Drawing heavily on both survey data and interviews with potential candidates, this chapter argues that men are more likely than women to look in the mirror and see a qualified candidate, someone who has what it takes to run for office. Women are more likely than men to see someone who doesn’t quite embody the credentials, skills, and traits they think a candidate should possess. Differences in potential candidates’ self-appraisals are strong evidence of a gendered psyche, whose imprint leaves women feeling far less efficacious than men to envision themselves as candidates and, consequently, far less likely to consider running for office.

In this chapter, we examine whether traditional family role orientations systematically hinder women’s emergence in the political sphere. We begin by considering how potential candidates’ early political socialization relates to their political ambition as adults. The majority of the chapter then turns to gender dynamics in respondents’ current households. Our findings reveal that even among the youngest generation of potential candidates, women are less likely than men to have grown up in politicized households, more likely to be responsible for the majority of household tasks and childcare, and less likely to be encouraged to run by those closest to them. But, somewhat surprisingly, the traditional division of labor doesn’t affect interest in running for office. Although women continue to struggle balancing family with professional responsibilities, traditional gender roles don’t impede their interest in running for office in the way many might expect.

In this concluding chapter, we turn to the persistence of the gender gap in political ambition. Why hasn’t it begun to close? How can we reconcile its intractable nature with women’s steadily increasing numeric representation? What do women and men in the candidate eligibility pool believe contributes to the static gap? After providing a brief summary of the book’s central findings, these are the questions to which this chapter turns. Ultimately, we conclude that despite women’s significantly greater – and growing – presence in politics, women continue to be less likely than men to see themselves as candidates for elective office. They also continue to be less likely than men to be seen by others as candidates for elective office. There’s no question that “it takes a candidate” to achieve gender parity in US political institutions. But when it comes to breaking down long-standing beliefs about politics and the very nature of the political domain, this book makes it clear that it takes more than a candidate.

This chapter lays out the book’s central argument and theoretical framework: The enduring gender gap in political ambition results from long-standing patterns of traditional socialization that persist in US culture. More specifically, traditional family role orientations, in which women assume the majority of household and childcare responsibilities, lead many women to conclude that entering politics would restrict their ability to fulfill existing personal and professional obligations. A masculinized ethos in political organizations and institutions that have always been controlled by men continues to promote men’s, not women’s, full participation in the political arena. And a gendered psyche imbues many women with a sense of doubt as to their ability to compete in the electoral sphere. Thus, the enduring effects of traditional gender socialization that transcend all generations pose serious obstacles for true gender equality.

This chapter focuses on the relationships among gender, party, recruitment, and political ambition. First, we focus on potential candidates’ partisan identity. The pool of female potential candidates – like the population of female elected officials – is dominated by Democrats. Yet we find that neither party affiliation nor partisan fervor affects interest in running for office. Still, political parties – through the recruitment process – play a critical role in the candidate emergence process. Here, our analysis highlights one of the book’s central findings: Women are significantly less likely than men to receive encouragement to run for office from party leaders, elected officials, and political activists. Despite the emergence of #MeToo, heightened public discourse about the need to elect more women, and efforts by women’s organizations to push back against Donald Trump, our results are not markedly different from twenty years earlier. The masculinized ethos that continues to shroud party organizations results in a smaller proportion of women than men recruited to enter the electoral arena.

This chapter focuses on the second stage of the candidate emergence process and examines the role gender plays in determining whether a potential candidate actually runs for office. We have the opportunity to assess the role gender plays in transforming politically engaged citizens into actual candidates because 295 people in the 2021 sample ran for office at some point in their lives. Our analysis reveals that the stark gender differences evident in the first stage of the process fade considerably. But because women are far less likely than men to consider running for office, fewer women than men ever face the decision to enter an actual race. Moreover, when we turn to interest in running for office at some point in the future, gender differences persist. Female potential candidates are significantly less likely than men to express interest in a future candidacy, at least in part because of their more negative attitudes about campaigning. Whether we consider retrospective or prospective interest in entering the electoral arena, prospects for closing the gender gap in political ambition are bleak.

Barack Obama's presidential success created a fallacy surrounding how Black voters choose politicians to support. In the wake of his success, many Black politicians unsuccessfully worked to garner Black support using tactics similar to Obama. This chapter breaks down the conventional wisdom that come out of Obama's success and asks motivating question of this manuscript: What considerations outside of race, partisanship, and gender do Black voters make when choosing a politician to support? I introduce my original concept of community commitment and juxtapose it with existing concepts to explain its unique contribution and ability to explain Black voter candidate selection.