAL HINDERANCES Participants also perceived their personal shortcomings as a challenge. This was most related to skills or tasks that would be necessary to launch and run a successful campaign. Asking people for money emerged as a primary concern among this group of women. Sally, who is currently holding office as an appointed elected official, remarked, “Another challenge that I have personally is that, in running for office, is that I, I have a problem asking people for money. You know, that's, that's gonna be a huge struggle for me. I just, I don't like selling tickets for anything. I don't like asking people to support you know, I just can't ask people for money. So, I'm gonna really have to overcome that hurdle.” When talking about possibly running for office, Denise also reflected on her shortcomings: “And until I know I'm ready to like be on the phone like that asking for checks, which is, I have always no problem raising money for like organizations and different things, millions of dollars. Let me try to ask somebody for myself. I’m like uhhh … Because they're personally telling you no, not telling your organization no, telling you ... No, no, they telling you no!” While Denise explicitly states that she takes rejection personally while fundraising on her own behalf which is why it is difficult, it was a bit more nuanced with Sally. Sally highlighted the lengths she would go to support and galvanize support on behalf of other candidates continually. She has phone banked and knocked doors for candidates. She also helps other make informed decisions. She states: “[O]ne of the things that I do personally, this is just within my own little circle. Whenever there's an election year that comes up, like this past election year, I make sure that I do the research on the key candidates because I don't want to make a, an uninformed decision.” Sally appears to have more confidence in her ability to help other candidates than she does in her own abilities as an elite. This appears to be rooted in her natural disposition as an introvert and her lack of media skills. For example, during the interview, she reflected: “I think that I have to come to terms with the fact that I am a natural introvert. And so I like working behind the scenes and getting things done under the radar. And but as a public figure, I have to become more comfortable being in the public eye and, and speaking at a microphone and letting people know what my thoughts and views are. So that's going to be a challenge for me to overcome. As an introvert … I am not a social media person, either. That's another big obstacle I have. I don't even have a Cash App on my phone, I still send checks through the mail through snail mail. So I am not a huge Facebook person or instant I 82 don't I just don't do that stuff. And so people have been told verbally, you gotta get on. You've got to get on social media, you're gonna run a campaign.” Sally being introverted as well as her lack of skills needed to launch and run a campaign seems to somewhat motivate her ambivalent feelings about running for reelection. When asked explicitly if she was considering reelection, she stated. “I'm only into my third month right now. And so I'm still trying to figure out if the fit is really good for me. And I, how I respond to that question. I've been telling people that if I feel after reflecting on my experience for maybe six months, if I feel like I'm making a difference, then I will more than likely campaign and run, you know, run a race and compete for the job again, but um, if if I don't feel like I'm making a difference, then I will more than likely step aside.” This finding aligns with Dowe's (2020) earlier research about Black women’s political ambition. She posits that wanting to bring change to their community is the main driver of Black women’s political ambition. Considering that along with Sally’s narrative, it is clear that wanting to continue to make a difference in her district is the only thing that may lead her to overcome the aforementioned personal challenges and embrace the same confidence for herself that she sees in other candidates. Taken together, these challenges are personal because they require personal motivation to overcome. Having a fear of fundraising on their own behalf is a major challenge. It will be especially concerning earlier in the candidacy process, before they have legitimized themselves as candidates in a way that garners party support and major donations. Small donor contributions will require them to do what makes them uncomfortable. Being introverted and lacking tech and media skills are also disadvantaging. A part of establishing yourself as a candidate is having a public presence and utilizing social media and technology. Given Sally’s age and work status as a retiree, I infer that lacking certain skills needed to maintain a campaign early on in the process is a generational hurdle – one that may impact her more than the other participants. See Table 3.3 for the complete analysis. 83 Table 3.3: Challenges, Personal Hinderances Challenges as They Perceive Them Theme Personal Hinderances Intrapersonal concerns they feel will make it hard for them to be successful as candidates Codes Uncomfortable asking people for money (2): concerned about fundraising for self - “And, you know, another challenge that I have personally is that, in running for office, is that I, I have a problem asking people for money. You know, that's, that's gonna be the a huge struggle for me. I just, I don't like selling tickets for anything. I don't like asking people to support you know, I just can't ask people for money. So, I'm gonna really have to overcome that hurdle.” - “And until I know I'm ready to like be on the phone like that asking for checks, which is, I have always no problem raising money for like organizations and different things, millions of dollars. Let me try to give somebody for myself. I’m like uhhh … Because they're personally telling you no, not telling your organization no, telling you ... No, no, they telling you no!” Lack of skills needed to support a campaign (1): social media and technology skills lacking - “I am not a social media person, either. That's another big obstacle I have. I don't even have a Cash App on my phone, I still send checks through the mail through snail mail. So I am not a huge Facebook person or instant I don't I just don't do that stuff. And so people have been told verbally, you gotta get on. You've got to get on social media, you're gonna run a campaign.” Natural introvert (1): most comfortable working behind the scenes - “But I'm outside of those challenges, I think that I have to come to terms with the fact that I am a natural introvert. And so I like working behind the scenes and getting things done under the radar. And but as a public figure, I have to become more comfortable being in the public eye and, and speaking at a microphone and letting people know what my thoughts and views are. So that's going to be a challenge for me to overcome. As an introvert.” 84 HOW THEY MET THESE CHALLENGES My interviews revealed that participants met these challenges in three ways: 1) they used MPLP to their advantage, 2) they engaged in thoughtful and strategic efforts, and 3) they addressed intrapersonal concerns head on. USED MPLP TO THEIR ADVANTAGE In effort to gain voter and elite support, participants used their participation in MPLP to learn more about what it takes to run a successful campaign and establish relationships with other latent candidates and potential funders. On the political knowledge side, participants wanted to learn more about the mechanics of running for office such as clarification of political jargon, how to file to be a candidate and other necessary beginning steps, and software for canvassing. As it relates to building relationships and networks, participants were able to accomplish this several ways. MPLP is a bi-partisan, policy and leadership program with an equal number of participants from each side. The unique nature of this program allowed participants to interact with, debate, and establish relationships with those across the aisle in a way that they may not have experienced until after being elected. Sally stated, “I think it's [MPLP] a great place to get your, dip your toe in the in the water and see if you're comfortable with the temperature in this particular climate, because it is a unique climate that we're in right now for politics. I think it's a great place to meet new people. And really, it's a purposeful place where you can sit down in an organized structural, you know, arena, and have a conversation with somebody else who sits on the opposite side of the table from you, and have dialogue about, you know, issues that you both care about. There are very few forums around like that, that allow you that opportunity.” Sally graduated from MPLP over two decades ago. She candidly discussed the ways in which the bipartisan nature of the program and the environment impacted her. When reflecting on her experience, she stated, “What I remember about it is, you know, we were working, of course, the Democrats on one side, and the Republicans on the other side. And as even though we had these social events where we came together, and we mingled, and we got to know one another, and found out things that a lot of things we had in common. When we got to the exercises, and 85 we, you know, unpacked a lot of these problems and policies, we would always go back into our individual caucuses, and vote the way that our party said to vote, versus what we had come to an agreement on in a social setting. Wow. And so that, sort of poison my attitude about politics, that was 20 years ago, I said, if this is the way it's going to be, and people are always going to go back to their party lines, then I don't want to be a part of that. Because I prefer to be an independent thinker.” In one statement Sally compliments the bi-partisan nature of the program while in another statement she suggests that this depressed her political ambition. The juxtaposition of these two statements highlight the complexities of latent candidates’ path to candidacy and later public office. When discussing how she came to be appointed as an elected official, she mentioned how MPLP may have helped her. She recalled, “When I applied for this appointment, and I put that on my resume, I think the [committee] that were around the table that had to vote for me, they may have been aware of in MPLP.” She mentioned how that experience helps her as she is serving in her role as well. At one point, the MPLP experience and the types of relationships Sally made while participating depressed her ambitions and behaviors as an elite, but later the same experience was able to be used as an advantage. Latent candidates often spend time being highly engaged before running for office or, like Sally, being appointed. Sally’s experience is a good example of how latent candidates’ path sometimes look. It is also a good example of the ways in which MPLP or similar programs can be an advantage for Black women candidates and latent candidates over time. Continually, participants were very aware of how forming relationships and building a network could support their future bid for office. Denise stated, “I mean it gives you relationships, that's the main thing. And you need relationships when you're running for office, because anybody from anywhere can donate to your campaign. You don't have to be like in that district. So if you have a friend and friends in MPLP that live up north and they drop some money in your pocket. You know what I'm saying? That gives you an advantage that you don't have if you're just local and you don't know anyone. You're just in your group, you know. So I think that's the advantage and MPLP gives you it gives you statewide connections, not just local…actually no, national.” 86 In her continued conversation, she referred to how MPLP alum who have run for office were helped because they used “the MPLP way” and were able to “work the MPLP network to fundraise.” The fundraising strategy she referred to rely upon reaching out to classmates and other alum across the country to obtain small dollar donations. This has the potential of furthering their fundraising reach if the peer network also promotes their candidacy to others. Ultimately, participants were able to take advantage of their time at MPLP to learn more about how to run for office and gain support from elites. I say elites because participants were clear about not in their thinking that the average voter is unaware of programs like MPLP. Essie said, “I don't think the average [citizen] would know about MPLP. Like my mom, if it wasn't my mom, who was a person who always votes. Um, if I didn't tell her about it, she probably wouldn't have knew.” Sally said something similar. This leads me to posit that though MPLP helps them gain more support, it is elite support that they are gaining, not voter support Lastly, Sally participated in a similar program before MPLP. This further suggests that these women are aware of the advantages of these programs and the networks that come along with them. Table 3.4 features the full analysis. Table 3.4: How They Met These Challenges, Used MPLP to Their Advantage How They Met These Challenges Theme Used MPLP to Their Advantage Participated in MPLP and similar programs to gain voter and elite support Codes Sought to learn more about campaigns and how to run for office (2): wanted to learn more about the process of running for office and campaign rules and mechanics - “I wanted to learn about the mechanics of getting into politics. There were lots of terms that I didn't understand, like what's a majority whip mean? And you know, what, what a lame duck session is and you know, all these little quirky terms that politicians use. And so I wanted to learn about that. And I want to learn about how an effective campaign might be run.” - “I hoped to gain just knowledge about campaigns and like actually running for office. There is no blueprint, like no one tells you how to run for office, no one tells you really how to file, how to like the 87 Table 3.4 (cont’d) beginning steps, no one tells you how to like go door knocking or the programs like the software's that you have to use to find these people information. And so I was just hoping to learn about that.” Sought to learn to navigate bipartisan environments (3): established relationships with Republicans and become more familiar with bipartisan issues - “The things that you learn, the friendships that you gain and friendships are so important. Because again, when you have somebody from [redacted] City, true story, [redacted] City Republican, that's talking to you, you're not thinking about what they're facing up there. We have somebody from [redacted city], that's a Democrat, again true story, you're not thinking about the problems that they have. So now you have this, like new influx of issues that you never even thought about. And it's just knowledge that it's just to your benefit.” - “And to also be able to make some Republican friends and just to really, like get to know them better. I’m definitely a Democrat. But like I said, I think, you know, with knowing that we have this common goal, I’d love to hear you know why you believe that. If we can have a respectful conversation, and we are trying to understand one another, because most times, most people are either Dems or Republicans. This is what I think, they're Dems or Republicans because of how they were raised in their environment. And that's just usually how it goes. And then when you grow more, me, when you come into yourself more, you usually be like, Okay, well, I'm gonna go this way or that way, but the basis of it is usually your environment.” - “I think it's a great place to get your dip your toe in the in the water and see if you're comfortable with the temperature in this particular climate, because it is a unique climate that we're in right now for politics. I think it's a great place to meet new people. And really, it's a purposeful place where you can sit down in an organized structural, you know, arena, and have a conversation with somebody else who sits on the opposite side of the table from you, and have dialogue about, you know, issues that you both care about. There are very few forums around like that, that allow you that opportunity.” 88 Table 3.4 (cont’d) Established a network that could support a future bid for office (3): built relationships with potential campaign volunteers and funders - “I look at so many elected officials now and before I applied for this program, I didn't know about it, but when they started telling us about the alumni, I was like, Oh, wow. [political elite], [political elite]. So many other people that I can't recall right now, but I think what [political elite] he's the codirector right now and he was a state senator. [political elite]. She was, yeah, another codirector, and she was. So all of these people, all of these affluent people who are in public office did MPLP, so when I think about it that way, it's like, yeah, definitely. I mean, that's gonna help me. And because our network is, is, well, it's a big network, but it's a small network because you have to be selected. You say you are an MPLP alum— What can I do for you? If somebody was to tell me that, what can I do for you? If somebody asked me to help them knock doors and they’re MPLP alum? Yes, because I know what it took. I know, you know, so in that sense, definitely, yes. - “I think that, I think it helps because it already gives you those tools, but then again I mean it gives you a relationships, that's the main thing. And you need relationships when you're running for office, because anybody from anywhere can donate to your campaign. You don't have to be like in that district. So if you have a friend and friends in MPLP that live up north and they drop some money in your pocket. You know what I'm saying? That gives you an advantage that you don't have if you're just local and you don't know anyone. You're just in your group, you know. So I think that's the advantage and MPLP gives you it gives you statewide connections, not just local…actually no, national. Because I have classmates that like one of my classmates is a JAG officer. She's in like, somewhere, you know, people leave the state too you know. I have a couple classmates like in DC area, you know, different things like that. A friend that's working as a college administrator in the Delaware area, you know, it was in Maryland, Delaware. So you know, people start to branch out. So you can, you can get a check from anywhere.” - “Some of them I think were MPLP and they use the MPLP way, and they work the MPLP network to fundraise. That's one of the things that helped them. And I would say, if you're not, if you're a black woman and you're not, I know black women who were MPLPs and still struggle running for office. But I do see that this does help because you do at least have, on both sides of the aisle, 89 Table 3.4 (cont’d) you got a classmate. They just love you because you’re you. They don't care what you’re running for, you’re running. Oh, okay, good. You finally running? They'll drop a few dollars in your pocket, just because they you know, you have that relationship. Well, yeah, you don't have that. I think so it does help to have some kind of a network, either Leadership Detroit, some form of a professional group that you can go to help start your fundraising campaign.” THOUGHTFUL AND STRATEGIC EFFORTS Subjects make thoughtful and strategic efforts to overcome intersectional disadvantages. Though they acknowledged the ways in which their intersectional identity disadvantages them, participants also discussed how they use their identity as an advantage. When asked if she feels empowered or burdened by her identity, Essie revealed, “I definitely feel empowered. I feel that honestly, I feel that me being a black woman, a young black woman from [city], is my advantage. And I use it as an advantage. Because I bring a different perspective to most of the people I interact with. So currently, in my job, it is mostly black people. But my last job where I was working in political communications, I was the only Black woman and with the other project managers, I was the only Black project manager. And so it was just a different perspective that I gave to our clients and to the job.” Essie highlights how her identity as a Black woman gives her a unique perspective that she brings to her efforts in politics and policy. This is especially true as her work in her city is informed by her lived experience in the city. For Sally, her “unique lens” led her to prioritize diversity, equity, and inclusion which advanced hiring practices and office culture. So, while there are challenges because of their race and gender, Black women are thoughtful and find advantages as well. Participants exemplified being strategic about how they consider pursuing public office. Essie, who has aspirations of being mayor, stated that she is working in government to learn what it takes to serve in that role and building relationships that would help her in the future. Sally decided to pursue public office as an appointee when a vacancy took place in the middle of the term. She 90 stated, “I probably never would have the position that I have, had it not been for that appointment.” This, along with her hesitation about running for reelection, highlights the strategic approach she applied when deciding to throw her hat in the ring for the appointed position. Moreover, Denise stated, “I'm kicking myself, because I saw that I could've easily have gone onto my [school] board …, I didn't even pay attention well enough, going back to we got to stay engaged. People throw all kinds of stuff in there, our face, but don't show us that all you have to do is fill out the thing, I could have been on the [local] School Board, because there was a spot open. And when I looked at the ballot, you know, I'm saying there was an extra spot. So, you know, I mean, it's just little things like that you can we can we need to be engaged at all levels. So just thinking about that the next time if there's an opportunity, you know, to easily get into a seat, like, take it, you know.” She regrets not running for the open seat. It makes sense that Denise would be considering strategic entry given her experience being discouraged and shut out of the candidacy process by her peers and other elites. She is hesitant to say that she wants to run for office when asked, but her narrative suggest she’s looking for an easy way in to bypass those gatekeepers who she feels does not support Black women. Finally, Black women prioritize mentorship and build programs to usher more people who look like them into the pipeline for public office. Participants mention being mentees of other Black women elites or a willingness to mentor other Black women elites, suggesting they value the concept and use it to as a mechanism to support one another. The value of mentorship was especially present in Essie’s narrative. The young elite continually referred to other Black women in politics, drawing examples from their experiences to anticipate challenges that will come her way as a candidate. Essie referred to one Black woman elite in her network as her “political guru” and says she was told by her “don't do anything without talking to me first.” She expressed gratitude for this type of guidance from other Black women saying she feels inspired by it. She also exemplified that she is paying it forward in effort to bring other Black women into the fold. Essie stated, 91 “My story is not unique. Black girl from [city], goals, dreams aspirations. I just so happened to was able to embrace opportunities. I had people who supported me, people who believed in me, and was able to uplift me. But I'm not unique. And so me saying that there's a lot more Black women who are coming up just like me, and they need help. And I think that we are in the position where we can pave the way for those young black women. And we just have to continue doing that.” Mentorship is a revolving door. Because of the mentorship she received from “political guru” and others, Essie is intentional about being in service and support of other Black women in the same way. Black women elites focus on creating specialized programming and institutions to provide support to Black candidates and latent candidates. This type of work is very important to Denise. She mentioned that she “helped to put on a women's empowerment event at the Congressional Black Caucus last year. She also said that she is currently working to start a Black Caucus among MPLP graduates that will provide a scholarship for Black individuals interested in MPLP. When discussing this she stated, “So that's why I say if you do these programs, you need to get in stay engaged, and why a Black Caucus is important, because now we are going to make sure if you run for office, you need to let us know. So we can help you, We would ultimately, I think, try to start a PAC. Where you know, there's not a lot of black, black led, black directed, PACs in Michigan.” Denise is thoughtful and strategic, using specialized programs to create more opportunities for Black women which will bring more people into the space and eventually make everything about who they are— their hair texture, appearance, and layered experiences – acceptable in politics. Mentorship and specialized programs are important because they address the supply side issue that hinders Black women representation in American politics. Creating more opportunities for Black women to run for office lessens the stigma around their identity. They feel the onus is on them to create a lively community of Black women in politics and they do so in a thoughtful and strategic way. See Table 3.5 for the full analysis. 92 Table 3.5: How They Met These Challenges, Thoughtful and Strategic Efforts How They Met These Challenges Theme Thoughtful and Strategic Efforts Make thoughtful and strategic efforts to overcome intersectional disadvantages Codes Use identity as an advantage (3): use their intersectional identity to provide a unique perspective - “I definitely feel empowered. I feel that honestly, I feel that me being a black woman, a young black woman from [redacted city], is my advantage. And I use it as an advantage. Because I bring a different perspective to most of the people I interact with. So currently, in my job, it is mostly black people. But my last job where I was working in political communications, I was the only black woman and with the other project managers, I was the only black project manager. And so it was just a different perspective that I gave to our clients and to the job.” - “And so when I took this role, that was one of the things that I said during my interview, that I am a strong advocate for diversity, equity inclusion, so I bring that identity naturally with me wherever I go. Um, but the way I'm using that influence is by, you know, every job description that we look at, too, because the [committee] has to approve new positions. So what I observed through my unique lens, is that a lot of these job descriptions did not have a phrase in there that said, you know, ability to work in a multicultural environment that values diversity, equity, and inclusion. So I have made sure that that phrase goes in every job description so that people who are coming into our space, really have that appreciation. And I don't I don't think that anyone else may have had that lens as sharply as I have. And so little things like that are are examples of how I'm bringing my own identity into this space.” - “I mean, you know, it's a it's a it's a blessing and a curse. I say, you know, at the same time, you know, I'm very cognizant of the fact that I'm very rooted in my you know, I can spend time with all kinds of folks and I've had relationships with all kinds of different folks, you know, personal, you know, family, all of that but I think at the end of day just knowing that we are the first and we will be the last. We were like when we're like almost like roaches, you know, we only when you cut the lights back off, we go on come on. We I had You got to get rid of us. I mean, you know, you got to think about the level of chaos and trauma it has to take to be literally human trafficked. You know, I'm saying and not at Mass, you know, you're stripped of all identity, all things. But yeah, we still 93 Table 3.5 (cont’d) have a way of making things being things. And so I think I am always cognizant on that we are the first and we are that we are the mothers of the earth, and that everything evolves around us and even even when we're being oppressed, people are still trying to be us. So I harness that I take advantage of if you want to be tokenism on me, okay, I'll come up in your mix, but don't, I'm gonna be in there. When I'm in there, I'm gonna be in now. Be careful who you let in the room? Because you okay, let me out. So, you know, I take advantage of the uniqueness and use it to my favor.” Strategic about how they approach candidacy (3): thoughtful and strategic about when and how to run for office - “And I think about okay, what can I do to build my resume. And so currently, right now, I'm the [position]. And I admire Mayor [last name]. And so and I admire the administration. So for me to be able to work so closely to him and so closely to his staff, right now, this is for me, it's learning. And I'm just climbing the ladder. And so when I think about experience, and how I'm gonna get to where I want to go, I'm not trying to rush it, trying to be patient, build as many relationships and connections as I possibly can. And just for right now, learn. And then eventually, I mean, just kind of go and get into that goal mode, but just really climbing the ladder and learning.” - “I've never really run for a political office, the office that I have, right now, I was appointed to because of vacancy took place in the middle of the term. And so I never, you know, I probably never would have the position that I have, had it not been for that appointment. 12 people were vying for this appointment. And so I decided, well, now that I'm retired, I have more time to dedicate to something like this, because I still want to make a difference, right. And, um, and so I threw my hat in the ring, and, you know, submitted a paper about how I could change the county and recommendations and things like that, and interviewed and so they, I got most of the votes on the [committee]. And so that's how I ended up in the political position. In my very first political position. I never ran a campaign. But if I want to keep it, I do have to run a campaign.” - “I'm kicking myself, because I saw that I could've easily have gone onto my [school] board my … I didn't even pay attention well enough, going back to we got to stay engaged. People throw all kinds of stuff in there, our face, but don't show us that all you have to do is fill out the thing, I could have been on the [local] School 94 Table 3.5 (cont’d) Board, because there was a spot open. And when I looked at the ballot, you know, I'm saying there was an extra spot. So, you know, I mean, it's just little things like that you can we can we need to be engaged at all levels. So just thinking about that the next time if there's an opportunity, you know, to easily get into a seat, like, take it, you know.” Mentorship (3): value mentorship among black women and participate as mentees and mentors - “My story is not unique. Black girl from [city], goals, dreams aspirations. I just so happened to was able to embrace opportunities. I had people who supported me, people who believed in me, and was able to uplift me. But I'm not unique. And so me saying that there's a lot more black women who are coming up just like me, and they need help. And I think that we are in the position where we can pave the way for those young black women. And we just have to continue doing that. - “Yeah, 100 percent. And I want to add to this, [Black woman political elite], she's like my political guru, and she she told me, she said ... don't do anything without talking to me first, and it's just because you're in this field, you make a lot of decisions. And you don't always know which one is the right one, and whatever one you pick is gonna be the right one. But it's like so much that's, you know, competing for your attention. And just, and so to have someone of her stature and for her to be a Black woman that's supporting me, and that believes in me, like you said it, it lets us know that like, these things are possible.” - “Wow, that's a really good question. Um, I, I would definitely be willing to mentor her number one. As a mentor, I think I would give her some warnings about working full time and then trying to be a politician at the at the same time that you're working full time, because what I'm finding with my colleagues is that some of them do work full time. And they are not able to engage in the the work that really needs to be done, because they have obligations at work.” Building programs to address supply side concerns (3): making efforts to encourage and support black candidates and latent candidates - “I helped to put on a women's empowerment event at the Congressional Black Caucus last year.” - “And we are in the process now of getting ready to start the MPLP Black Caucus, which has never existed before. Yeah, that's great. 95 Table 3.5 (cont’d) That's great. My classmate is going to be chair and I will be vice chair of the MPLP Black Caucus on purpose because I want to leave it as I leave. I was like, I'll do that. And I'm engaged right now this is not quite in MPLP, but it's sort of connected.” - “So that's why I say if you do these programs, you need to get in stay engaged, and why a black caucus is important, because now we are going to make sure if you run for office, you need to let us know. So we can help you, We would ultimately, I think, try to start a PAC. Where you know, there's not a lot of black, black led, black directed, PACs in Michigan.” ADDRESS INTRAPERSONAL CONCERNS HEAD-ON To overcome personal hindrances, participants purposefully put themselves in situations that improve their concerns. Sally scheduled public speaking at township meetings to help her overcome being introverted. Not only would she deliver a speech, but also mingle with local citizens in her district. Though she is undecided on whether she will run for reelection, she is readying herself for either decision. In terms overcoming the fear of fundraising for her own campaign, Denise has developed a strategy that would give her a greater chance of receiving donations and a lesser chance of being rejected. She stated, “You got to work the plan. And as far as like the campaign, you know, you got to have a solid campaign plan, you have to have a solid, solid objective, you have to have succinct, succinct team, you have to have some really committed folks that, you know, you can believe in, that will start a volunteer crew for you, you know, saying, so those are the things that you really have to do is work the plan and work the phone, get your money, like it's a job, and work, the work the plan.” The plan included relying on professional networks like MPLP to provide early seed money. Taken together, participants are thoughtful and work to address their concerns. See Table 3.6 for a full analysis. 96 Table 3.6: How They Met These Challenges, Address Intrapersonal Concerns Head-On How They Met These Challenges Theme Address Intrapersonal Concerns Head-On Intentional about addressing intrapersonal concerns such as being introverted, being uncomfortable asking for money, lacking social media and technology skills Codes Put themselves in situations to improve concerns (1): more public speaking to overcome being introverted - “Just to do more public speaking. Yeah. And so I'm challenging myself right now. In fact, I, April is, what is it national county aware, County Government Awareness Month. And so I've actually written a little one page, two page speech about what [local] government does for local citizens. And so I plan on going to one of the township meetings on Monday night, and just doing that throughout the month of April, just to give myself more experience and to get myself out there. So I do know how to push myself to help overcome the fear.” Work the plan (2): overcome fear of fundraising by making a plan and relying upon networks to help - “You got to work the plan. And as far as like the campaign, you know, you got to have a solid campaign plan, you have to have a solid, solid objective, you have to have succinct, succinct team, you have to have some really committed folks that, you know, you can believe in, that will start a volunteer crew for you, you know, saying, so those are the things that you really have to do is work the plan and work the phone, get your money, like it's a job, and work, the work the plan.” - “It does help to have some kind of a network, either Leadership [city], try some form of a professional group that you can go to to help start your fundraising campaign.” DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION In closing, this study highlights the ways in which Black women perceive the challenges they face due to their identity when running for public office. The data also reveal the actions Black women candidates and latent candidates take to overcome said challenges. The ways in which these women overcome challenges are somewhat rooted in their perception of their identity to their advantage—allowing them to provide a unique perspective to the political arena and create 97 opportunities to bring more Black women into the fold. This provides some evidence that Black women perceive their identity as a double disadvantage and a double advantage, depending on the circumstances. The data presented in this chapter emphasize the uniqueness of Black women’s experiences and behaviors. There are clear differences, from their perception, between their experiences as Black women and that of Black men. The double standards they endure as it relates to what they can and cannot do and how they must present themselves leaves them feeling confined and constrained, but they make strategic efforts to excel anyway. This is partially due to the fact that they worry about descriptive representation (Dovi 2002; Mansbridge 1999). This is illuminated in Denise’s words, when she states, “I feel like what makes me want to do things like these women empowerment and other things and black caucuses because I see we're out of the game like we just people are just snatching. I went to go look up my friend’s legislator in [city] and both the offices are white people, no offense, but this is the west side of [city]. She lives on [redacted intersection], like come on hun, like come through sis. But no, not the white girl. So and I didn't even look like they would even know what the right thing to say. So I'm just, I'm not hating on you know, our legislators. But I just worry about, you know, representation because of redistricting and other things that we are out of the game.” Though this research is limited in scope, I have a cross-generational sample, so I am able to provide narratives about a range of experiences among Black women. Furthermore, this is the first step in a larger project seeking to understand distinct strategies Black women apply to get elected. Ultimately, this work demonstrates that though Black women candidates and latent candidates perceive unique challenges that they feel could hinder their success, they persist with strategies and tend to remain engaged until they reach their goal of holding office. 98 CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSION 99 In this dissertation, I offer illuminating findings that further our understanding of the experiences of Black women political elites and the ways by which candidate training can enrich their experiences and help them garner more support as candidates among the broader electorate. The results from chapters two and three demonstrate candidate training experience is among characteristics voters prefer. The results from chapter two are gendered. The findings reveal that when it comes to vote choice, candidate training experience significantly shapes whether respondents would vote to support a Black or white woman candidate but matters far less in improving the chances that respondents would vote to support a Black or white male candidate. While there is some evidence that these findings are intersectional suggesting Black women may benefit significantly from the signal of perceived candidate quality prompted by the presence of candidate training experience, but more research is needed to determine this. A conjoint design featuring varying images of hypothetical Black women candidates in comparison to varying images of other hypothetical women candidates may accomplish this. The use of images may be necessary given what we know about the politics of appearance and the ways in which hair texture, hairstyle, and skin tone have on how Black women candidates are evaluated by voters. The results from chapter three show that voters prefer candidate training experience when asked in the abstract and when given further information such as race, gender, prior employment, candidate training background, and prior political experience. Among minority respondents race matters more, but candidate training experience is often the most important candidate characteristic shaping voter’s evaluations, with large substantive effect sizes. The results offer some recommendation regarding actions Black women, and others who face voter biases and barriers because they live at the intersection, can take to become more viable and electable candidates. Not only do candidate training programs such as Emerge America have the potential to improve how Black women candidates are perceived, but findings from chapter four show these programs also provide participants with skills and a network which has the potential to 100 increase their confidence, bolster their political ambition, and support their future candidacy through monetary commitments and volunteerism. Moreover, the results from chapter four further exemplify Black women view the challenges they face as distinct and intersectional, still they make strategic efforts to persist – utilizing candidate trainings to their benefit is one example of their strategic decision making. The small sample size does limit my findings. While the intergenerational nature of the sample works to my advantage, narratives from more Black women political elites are needed to learn about the nuances of their experiences. Understanding their perspective can help race, ethnicity, and gender scholars as we develop theories that describe Black women elites’ political behaviors as well as perceptions voters hold about them. This is especially important considering the growth of Black women in the political arena. On a broader level, it is my hope that this research provides robust insights to programs like Emerge America’s Seated Together who have focused efforts on using specialized programming to increase the supply of Black women candidates. It is also my hope that this work influences other programs to organize their efforts to recruit, train, and support Black women candidates, and minority women candidates more generally. 101 REFERENCES Abrajano, Marisa A., and R. Michael Alvarez. 2005. “A Natural Experiment of Race-Based and Issue Voting: The 2001 City of Los Angeles Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 58(2): 203–18. Alexander, Deborah, and Kristi Andersen. 1993. “Gender as a Factor in the Attribution of Leadership Traits.” Political Research Quarterly 46(3): 527–45. Anzia, Sarah F., and Christopher R. Berry. 2011. “The Jackie (and Jill) Robinson Effect: Why Do Congresswomen Outperform Congressmen?” American Journal of Political Science 55(3): 478– 93. Banks, Ingrid. 2000. Hair Matters: Beauty, Power, and Black Women’s Consciousness. New York: NYU Press. Banwart, Mary Christine. 2010. “Gender and Candidate Communication: Effects of Stereotypes in the 2008 Election.” American Behavioral Scientist 54(3): 265–83. Bateson, Regina. 2020. “Strategic Discrimination.” Perspectives on Politics 18(4): 1068–87. Bauer, Nichole M. 2015a. “Emotional, Sensitive, and Unfit for Office? Gender Stereotype Activation and Support Female Candidates.” Political Psychology 36(6): 691–708. ———. 2015b. “Who Stereotypes Female Candidates? Identifying Individual Differences in Feminine Stereotype Reliance.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 3(1): 94–110. ———. 2020. The Qualifications Gap: Why Women Must Be Better than Men to Win Political Office. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/qualifications- gap/2F2629A699402762D0E66E3F02C7394C (September 2, 2022). Beale, Frances. 1979a. “Double Jeopardy: To Be Black and Female.” In The Black Woman, ed. Toni Cade. New York, NY: American Library, 90–100. ———. 1979b. “Double Jeopardy: To Be Black and Female.” In The Black Woman: An Anthology, ed. Toni Cade Bambara. New York, NY: New American Library, 90–100. Bernhard, Rachel, and Justin de Benedictis-Kessner. 2021. “Men and Women Candidates Are Similarly Persistent after Losing Elections.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118(26): e2026726118. Braun, Virginia, and Victoria Clarke. 2006. “Using Thematic Analysis in Psychology.” Qualitative Research in Psychology 3(2): 77–101. Brown, Nadia E. 2014. Sisters in the Statehouse: Black Women and Legislative Decision Making. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ———. 2022. “All the Feelings: Doing Research as a Black Woman on Black Women Political Elites.” PS: Political Science & Politics 55(3): 565–66. 102 Brown, Nadia E., Guillermo Caballero, and Sarah Gershon. 2021. “Intersectionality in Political Science.” Oxford Bibliographies. https://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/display/document/obo-9780199756223/obo- 9780199756223-0327.xml (July 9, 2023). Brown, Nadia E., and Sarah Allen Gershon. 2021. “‘Glass Half Full: Cautious Optimism and the Future of Black Women Political Elites in America.’” Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 6(1): 3–15. Brown, Nadia E., and Danielle Casarez Lemi. 2021. Sister Style: The Politics of Appearance for Black Women Political Elites. New York: Oxford University Press. https://oxford.universitypressscholarship.com/10.1093/oso/9780197540572.001.0001/oso -9780197540572 (July 15, 2021). Bryner, Sarah. 2021. Which Women Can Run? The Fundraising Gap in the 2020 Elections’ Competitive Primaries. OpenSecrets. https://dkftve4js3etk.cloudfront.net/OpenSecrets_RaceGenderReport2020_BrynerHaley.p df. Bryner, Sarah, and Grace Haley. 2021. Which Women Can Run?: The Fundraising Gap in the 2020 Elections’ Competitive Primaries. United States: Open Secrets. Report/Whitepaper. Burrell, Barbara C. 2010. Political Parties and Women’s Organizations: Bringing Women into the Electoral Arena. Second. Cambridge University Press. Bush, Cori. 2020. “Cori Bush on How She Took on the Political Establishment and Won.” https://jacobin.com/2020/08/cori-bush-congress-socialism (May 26, 2023). Carnes, Nicholas, and Noam Lupu. 2016. “Do Voters Dislike Working-Class Candidates? Voter Biases and the Descriptive Underrepresentation of the Working Class.” American Political Science Review 110(4): 832–44. Carnes, Nicholas, and Meredith L. Sadin. 2015. “The ‘Mill Worker’s Son’ Heuristic: How Voters Perceive Politicians from Working-Class Families—and How They Really Behave in Office.” The Journal of Politics 77(1): 285–98. Carson, Sarah A. 2022. “The New Girls’ Clubs: Candidate Training Programs and the Women Changing the Face of United States Politics.” Open Anthropological Research 2(1): 59–75. Collins, Patricia Hill. 1990. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. New York, NY: Routledge. ———. 2000. Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment. 2nd ed. Oxford: Routledge. Conover, Pamela Johnston, and Stanley Feldman. 1989. “Candidate Perception in an Ambiguous World: Campaigns, Cues, and Inference Processes.” American Journal of Political Science 33(4): 912–40. 103 Corbett, Christianne, Jan G. Voelkel, Marianne Cooper, and Robb Willer. 2022. “Pragmatic Bias Impedes Women’s Access to Political Leadership.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 119(6): e2112616119. Costantini, Edmond. 1990. “Political Women and Political Ambition: Closing the Gender Gap.” American Journal of Political Science 34(3): 741–70. Crenshaw, Kimberle. 1989. “Demarginalizing the Intersection of Race and Sex: A Black Feminist Critique of Antidiscrimination Doctrine, Feminist Theory and Antiracist Politics.” University of Chicago Legal Forum 1(8). ———. 1991. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43(6): 1241–99. Crowder-Meyer, Melody. 2013. “Gendered Recruitment without Trying: How Local Party Recruiters Affect Women’s Representation.” Politics & Gender 9(4): 390–413. Darcy, R., and Charles D. Hadley. 1988. “Black Women in Politics: The Puzzle of Success.” Social Science Quarterly 69(3): 629–45. Dawson, Michael C. 1994. Behind the Mule: Race and Class in African-American Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691025438/behind-the-mule (October 18, 2020). Deaux, Kay. 1984. “From Individual Differences to Social Categories: Analysis of a Decade’s Research on Gender.” American Psychologist 39(2): 105–16. Dickinson, Kesicia A. 2023a. “A Collection of Papers Examining Black Women’s Experiences as Candidates and Latent Candidates.” Michigan State University. ———. 2023b. “In Her Own Words: How Black Women Percieve Their Challenges as Candidates and Latent Candidates.” Chapter. Michigan State University. Ditonto, Tessa. 2017. “A High Bar or a Double Standard? Gender, Competence, and Information in Political Campaigns.” Political Behavior 39(2): 301–25. Dittmar, Kelly. 2014. The Status of Black Women in American Politics. The Higher Heights Leadership Fund, the Center for American Women and Politics, Rutgers University. http://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/themes/51c5f2728ed5f02d1e000002/attachments/ original/1404487580/Status-of-Black-Women-Final-Report.pdf?1404487580. ———. 2015. “Encouragement Is Not Enough: Addressing Social and Structural Barriers to Female Recruitment.” Politics & Gender 11(4): 759–65. ———. 2023. Black Women in American Politics 2023. New Brunswick, NJ: Higher Heights Leadership Fund, Center for American Women and Politics. 104 Doherty, David, Conor M. Dowling, and Michael G. Miller. 2019. “Do Local Party Chairs Think Women and Minority Candidates Can Win? Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment.” The Journal of Politics 81(4): 1282–97. Dolan, Kathleen. 2010. “The Impact of Gender Stereotyped Evaluations on Support for Women Candidates.” Political Behavior 32(1): 69–88. Dolan, Kathleen A. 2014. When Does Gender Matter?: Women Candidates and Gender Stereotypes in American Elections. Oxford University Press. Dovi, Suzanne. 2002. “Preferable Descriptive Representatives: Will Just Any Woman, Black, or Latino Do?” The American Political Science Review 96(4): 729–43. Dowe, Pearl K. Ford. 2020. “Resisting Marginalization: Black Women’s Political Ambition and Agency.” PS: Political Science & Politics: 1–5. Eagly, Alice H., and Jean Lau Chin. 2010. “Diversity and Leadership in a Changing World.” American Psychologist 65(3): 216–24. Elder, Laurel. 2021. The Partisan Gap: Why Democratic Women Get Elected But Republican Women Don’t. NYU Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv2tr52bh (June 25, 2023). Fox, Richard L., and Jennifer L. Lawless. 2004. “Entering the Arena? Gender and the Decision to Run for Office.” American Journal of Political Science 48(2): 264–80. ———. 2010. “If Only They’d Ask: Gender, Recruitment, and Political Ambition.” Journal of Politics 72(2): 310–26. ———. 2014. “Uncovering the Origins of the Gender Gap in Political Ambition.” American Political Science Review 108(3): 499–519. Fulton, Sarah A. 2012. “Running Backwards and in High Heels: The Gendered Quality Gap and Incumbent Electoral Success.” Political Research Quarterly 65(2): 303–14. Gershon, Sarah Allen, and Jessica Lavariega Monforti. 2021. “Intersecting Campaigns: Candidate Race, Ethnicity, Gender and Voter Evaluations.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 9(3): 439–63. Ghavami, Negin, and Letitia Anne Peplau. 2013. “An Intersectional Analysis of Gender and Ethnic Stereotypes: Testing Three Hypotheses.” Psychology of Women Quarterly 37(1): 113–27. Gillespie, Andra, and Nadia E. Brown. 2019. “#BlackGirlMagic Demystified: Black Women as Voters, Partisans and Political Actors.” Phylon (1960-) 56(2): 37–58. Gonzalez, Sylvia, and Nichole Bauer. 2022. “Strong and Caring? The Stereotypic Traits of Women of Color in Politics.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 0(0): 1–18. Hainmueller, Jens, Dominik Hangartner, and Teppei Yamamoto. 2015. “Validating Vignette and Conjoint Survey Experiments against Real-World Behavior.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 112(8): 2395–2400. 105 Hainmueller, Jens, Daniel J. Hopkins, and Teppei Yamamoto. 2014. “Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices via Stated Preference Experiments.” Political Analysis 22(1): 1–30. Hancock, Ange-Marie. 2007. “When Multiplication Doesn’t Equal Quick Addition: Examining Intersectionality as a Research Paradigm.” Perspectives on Politics 5(1): 63–79. Hardy-Fanta, Carol, Pei-te Lien, Dianne Pinderhughes, and Christine Sierra. 2006. “Gender, Race, and Descriptive Representation in the United States: Findings from the Gender and Multicultural Leadership Project.” Publications from the Center for Women in Politics and Public Policy. https://scholarworks.umb.edu/cwppp_pubs/35. Hennings, Valerie M. 2011. “Civic Selves : Gender, Candidate Training Programs, and Envisioning Political Participation.” University of Wisconsin-Madison. https://search.library.wisc.edu/catalog/9910115377602121 (February 9, 2023). Higgins, Abigail. 2019. This Is How Women Can Take over Politics. wework. https://www.wework.com/ideas/harnessing-female-political-power. Highton, Benjamin. 2004. “White Voters and African American Candidates for Congress.” Political Behavior 26(1): 1–25. Huddy, Leonie, and Stanley Feldman. 2009. “On Assessing the Political Effects of Racial Prejudice.” Annual Review of Political Science 12(1): 423–47. Huddy, Leonie, and Nayda Terkildsen. 1993a. “Gender Stereotypes and the Perception of Male and Female Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37(1): 119–47. ———. 1993b. “The Consequences of Gender Stereotypes for Women Candidates at Different Levels and Types of Office.” Political Research Quarterly 46(3): 503–25. Hutchings, Vincent L., and Nicholas A. Valentino. 2004. “The Centrality of Race in American Politics.” Annual Review of Political Science 7(1): 383–408. Jennifer L. Lawless. 2012. Becoming a Candidate: Political Ambition and the Decision to Run for OfficeLA. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. Jones, Philip Edward. 2014. “Revisiting Stereotypes of Non-White Politicians’ Ideological and Partisan Orientations.” American Politics Research 42(2): 283–310. Jordan-Zachery, Julia S. 2009. Black Women, Cultural Images and Social Policy. New York, NY: Routledge. https://www.taylorfrancis.com/books/9780203883167 (October 18, 2020). Juenke, Eric Gonzalez, and Paru Shah. 2016. “Demand and Supply: Racial and Ethnic Minority Candidates in White Districts.” Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics 1(1): 60–90. Kam, Cindy D. 2005. “Who Toes the Party Line? Cues, Values, and Individual Differences.” Political Behavior 27(2): 163–82. 106 Karl, Kristyn L., and Timothy J. Ryan. 2016. “When Are Stereotypes about Black Candidates Applied? An Experimental Test.” Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 1(2): 253–79. Kinder, Donald R., and Allison Dale-Riddle. 2012. The End of Race? Obama, 2008, and Racial Politics in America. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1npcz6 (August 2, 2021). King, Deborah K. 1988. “Multiple Jeopardy, Multiple Consciousness: The Context of a Black Feminist Ideology.” Signs 14(1): 42–72. King, Nigel. 2004. “Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research.” In Essential Guide to Qualitative Methods in Organizational Research, London: SAGE Publications Ltd, 256– 70. https://sk.sagepub.com/books/essential-guide-to-qualitative-methods-in-organizational- research/n21.xml (June 1, 2023). Kirkland, Patricia A., and Alexander Coppock. 2018. “Candidate Choice Without Party Labels:” Political Behavior 40(3): 571–91. Koch, Jeffrey W. 2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Citizens’ Impressions of House Candidates’ Ideological Orientations.” American Journal of Political Science 46(2): 453–62. Kreitzer, Rebecca J., and Tracy L. Osborn. 2019a. “The Emergence and Activities of Women’s Recruiting Groups in the U.S.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 7(4): 842–52. ———. 2019b. “The Emergence and Activities of Women’s Recruiting Groups in the U.S.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 7(4): 842–52. Lawless, Jennifer L. 2004. “Women, War, and Winning Elections: Gender Stereotyping in the Post- September 11th Era.” Political Research Quarterly 57(3): 479–90. Lawless, Jennifer L., and Richard L. Fox. 2008. “Why Are Women Still Not Running for Public Office?” Issues in Governance Studies 16: 1–20. ———. 2013. Girls Just Wanna Not Run The Gender Gap in Young Americans’ Political Ambition. Washington, DC: Women and Politics Institute. Lawless, Jennifer L., and Kathryn Pearson. 2008. “The Primary Reason for Women’s Underrepresentation? Reevaluating the Conventional Wisdom.” The Journal of Politics 70(1): 67–82. Leeper, Mark Stephen. 1991. “The Impact of Prejudice On Female Candidates:: An Experimental Look at Voter Inference.” American Politics Quarterly 19(2): 248–61. Lemi, Danielle Casarez, and Nadia E. Brown. 2019. “Melanin and Curls: Evaluation of Black Women Candidates.” Journal of Race, Ethnicity and Politics 4(2): 259–96. Lerman, Amy E., and Meredith L. Sadin. 2016. “Stereotyping or Projection? How White and Black Voters Estimate Black Candidates’ Ideology.” Political Psychology 37(2): 147–63. 107 Lublin, David, Lisa Handley, Thomas L. Brunell, and Bernard Grofman. 2020. “Minority Success in Non-Majority Minority Districts: Finding the ‘Sweet Spot.’” Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics 5(2): 275–98. Lupia, Arthur. 1994. “Shortcuts Versus Encyclopedias: Information and Voting Behavior in California Insurance Reform Elections.” The American Political Science Review 88(1): 63–76. Madon, Stephanie et al. 2001. “Ethnic and National Stereotypes: The Princeton Trilogy Revisited and Revised.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27(8): 996–1010. Mansbridge, Jane. 1999. “Should Blacks Represent Blacks and Women Represent Women? A Contingent ‘Yes.’” Journal of Politics 61(2): 628–57. Margolin, Emma. 2018. “How a New Wave of Female Candidates Is Training to Fight the Trolls: Running for Office in the Age of #MeToo.” POLITICO Magazine. https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2018/03/12/how-a-new-wave-of-female- candidates-is-training-to-fight-the-trolls-217350. Mas, Alexandre, and Enrico Moretti. 2009. “Racial Bias in the 2008 Presidential Election.” American Economic Review 99(2): 323–29. Matson, Marsha, and Terri Susan Fine. 2006. “Gender, Ethnicity, and Ballot Information: Ballot Cues in Low-Information Elections.” State Politics & Policy Quarterly 6(1): 49–72. McClain, Paula D., Jessica D. Johnson Carew, Eugene Walton, and Candis S. Watts. 2009. “Group Membership, Group Identity, and Group Consciousness: Measures of Racial Identity in American Politics?” Annual Review of Political Science 12(1): 471–85. McDermott, Monika L. 1997. “Voting Cues in Low-Information Elections: Candidate Gender as a Social Information Variable in Contemporary United States Elections.” American Journal of Political Science 41(1): 270–83. ———. 1998. “Race and Gender Cues in Low-Information Elections.” Political Research Quarterly 51(4): 895–918. Messing, Solomon, Maria Jabon, and Ethan Plaut. 2016. “Bias in the Flesh: Skin Complexion and Stereotype Consistency in Political Campaigns.” Public Opinion Quarterly 80(1): 44–65. Michals, Debra. 2015. “Shirley Chisholm.” National Women’s History Museum. https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/shirley-chisholm (July 17, 2023). Moncrief, Gary. 1991. “Gender, Race, and the State Legislature: A Research Note on the Double Disadvantage Hypothesis.” The Social Science Journal 28(4): 481–87. Moncrief, Gary F., Peverill Squire, and Malcolm E. Jewell. 2000. Who Runs For The Legislature? 1st edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. 108 Moncrief, Gary, Joel Thompson, and Robert Schuhmann. 1991. “Gender, Race, and the State Legislature: A Research Note on the Double Disadvantage Hypothesis.” The Social Science Journal 28(4): 481–87. Nash, Jennifer C. 2011. “Practicing Love: Black Feminism, Love-Politics, and Post- Intersectionality.” Meridians 11(2): 1–24. Niemann, Yolanda F. et al. 1994. “Use of Free Responses and Cluster Analysis to Determine Stereotypes of Eight Groups.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 20(4): 379–90. Nowell, Lorelli S., Jill M. Norris, Deborah E. White, and Nancy J. Moules. 2017. “Thematic Analysis: Striving to Meet the Trustworthiness Criteria.” International Journal of Qualitative Methods 16(1): 1609406917733847. Orey, Byron D., and Yu Zhang. 2019. “Melanated Millennials and the Politics of Black Hair.” Social Science Quarterly 100(6). https://onlinelibrary-wiley- com.proxy2.cl.msu.edu/doi/full/10.1111/ssqu.12694 (October 6, 2020). Orey, Byron D’Andra, and Yu Zhang. 2019. “Melanated Millennials and the Politics of Black Hair.” Social Science Quarterly 100(6): 2458–76. Pate, Jennifer, and Richard Fox. 2018. “Getting Past the Gender Gap in Political Ambition.” Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization 156: 166–83. Philpot, Tasha S., and Kenneth M. Miller. 2020. “A New Face to the Race Card? Campaigns, Racial Cues, and Candidate Credibility.” Social Science Quarterly 101(1): 73–90. Philpot, Tasha S., and Hanes Walton Jr. 2007. “One of Our Own: Black Female Candidates and the Voters Who Support Them.” American Journal of Political Science 51(1): 49–62. Piston, Spencer, Yanna Krupnikov, Kerri Milita, and John Barry Ryan. 2018. “Clear as Black and White: The Effects of Ambiguous Rhetoric Depend on Candidate Race.” Journal of Politics 80(2): 662–74. Popkin, Samuel L. 1994. The Reasoning Voter: Communication and Persuasion in Presidential Campaigns. ed. 2d edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/R/bo3636475.html (June 22, 2023). Rahn, Wendy M. 1993. “The Role of Partisan Stereotypes in Information Processing about Political Candidates.” American Journal of Political Science 37(2): 472–96. Reaching Higher: Black Women in American Politics in 2021. 2021. Rutgers Eagleton Institute of Politics. https://cawp.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/2021- 12/black_women_in_politics_2021_1.pdf. Robinson, Cynthia L. 2011. “Hair as Race: Why ‘Good Hair’ May Be Bad for Black Females.” Howard Journal of Communications 22(4): 358–76. 109 Saha, Sparsha, and Ana Catalano Weeks. 2022. “Ambitious Women: Gender and Voter Perceptions of Candidate Ambition.” Political Behavior 44(2): 779–805. Sanbonmatsu, Kira. 2002. “Gender Stereotypes and Vote Choice.” American Journal of Political Science 46(1): 20–34. ———. 2015a. “Electing Women of Color: The Role of Campaign Trainings.” Journal of Women, Politics, & Policy 36(2): 137–60. ———. 2015b. “Why Not a Woman of Color?: The Candidacies of US Women of Color for Statewide Executive Office.” Oxford Handbooks Online. Sanbonmatsu, Kira, Susan J. Carroll, and D. Walsh. 2009. Poised to Run: Women’s Pathways to the State Legislatures. New Brunswick, NJ: Center for American Women and Politics, Eagleton Institute of Politics, Rutgers University. Sanbonmatsu, Kira, and Kelly Dittmar. 2020. “Are You Ready to Runâ? Candidate Trainings and Women’s Candidacies in New Jersey.” In Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy, eds. Shauna L. Shames, Rachel I. Bernhard, Mirya R. Holman, and Dawn L. Teele. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 193–202. Sanbonmatsu, Kira, and Kathleen Dolan. 2009. “Do Gender Stereotypes Transcend Party?” Political Research Quarterly - POLIT RES QUART 62: 485–94. Sanchez, Gabriel R. 2006. “The Role of Group Consciousness in Political Participation Among Latinos in the United States.” American Politics Research 34(4): 427–50. Sanchez, Gabriel R., and Natalie Masuoka. 2010. “Brown-Utility Heuristic? The Presence and Contributing Factors of Latino Linked Fate.” Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences 32(4): 519– 31. Sapiro, Virginia. 1981. “If U.S. Senator Baker Were A Woman: An Experimental Study of Candidate Images.” Political Psychology 3(1/2): 61–83. Schneider, Monica C. 2014. “The Effects of Gender-Bending on Candidate Evaluations.” Journal of Women, Politics & Policy 35(1): 55–77. Schneider, Monica C., and Jennie Sweet-Cushman. 2020. “Pieces of Women’s Political Ambitionn Puzzle: Changing Perceptionns of a Political Career with Campaign Training.” In Good Reasons to Run: Women and Political Candidacy, eds. Shauna L. Shames, Rachel I. Bernhard, Mirya R. Holman, and Dawn L. Teele. Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 203–14. Schneider, Monica C., and Angela L. Bos. 2011a. “An Exploration of the Content of Stereotypes of Black Politicians.” Political Psychology 32(2): 205–33. ———. 2011b. “An Exploration of the Content of Stereotypes of Black Politicians.” Political Psychology 32(2): 205–33. 110 Schwarz, Susanne, and Alexander Coppock. 2022. “What Have We Learned about Gender from Candidate Choice Experiments? A Meta-Analysis of Sixty-Seven Factorial Survey Experiments.” The Journal of Politics 84(2): 655–68. Scott, Jamil, Nadia Brown, Lorrie Frasure, and Dianne Pinderhughes. 2021. “Destined to Run?The Role of Political Participation on Black Women’s Decision to Run for Elected Office.” National Review of Black Politics 2(1): 22–52. Scott, Jamil S. 2018. “Ambition Is Not Enough: Explaining Candidate Emergence in State Level Politics.” Ph.D. Michigan State University. http://www.proquest.com/docview/2090072850/abstract/9CA9B3C839E64AE6PQ/1 (July 8, 2021). “Seated Together.” Emerge. https://emergeamerica.org/seated-together/ (April 10, 2023). Shah, Paru, Jamil Scott, and Eric Gonzalez Juenke. 2019. “Women of Color Candidates: Examining Emergence and Success in State Legislative Elections.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 7(2): 429– 43. Sigelman, Carol K., Lee Sigelman, Barbara J. Walkosz, and Michael Nitz. 1995. “Black Candidates, White Voters: Understanding Racial Bias in Political Perceptions.” American Journal of Political Science 39(1): 243–65. Simien, Evelyn M. 2005. “Race, Gender, and Linked Fate.” Journal of Black Studies 35(5): 529–50. ———. 2006. Black Feminist Voices in Politics. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press. https://www.sunypress.edu/p-4279-black-feminist-voices-in-politi.aspx (October 18, 2020). Smith, Eric R. A. N., and Richard L. Fox. 2001. “The Electoral Fortunes of Women Candidates for Congress.” Political Research Quarterly 54(1): 205–21. Smooth, Wendy. 2006. “Intersectionality in Electoral Politics: A Mess Worth Making.” Politics & Gender 2(3): 400–414. ———. 2010. “African American Women and Electoral Politics: A Challenge to the Post-Race Rhetoric of the Obama Moment.” In Gender and Elections: Shaping the Future of American Politics, eds. Susan J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox. New York: Cambridge University Press, 165–86. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511807299.007. Smooth, Wendy G. 2018. “African American Women and Electoral Politics: The Core of the New American Electorate.” In Gender and Elections, eds. Susan J. Carroll and Richard L. Fox. Cambridge University Press, 171–97. https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/9781108277792%23CN-bp- 6/type/book_part (October 6, 2020). Stout, Christopher. 2015. Bringing Race Back In: Black Politicians, Deracialization, and Voting Behavior in the Age of Obama. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia Press. https://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/4786 (August 2, 2021). 111 Stout, Christopher T., Katherine Tate, and Meghan Wilson. 2021. “Does Black Representation Matter?A Review of Descriptive Representation for African Americans in Legislative Offices.” National Review of Black Politics 2(1): 2–21. Tate, Katherine. 2001. “The Political Representation of Blacks in Congress: Does Race Matter?” Legislative Studies Quarterly 26(4): 623–38. ———. 2003. Black Faces in the Mirror: African Americans and Their Representatives in the U.S. Congress. Princeton University Press. http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv36zqdb (August 4, 2021). Taylor, Keeanga-Yamahtta. 2017. How We Get Free: Black Feminism and the Combahee River Collective. Haymarket Books. Teele, Dawn L., Joshua Kalla, and Frances Rosenbluth. 2018. “The Ties That Double Bind: Social Roles and Women’s Underrepresentation in Politics.” The American Political Science Review 112(3): 525–41. Terkildsen, Nayda. 1993. “When White Voters Evaluate Black Candidates: The Processing Implications of Candidate Skin Color, Prejudice, and Self-Monitoring.” American Journal of Political Science 37(4): 1032–53. The Combahee River Collective. 2014. “A Black Feminist Statement.” Women’s Studies Quarterly 42(3/4): 271–80. Thomsen, Danielle M. 2015. “Why So Few (Republican) Women? Explaining the Partisan Imbalance of Women in the U.S. Congress.” Legislative Studies Quarterly 40(2): 295–323. Vecchiato, Alessandro, and Kevin Munger. 2021. “Introducing the Visual Conjoint, with an Application to Candidate Evaluation on Social Media.” https://osf.io/ar7up/download. Visalvanich, Neil. 2017. “When Does Race Matter? Exploring White Responses to Minority Congressional Candidates.” Politics, Groups, and Identities 5(4): 618–41. Wamble, Julian. 2022. “Community Commitment Signaling Framework.” In We Choose You: Investigating Black Voter Candidate Selection,. Weaver, Vesla M. 2012. “The Electoral Consequences of Skin Color: The ‘Hidden’ Side of Race in Politics.” Political Behavior 34(1): 159–92. 112 APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL TABLES AND FIGURES Table 4.1: Study 2 Balance Tables 113 Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Vote (Among Females) Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Vote (Among Males) 4 4 3.5 3.5 DV: Vote DV: Vote 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 an TE om TE an TE an TE an TE om TE an TE an TE om ,C an ,C m ,C m ,C om ,C an ,C m ,C m ,C w an w k te w w k te k te om ac an W an k an te om ac an W an ac om W an Bl m hi m ac om W an Bl m hi m Bl w hi w T5 k ac T7 te Bl w hi w T5 k ac T7 te T1 k te : : Whi T1 k te : : Whi : ac T3 : W Bl : ac T3 : W Bl Bl hi T6 : T8 Bl hi T6 : T8 T2 T4 : T2 T4 : : : : : Treatments Treatments 90% confidence intervals 90% confidence intervals DV:Vote ranges from 1 = Extremely Unlikely ... 5 = Extremely Likely DV:Vote ranges from 1 = Extremely Unlikely ... 5 = Extremely Likely Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Vote (Among Republicans) Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Vote (Among Democrats) 4 4 3.5 3.5 DV: Vote DV: Vote 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE om ,C om ,C m ,C m ,C om ,C om ,C m ,C m ,C w an w an k ac an te an w an w an k ac an te an k te Whi k te Whi ac om W om Bl m m ac om W om Bl m m Bl w hi w T5 k ac T7 te Bl w hi w T5 k ac T7 te T1 k te : : Whi T1 k te : : Whi : ac T3 : W Bl : ac T3 : W Bl Bl hi T6 : T8 Bl hi T6 : T8 T2 T4 : T2 T4 : : : : : Treatments Treatments 90% confidence intervals 90% confidence intervals DV:Vote ranges from 1 = Extremely Unlikely ... 5 = Extremely Likely DV:Vote ranges from 1 = Extremely Unlikely ... 5 = Extremely Likely Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Vote (Among White Resp) Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Vote (Among Black Resp) 4 4 3.5 3.5 DV: Vote DV: Vote 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE om ,C om ,C m ,C m ,C om ,C om ,C m ,C m ,C w an w an k ac an te an w an w an k ac an te an k te Whi k te Whi ac om W om Bl m m ac om W om Bl m m Bl w hi w T5 k ac T7 te Bl w hi w T5 k ac T7 te T1 k te : : Whi T1 k te : : Whi : ac T3 : W Bl : ac T3 : W Bl Bl hi T6 : T8 Bl hi T6 : T8 T2 T4 : T2 T4 : : : : : Treatments Treatments 90% confidence intervals 90% confidence intervals DV:Vote ranges from 1 = Extremely Unlikely ... 5 = Extremely Likely DV:Vote ranges from 1 = Extremely Unlikely ... 5 = Extremely Likely Figure 4.1 Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV Vote – All Subgroups 114 Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Qualified (Among Females) Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Qualified (Among Males) 4 4 3.5 3.5 DV: Qualified DV: Qualified 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 an TE om TE an TE an TE an TE om TE an TE an TE om ,C an ,C m ,C m ,C om ,C an ,C m ,C m ,C w an w k te w w k te k te om ac an W an k an te om ac an W an ac om W an Bl m hi m ac om W an Bl m hi m Bl w hi w T5 ac k T7 te Bl w hi w T5 ack T7 te T1 k te : : Whi T1 k te : : Whi : ac T3 : W Bl : ac T3 : W Bl Bl hi T6 : T8 Bl hi T6 : T8 T2 T4 : T2 T4 : : : : : Treatments Treatments 90% confidence intervals 90% confidence intervals DV: Qualified ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well DV: Qualified ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Qualified (Among Republicans) Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Qualified (Among Democrats) 4 4 3.5 3.5 DV: Qualified DV: Qualified 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE om ,C om ,C m ,C m ,C om ,C om ,C m ,C m ,C w an w an k ac an te an w an w an k ac an te an k te Whi k te Whi ac om W om Bl m m ac om W om Bl m m Bl w hi w T5 k ac T7 te Bl w hi w T5 ack T7 te T1 k te : : Whi T1 k te : : Whi : ac T3 : W Bl : ac T3 : W Bl Bl hi T6 : T8 Bl hi T6 : T8 T2 T4 : T2 T4 : : : : : Treatments Treatments 90% confidence intervals 90% confidence intervals DV: Qualified ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well DV: Qualified ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Qualified (Among White Resp) Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Qualified (Among Black Resp) 4 4 3.5 3.5 DV: Qualified DV: Qualified 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE om ,C om ,C m ,C m ,C om ,C om ,C m ,C m ,C w an w an k ac an te an w an w an k ac an te an k te Whi k te Whi ac om W om Bl m m ac om W om Bl m m Bl w hi w T5 k ac T7 te Bl w hi w T5 k ac T7 te T1 k te : : Whi T1 k te : : Whi : ac T3 : W Bl : ac T3 : W Bl Bl hi T6 : T8 Bl hi T6 : T8 T2 T4 : T2 T4 : : : : : Treatments Treatments 90% confidence intervals 90% confidence intervals DV: Qualified ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well DV: Qualified ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well Figure 4.2 Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV Qualified – All Subgroups 115 Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Competent (Among Females) Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Competent (Among Males) 4 4 3.5 3.5 DV: Competent DV: Competent 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 an TE om TE an TE an TE an TE om TE an TE an TE om ,C an ,C m ,C m ,C om ,C an ,C m ,C m ,C w an w k te w w k te k te om ac an W an k an te om ac an W an ac om W an Bl m hi m ac om W an Bl m hi m Bl w hi w T5 ac k T7 te Bl w hi w T5 ack T7 te T1 k te : : Whi T1 k te : : Whi : ac T3 : W Bl : ac T3 : W Bl Bl hi T6 : T8 Bl hi T6 : T8 T2 T4 : T2 T4 : : : : : Treatments Treatments 90% confidence intervals 90% confidence intervals DV: Competent ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well DV: Competent ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Competent (Among Republicans) Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Competent (Among Democrats) 4 4 3.5 3.5 DV: Competent DV: Competent 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE om ,C om ,C m ,C m ,C om ,C om ,C m ,C m ,C w an w an k ac an te an w an w an k ac an te an k te Whi k te Whi ac om W om Bl m m ac om W om Bl m m Bl w hi w T5 k ac T7 te Bl w hi w T5 ack T7 te T1 k te : : Whi T1 k te : : Whi : ac T3 : W Bl : ac T3 : W Bl Bl hi T6 : T8 Bl hi T6 : T8 T2 T4 : T2 T4 : : : : : Treatments Treatments 90% confidence intervals 90% confidence intervals DV: Competent ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well DV: Competent ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Competent (Among White Resp) Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Competent (Among Black Resp) 4 4 3.5 3.5 DV: Competent DV: Competent 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE om ,C om ,C m ,C m ,C om ,C om ,C m ,C m ,C w an w an k ac an te an w an w an k ac an te an k te Whi k te Whi ac om W om Bl m m ac om W om Bl m m Bl w hi w T5 k ac T7 te Bl w hi w T5 k ac T7 te T1 k te : : Whi T1 k te : : Whi : ac T3 : W Bl : ac T3 : W Bl Bl hi T6 : T8 Bl hi T6 : T8 T2 T4 : T2 T4 : : : : : Treatments Treatments 90% confidence intervals 90% confidence intervals DV: Competent ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well DV: Competentranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well Figure 4.3 Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV Competent – All Subgroups 116 Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Personable (Among Females) Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Personable (Among Males) 4 4 3.5 3.5 DV: Personable DV: Personable 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 an TE om TE an TE an TE an TE om TE an TE an TE om ,C an ,C m ,C m ,C om ,C an ,C m ,C m ,C w an w k te w w k te k te om ac an W an k an te om ac an W an ac om W an Bl m hi m ac om W an Bl m hi m Bl w hi w T5 ac k T7 te Bl w hi w T5 ack T7 te T1 k te : : Whi T1 k te : : Whi : ac T3 : W Bl : ac T3 : W Bl Bl hi T6 : T8 Bl hi T6 : T8 T2 T4 : T2 T4 : : : : : Treatments Treatments 90% confidence intervals 90% confidence intervals DV: Personable ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well DV: Personable ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Personable (Among Republicans) Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Personable (Among Democrats) 4 4 3.5 3.5 DV: Personable DV: Personable 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE om ,C om ,C m ,C m ,C om ,C om ,C m ,C m ,C w an w an k ac an te an w an w an k ac an te an k te Whi k te Whi ac om W om Bl m m ac om W om Bl m m Bl w hi w T5 k ac T7 te Bl w hi w T5 ack T7 te T1 k te : : Whi T1 k te : : Whi : ac T3 : W Bl : ac T3 : W Bl Bl hi T6 : T8 Bl hi T6 : T8 T2 T4 : T2 T4 : : : : : Treatments Treatments 90% confidence intervals 90% confidence intervals DV: Personable ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well DV: Personable ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Personable (Among White Resp) Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV: Personable (Among Black Resp) 4 4 3.5 3.5 DV: Personable DV: Personable 3 3 2.5 2.5 2 2 an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE an TE om ,C om ,C m ,C m ,C om ,C om ,C m ,C m ,C w an w an k ac an te an w an w an k ac an te an k te Whi k te Whi ac om W om Bl m m ac om W om Bl m m Bl w hi w T5 k ac T7 te Bl w hi w T5 k ac T7 te T1 k te : : Whi T1 k te : : Whi : ac T3 : W Bl : ac T3 : W Bl Bl hi T6 : T8 Bl hi T6 : T8 T2 T4 : T2 T4 : : : : : Treatments Treatments 90% confidence intervals 90% confidence intervals DV: Personable ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well DV: Personable ranges from 1 = Not well at all ... 5 = Extremely well Figure 4.4 Difference in Means Between Treatments on DV Personable – All Subgroups 117 APPENDIX B: RECRUITMENT MATERIALS Hello, My name is Kesicia Dickinson and I am a doctoral candidate in the Department of Political Science at Michigan State University. I am writing to invite you to participate in a research study entitled "Up and Over the Mountain: How Black Women Candidates Overcome the Qualifications Gap". The study aims to explore Black women's political experiences and the ways in which they overcome intersectional challenges when running for office or considering running for office. Black women who are alumna of the Michigan Political Leadership Program (MPLP) and are interested in running for office or have run for office are eligible for the study and encouraged to participate. The study involves a 45 - 60 minute interview that will take place in-person or via Zoom. During that time, participants will be asked questions about their political participation, racial and gender identity, MPLP experience, and decision making. Participation is completely voluntary. You may withdraw from the study at any time. Your responses to the questions will be kept confidential. Each interview will be assigned a pseudonym to ensure personal identifiers are not used in final reports or presentations. If you are interested in participating in the study, please use this link to complete the pre-screening form. If you are selected, I will reach out to schedule a time to conduct the interview. Though there is no compensation, your participation will be a valuable addition to this research and could further our understanding of Black women's political participation in American Politics. Please consider participating. If you have any questions, feel free to contact me by email or at (517) 258-2487. Sincerely, 118 Figure 5.1: Recruitment Infographic 119 Pre-Screener Thank you for your interest in this study! The goal of this research project is to explore Black women's political experiences and the ways in which they overcome intersectional challenges when running for office or considering running for office. This screening form will ask you a few questions to determine if you are eligible to participate in the study. It will take less than 5 minutes to complete. It will ask you questions about demographics and previous political experience. Your participation in the screening is voluntary. You do not have to answer any questions you do not wish to answer or are uncomfortable answering. You may stop at any time. If you are eligible and invited to participate in this study, you will complete an interview with a graduate student at Michigan State University. The interview will last between 45 minutes to 1 hour. Demographics Which of the following terms best describe your current gender identity? o Woman o Man o Transgender Woman o Transgender Man o Non-Binary/Non-Conforming o Not Listed Prefer not to answer What sex were you assigned at birth? o Male o Female o What is your current age in years? o Choose one or more races that you consider yourself to be: o White o Black or African American o American Indian or Alaska Native o Asian o Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander o Other Do you consider yourself to be of Hispanic or Latino or Spanish origin? o Yes o No Political Experience Are you an alumni of the Michigan Political Leadership Program? o Yes o No 120 Have you run for public office? o Yes o No Are you interested in running for public office? o Yes o No Interview Preferences If selected to participate in the study, would you prefer to conduct the interview via Zoom or in- person? o Zoom o In-Person o Either / Do Not Have A Preference What time of day would work best for you? o Early Morning (8 - 10 a.m.) o Late Morning (10 a.m. - 12 p.m.) o Early Afternoon (1 - 3 p.m.) o Late Afternoon (3 - 5 p.m.) o Early Evening (5 - 7 p.m.) o Either / Do Not Have A Preference Contact Information Thank you for the information you provided and for your interest in our study. We will review your responses to the questions and contact you to discuss your eligibility. If you have questions about the research project or screening, feel free to contact Kesicia Dickinson at dicki124@msu.edu or (517) 258-2487. o Preferred Name: o Email Address: o Phone Number (Optional): 121 APPENDIX C: INTERVIEW MATERIALS Research Participant Information and Consent Form Study Title: Up and Over the Mountain: How Black Women Candidates Overcome the Qualifications Gap MSU Study ID: STUDY00008964 Investigators: Eric Juenke, Ph.D., Kesicia A. Dickinson, M.A. Department and Institution: Michigan State University, Department of Political Science Contact Information: (517) 258-2487, dicki124@msu.edu Brief Summary You are being asked to participate in a research study. Researchers are required to provide a consent form to inform you about the research study, to convey that participation is voluntary, to explain risks and benefits of participation including why you might or might not want to participate, and to empower you to make an informed decision. You should feel free to discuss and ask the researchers any questions you may have. You are being asked to participate in a research study about Black women’s political experiences. You will be asked to provide consent and to then participate in an interview that will take 45 minutes to 1 hour to complete. The most likely risks of participating in this study are a data confidentiality breach which could identify you as a subject in the study. There is also a risk of inconvenience due to the time spent participating in the focus group. Purpose of Research The purpose of this research study is to explore Black women’s political experiences and the ways in which they overcome intersectional challenges when running for office or considering running for office. What You Will Be Asked to Do After signing this consent form, you will be asked to participate in an interview to discuss your political experiences as a Black woman. Potential Benefits You may benefit from knowing you are contributing to knowledge that may help others in the future. Potential Risks Potential risks to participants as a result of study participation are minimal. Although unlikely, there is a risk of a confidentiality breach that could identify you as a subject in this study. There is also a risk of feeling inconvenienced by the time required to participate in the focus group. Privacy and Confidentiality All study data and identifying information, including signed informed consent forms and video and audio recordings, will be stored on a password protected computer for the duration of the study and for a minimum of 2 years after the close of research (maybe more). 122 Because I am conducting interviews, the data I will collect from individuals cannot remain fully anonymized and without any identifying capacities. Rather, the interviews will be recorded, transcribed, and assigned a pseudonym to ensure personal identifiers are not used. In the presentation of the data, participants will be anonymized and described in an unidentifiable manner. Pseudonyms will be used. If any direct quotes from the interviews are used, the quotes from subjects will be anonymized in the final report. The Michigan Political Leadership Program at MSU and MSU Human Research Protection Program may have access to this information and may inspect these records. Your confidentiality will be protected to the maximum extent allowable by law. Your Rights to Participate, Say No, or Withdraw You have the right to say no to participate in the research. You can stop at any time after it has already started. There will be no consequences if you stop and you will not be criticized. You will not lose any benefits that you normally receive. You will be informed if any new information becomes available that may be relevant to your willingness to continue participating in the study. Costs and Compensation for Being in the Study There will be no cost to you for participating in this study. Though there is no compensation, your participation will be a valuable addition to this research and could further our understanding of Black women's political participation in American Politics. Future Research All study data will be anonymized and without any identifying capacities, and after any such removal the information could be used for future research studies without additional informed consent from you. Contact Information If you have concerns or questions about this study, please contact the researcher Kesicia Dickinson: 368 Farm Lane, Office 217, East Lansing, MI 48823, (517) 258-2487, dicki124@msu.edu). If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you wish, the Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection Program at 517-355-2180, Fax 517-432- 4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu or regular mail at 4000 Collins Rd, Suite 136, Lansing, MI 48910. 123 Acknowledgement of Informed Consent You will receive a copy of this consent document to keep. Please tell the researcher whether you agree to participate in this study. Yes, I would like to participate in the study. No, I refuse to participate in this study. Please tell the researcher whether you agree to allow recording of the Zoom interview. Yes, I agree to allow recording of the Zoom interview. No, I refuse to allow recording of the Zoom interview. ______________________________________ ___________________________ Signature of participant Date 124 Introduction Good morning/afternoon, Welcome to our session! I am Kesicia Dickinson and I have partnered with the Michigan Political Leadership Program (MPLP) to interview Black women who are interested in running for public office or have run. While we are interested in your political experiences generally, we are especially interested in the ways in which your intersectional identity and formal training like MPLP have influenced your political experience. I will be asking questions regarding those topics. Please keep in mind there are no wrong answers, so speak freely. I am recording the session because I don't want to miss any of your comments. We will be on a first name basis today, but I won't use any names in our reports. Do I have your consent to participate in this study? Okay, let's begin. 125 Interview Guide Political Engagement To begin, I want to get an idea of your political engagement over time. 1. Besides voting, how else do you participate in politics? 2. Has a particular event or experience ever motivated you to increase your involvement in politics? a. Please discuss the event and the ways you increased your involvement. 3. Have you ever run for political office? a. What influenced your decision to run? b. Why that particular position? c. If no, are you interested in running for office? Identity Now, I’d like to get a sense of your perspectives of your identity and its impact on your political experience. 1. Would you say you feel empowered or burdened by intersectional identity as a Black woman? a. Does this influence the ways you participate in politics? 2. Describe the challenges you experienced or expect to experience when running for office due to your intersectional identity as a Black woman. a. How did you overcome this? b. How do you plan to overcome this? 3. Do you feel your personal opinions about inflation, abortion, or gun violence differ from other Black women? 4. Do you feel politicians adequately address the needs of those who look like you? a. How would you describe those needs? Formal Training/MPLP Next, I want to ask about your experience as a MPLP participant and how it has influenced your political activity. 1. How did you learn about MPLP? 2. What did you hope to gain by participating in MPLP? a. Did MPLP meet your expectations? 3. When thinking about whether you’d participate in MPLP, did you consider how graduating from this program would be viewed by potential voters? a. Would you say you considered graduating from MPLP as a strategy to signal your candidate quality to potential voters? 4. Did you feel you needed to participate in a program like MPLP to overcome biases you may experience as a Black woman running for office? 5. How did MPLP help in the political activity you pursued after participating? 6. How did potential supporters view you as a potential candidate before and after you participated in MPLP? 7. Would you suggest MPLP to another Black woman interested in running for office? 8. Is there a topic you wished MPLP would have discussed? Circling Back We are towards the end of our time together. I want to thank you for your participation and being open and honest with your responses. 126 Before we wrap up, are there any remaining questions or comments you would like to make that didn’t come up or something you forgot to mention earlier? 127