While it might not be great from a partisan point of view, there is a good chance that the Senate will have more female representation in 2011 than it has now. In New Hampshire, the leading GOP contender is former Secretary of State Kelly Ayotte, who is doing pretty well (if you believe Rasmussen) in the polls. In Colorado, former GOP Lieutenant Governor Jane Norton is also doing well in Rasmussen Polls. In Massachusetts, it looks like Democratic Attorney General Martha Coakley is the favorite to take over Teddy Kennedy’s seat. In Missouri, Democratic Secretary of State Robin Carnahan is the early favorite. There will be competitive Democratic primaries in Ohio and North Carolina, but it’s very possible that women will prevail there and have a solid shot at winning the general election (Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner in Ohio and Secretary of State Elaine Marshall in North Carolina).
The Senate will probably lose Kay Bailey Hutchison, provided she goes ahead with her plans to run for governor of Texas. But the odds look good that there will be a net increase in female senators despite that.
Gender isn’t determinative of policy, but the Senate will improve its performance the closer it gets to gender parity.
More women will be a good thing just because a legislature should be kind of representative (although in the case of the Senate that’s pretty much a sick joke). But improve its performance? Feinstein? Lincoln? Snowe? Collins? Landrieu? Hutchison? Murkowski? The current crop suggests that the balance between the useful and the useless will remain about the same irrespective of gender.
ignoring, for a moment, the issue of gender parity; jane norton is NOT a person you want in the senate…ever.
A diary entry from last fall:
Gender Gap Loss of Talent
And;
Gender equality is smart politics:
Norway: – Gender Equality is Smart Politics
I haven’t looked at the 111th Congress yet, but pretty interesting numbers from the 110th: the Senate had 17 women (17%). The House had 76 women out of 435– 17%. In the Senate, of the women there were 4 Rs and 13 Dems– 76% D. In the House, of the 76, there were 17 Rs and 59 Ds– 78% D. Coincidental? Reflective of… what? Very interesting (to me) numbers.