Women, Novices, and Veterans: Diversity in the 2018 Democratic House Primaries

  • Jack D. CollensEmail author


A high number of novice candidates received the Democratic nomination for the US House in 2018. However, a deeper look reveals even more novice candidates ran during the primary phase of the election. This chapter explores the backgrounds and experiences of these candidates with three oft-discussed trends in 2018: the wave of women, novices, and veterans running for the US House. A number of interesting findings emerged. Favorable electoral factors played little role in motivating candidate entry, suggesting that 2018’s “high opportunity” environment was influential across all districts, regardless of the local electoral environment. Further findings indicate that traditional regional patterns in candidate entry did not hold in 2018, providing evidence for nationalized congressional elections. Finally, candidates who seemed to perform best in these primary contests were women and those with prior electoral experience, suggesting the “quality” effect.


Novice candidates Primary 2018 Women Veterans Democratic Party 


  1. 2017 state & legislative partisan composition (2017). National Conference of State Legislatures. Accessed 3 October 2019.
  2. Black, E., & Black, M. (2008). Divided America: The ferocious power struggle in American politics. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  3. Branton, R. P. (2009). The importance of race and ethnicity in congressional primary elections. Political Research Quarterly 62(3), 459–473.Google Scholar
  4. Canon, D. T. (1990). Actors, athletes, and astronauts: Political amateurs in the United States Congress. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  5. Canon, D. T. (1993). Sacrificial lambs or strategic politicians? Political amateurs in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science, 37(4), 1119–1141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Canon, D. T. (2011). The year of the outsider: Political amateurs in the U.S. Congress. The Forum, 8(4).Google Scholar
  7. Canon, D. T., & Sousa, D. J. (1992). Party system change and political career structures in the U. S. Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 17(3), 347–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. CAWP. (2018, September 13). Record number of women of color nominated for U.S. House seats. Press release. Center for American Women and Politics of Rutgers University. Accessed October 14, 2019.
  9. Conroy, M., Nguyen, M., & Rakich, N. (2018, August 10). We researched hundreds of races. Here’s who Democrats are nominating. FiveThirtyEight. Accessed October 9, 2019.
  10. Fulton, S. A. (2012). Running backwards and in high heels: The gendered quality gap and incumbent electoral success. Political Research Quarterly, 65(2), 303–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hassell, H. J. G. (2017). The party’s primary: Control of congressional nominations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Highton, B. (2004). White voters and African American candidates for Congress. Political Behavior 26(1), 1–25.Google Scholar
  13. Jacobson, G. C., & Carson, J. L. (2019). The politics of congressional elections (Tenth Edition). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  14. Kanthak, K., & Woon, J. (2015). Women don’t run? Election aversion and candidate entry. American Journal of Political Science, 59(3), 595–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Kernell, S., & Jacobson, G. C. (1981). Strategy and choice in congressional elections. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Lawless, J. L. & Fox, R. L. (2010). It still takes a candidate: Why women don’t run for office. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lawless, J. L., & Fox, R. L. (2013). Girls just wanna not run: The gender gap in young Americans’ political ambition. Washington, DC: Women & Politics Institute.Google Scholar
  18. Lawless, J. L., & Pearson, K. (2008). The primary reason for women’s underrepresentation? Reevaluating the conventional wisdom. The Journal of Politics, 70(1), 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Merica, D., & Grayer, A. (2018, June 30). “Country over party:” Democrats turn to veterans to take back the House. CNN. Accessed October 7, 2019.
  20. Ondercin, H. L., & Welch, S. (2009). Comparing predictors of women’s congressional election success candidates, primaries, and the general election. American Politics Research, 37(4), 593–613.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Palmer, B., & Simon, D. (2001). The political glass ceiling: Gender, strategy, and incumbency in US house elections, 1978–1998. Women & Politics, 23(1–2), 59–78.Google Scholar
  22. Palmer, B., & Simon, D. (2008). Breaking the political glass ceiling: Women and congressional elections. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  23. Putnam, L., & Skocpol, T. (2018, February 20). Middle America reboots democracy. Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. Accessed 4 October 2019.
  24. Seitz-Wald, A. (2018, July 24). Meet the women candidates taking #MeToo to the ballot box. NBC News. Accessed 30 September 2019.
  25. Silva, A., & Skulley, C. (2019). Always running: Candidate emergence among women of color over time. Political Research Quarterly, 72(2), 342–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Skocpol, T. (2017, February 2). Can marches become a movement? Democracy: A Journal of Ideas. Accessed 4 October 2019.
  27. Stack, L., & Edmondson, C. (2018, August 4). A ‘rainbow wave’? 2018 has more L.G.B.T. candidates than ever. The New York Times. Access 30 September 2019.
  28. Summers, J., & Mulvihill, G. (2018, November 7). Divisive Trump era ushers record number of women into House. AP News. Accessed 30 September 2019.
  29. Thomsen, D. M. (Forthcoming). Ideology and gender in U.S. House elections. Political Behavior.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Siena CollegeLoudonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations