Throughout most of U.S. history, races for the Senate have featured two men.
This year is different. Twenty-two women are running for the U.S. senate. Six senatorial contests feature two women competing against one another.
It’s no surprise that gender is a vital theme in these midterms contests. The #MeToo movement and the contentious Supreme Court hearings of Judge Brett Kavanaugh have emboldened sexual assault victims and advocates for the rights of the accused, social conservatives and progressives – and men and women. But, as we’ve seen here in Arizona, where I study and teach gender and political science, these categories are not mutually exclusive.
Republican Martha McSally and Democrat Kyrsten Sinema are running to replace retiring Sen. Jeff Flake in one of the most competitive senatorial races in the country.
Both women are highly educated, have previous congressional experience and have been “trailblazers” in their own right. In 1991, McSally became the first woman to fly in combat, and she rose to the rank of colonel in the Air Force before retiring from the military. Sinema, who was homelessness for a time as a child, graduated from college at 18 and went on to get her law degree. A Ph.D. and MBA soon followed. She is the first openly bisexual member of Congress.
Whoever wins will be the first female senator from the state of Arizona.
And whoever wins will need independent voters.
No party dominates
That’s because no one party dominates in Arizona. Republicans make up 35 percent of all registered voters. Democrats are 30 percent. And people registered as “other” – the “independent” voters – make up 34 percent of the electorate.
So who are these independents – and are they more likely to back a Republican or a Democrat?
Traditionally, “independent” in Arizona has been code for “Republican.” To paraphrase Daniel Elazer’s classic “American Federalism: A view from the States,” Arizonans tend to “buck” traditional norms and established categories while hanging onto conservative principles. More recently however, journalists have noted a trend of independents not leaning toward one party or the other.
A recent New York Times poll suggested that the race is a dead heat – with 45 percent planning to vote for each candidate. Just a week before the election, an NBC/Marist poll showed Sinema ahead by 6 points, but the poll at a 5.4 margin of error.
If independents show up at the polls, the race will likely tilt toward Sinema.
To me, one interesting wild card in the race is the Kavanaugh hearings.
When asked how she would have voted on Kavanaugh’s nomination during the race’s one debate, McSally offered a nuanced response: “I would’ve voted yes. I’m a survivor of sexual abuse. [Professor Ford] has been through trauma, [but] Arizona wanted a ‘yes’ vote. I can be for survivors, as [I was] one myself, and for Judge Kavanaugh.”
Sinema noted that she wouldn’t vote for Judge Kavanaugh, but didn’t speak to the issue with the same passion as McSally.
The debate point may have gone to McSally, but how the issue may impact voters is less clear.
A CBS poll (conducted by YouGOV) showed Arizona voters were split on Kavanaugh, with 41 percent supporting and 39 percent opposing his confirmation. The same poll suggested that among likely Arizona voters who said they might still change their mind about whom to support, 30 percent said Kavanaugh’s confirmation would make them more likely to consider voting for a Democrat, while only 10 percent said the same for a Republican.
Independents have enormous power to decide this race in Arizona.
And the dynamics of the race may soon become more familiar as generations that tended to identify with one of the major political parties are replaced by those who see themselves as independents.
Impeachment: Trump’s ‘hearsay’ defense just crashed and burned
In the panoply of contradictory and incoherent defenses of Donald Trump, a favorite of Republicans has been to harp on the claim that witnesses to Trump's extortion scheme against Ukraine were all "second-hand" or "third-hand." This has always been confounding, as the official summary readout of the famous phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shows Trump clearly conditioning military aid and U.S. support on Zelensky giving a public boost to Trump's conspiracy theories about former Vice President Joe Biden and other Democratic leaders. The witnesses so far have simply affirmed what the written record demonstrates amply.
Jim Jordan’s attacks on Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman at impeachment hearing badly backfire
Republicans tried to raise doubts about Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s credibility and loyalty during Tuesday’s impeachment hearing. Their attacks appeared to backfire.
Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council and an Iraq war veteran who earned a Purple Heart after being wounded in combat, faced questions from the House Intelligence Committee in full uniform.
This piece first appeared at Salon.com.Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, who was transferred to the Intelligence Committee specifically for the impeachment hearings, attempted to discredit the witness during his questioning.
WATCH: Dejected Devin Nunes slumps back in his chair after he fails to yield his time to Elise Stefanik
The top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee was visibly frustrated after once again getting shut down while attempting a parliamentary maneuver.
Rep. Devin Nunes (R-CA) has been attempting to ignore the rules governing the impeachment inquiry so that he can yield Republicans' time to fellow members of Congress, instead of just the professional GOP counsel.
Nunes has attempted to yield time to Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY), who has been raising re-election funds off of her outbursts in the hearings.
Once again, Nunes attempted to yield his time to a fellow Republican and once again Nunes was told that is against the rules.