Kamala Harris and the ‘electability’ trap

Banner image: Kamala Harris takes the oath of office for the Vice President of the United States on January 20, 2021.

Since announcing her bid to run for president on July 21, Vice President Kamala Harris has generated praise and drawn questions about her electability-including from some media outlets and online commentators who have asked: "Is the United States ready to elect a multiracial woman?"

Regina Bateson, assistant professor of political science at CU Boulder, is not surprised by such comments. In 2020, she published a study showing that Democrats tend to view white men as more "electable" than white women, Black men and especially more electable than Black women-even when they all hold identical qualifications.

Bateson calls this "strategic discrimination." The logic is: "Look, we're not racist or sexist. But everyone else is too prejudiced to vote for you, so we're not going to support you as our candidate."

Bateson was inspired to do this research in part by her own experiences as a political candidate. In 2017 and 2018, Bateson, who is white, took a leave of absence from a prior academic position to run for Congress as a Democrat in her home state of California, ultimately coming in third in an open primary. She gives her take on how strategic discrimination can keep talented candidates from getting a chance to run for office-and what Harris can do to combat these biases.

How was your research influenced by your own experience as a candidate?

I always understood that if you run for office, and you're a woman, your identity is going to affect your experience in any number of ways-like the trade-off between having to project authority and credibility and being likable and nice. There are so many traps women face in politics.

But when I was a candidate, I often got surprising comments from fellow Democrats. They went something like this: 'Well, I like you as a candidate. I would have no problem supporting you. But my concern is that other people in a general election are not going to vote for you. And they're not going to vote for you because of your identity.' This came up on almost a daily basis. It was frustrating.

How common is that attitude?

In the fall of 2018, there were a lot of other candidates reporting similar conversations. There were hints that this was happening to other people, often along the lines of race or gender identity. It was especially true for women of color.

I became convinced that this was happening systematically. My campaign in my district was not some weird, one-off experience. And I thought this really needs a name because if we can't name something, we can't talk about it or understand it or combat it. So I came up with the term 'strategic discrimination' because it is a subtle form of discrimination.

Strategic discrimination typically occurs in primaries when parties are selecting their candidates. Even if donors and activists are not biased themselves, they may be concerned that other people will object to some aspect of a candidate's identity.

What did you find in your study?

I found that, yes, the idea of electability is raced and gendered. A candidate's identity does affect whether they're perceived as electable. But I also found that people's perceptions of the amount of racism and sexism in society are way off. People think that other people are a lot less willing to vote for women and candidates of color than they really are. These concerns about the electability of diverse candidates are rooted in misperceptions, not reality.

Is strategic discrimination still playing out today?

You still see murmurings of this in some of the press coverage about Harris: 'Would people really be willing to vote for a Black woman for president?'

Those headlines are really frustrating because that's a question to which we know the answer. The answer is 'yes.' The vast majority of Americans are willing to vote for a woman and for a person of color for president. We know that from public opinion data. And in general elections, both women candidates and candidates of color perform just as well white male candidates-once they manage to get nominated and get the support of their parties.

What can a candidate do to combat that kind of thinking?

It's really, really hard to change those misperceptions about electability. That's something that I found in my experiments. I provided participants with information and corrections that might lead them to update their beliefs. It wasn't very successful. That was my experience as a candidate, too.

So how can candidates of color succeed in an election?

You can ask: How did Barack Obama demonstrate his viability and broad appeal as a candidate? In short, he just did it. He faced similar identity-related skepticism about his electability. But starting in Iowa, he showed that he could earn the backing of many types of voters, including white voters. And the more support Obama demonstrated, the more electable he seemed.

I think 'just do it' is the most effective strategy for diverse candidates to overcome doubts about their electability-but usually, it's a hard path for candidates to follow. If you can never establish a viable campaign or stay in the race long enough to go on the ballot, how can you show your ability to raise money and win votes?

Could Harris 'just do it'?

We have a unique situation where someone who might have faced a similar set of concerns about her electability has vaulted over the primary process and is poised to become the Democratic nominee for president. Whether Harris ultimately wins or loses, I would like to think that running in this way, with the support of her party, will change peoples' perceptions of what a presidential candidate looks like and who can be successful in politics. I think that's already happened in the few days that she's been a candidate.

What is your hope for future elections-in 2024 and beyond?

I hope people in both parties, Republicans and Democrats, can feel confident in backing the candidates of their choice without worrying that others won't vote for them due to their race or gender. The American electorate is more tolerant and open-minded than you might think.

Public link

Please use the above public link if you want to share this noodl on another website.