Available via license: CC BY-NC 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volume 26 | Fall 2024
Senior Discount? Gender, Age, and Small Donor
Fundraising
Reed Jeffries and Lucca Carlson
College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Florida
Dr. Sharon Austin, Department of Political Science
Abstract
Recent discussions surrounding candidate age and its impact on small donor fundraising have raised
questions about ageism in American politics. However, existing studies of age in politics largely neglect
the obstacles older female candidates encounter. This paper, which examines the impact of age and
gender on small contribution receipts in U.S. House of Representatives campaigns from 2006-2010,
explores how age and gender interact to predict small contribution receipts. The findings reveal a
significant negative interaction between age and gender, indicating that older female candidates receive
less from small-dollar donations than would be expected compared to their older male peers. This
suggests that age-related biases intersect with gender, posing unique challenges for older women
candidates in fundraising efforts.
Keywords: ageism, sexism, campaign finance
Introduction
In the 2024 presidential race, voter attitudes regarding candidate age have been at the
forefront of American political discourse. Either contender, Joe Biden or Donald Trump, would
become the oldest ever elected to the office. From NPR to the Los Angeles Times, commentators
have debated whether these criticisms constitute ageism and raised concerns about whether
candidate age negatively affects small donor fundraising (Donella, 2024; Epstein, 2023; Torres,
2024; Piper, 2023). However, this discourse has revolved around the experiences of two male
candidates, leaving a gap in the discussion regarding the unique challenges aging female leaders
face. Existing literature suggests that ageism may affect female leaders differently as it intersects
with sexism and discrimination based on physical appearance (McIver-Harris, 2021; Chiao et al.
2008; McLellan & McKelvie, 1993). In the political context, candidate age, gender, and physical
attractiveness are usually studied in relation to voter choice.
This paper explores how gendered age discrimination and how age and gender intersect to
predict small-dollar fundraising. Incumbent campaigns for the United States House of
REED JEFFRIES & LUCCA CARLSON
University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volume 26 | Fall 2024
Representatives are examined to determine whether gendered differences arise. The findings
indicate that older women candidates raise less than would be expected given their gender and
age individually.
Gender in Campaign Finance
Scholars have long noted that women from the Democratic and Republican parties
consistently raise funds equivalent to or surpassing men in U.S. House campaigns (Burrell,
1985). However, female candidates’ funding profiles differ from their male peers in important
ways. Female candidates tend to receive more small contributions than men and rely on
individual contributions more than their male counterparts (Heberlig & Larson, 2020; Crespin &
Deitz, 2010). For Democrats especially, these individual contributions are more likely to come
from female supporters (Thomsen & Swers, 2017). Since only a third of high-dollar ($10,000
and above) donors are women, small contributions may be vital to a female candidate’s
fundraising (Heerwig & Gordon, 2018).
While a female House candidate’s advantage in campaign fundraising is well established in
the literature, female candidates may need more resources than men to succeed, and there has
been little exploration of the conditions under which a female candidate’s advantage is
diminished (Herrick, 1996; Lazarus & Steigerwalt, 2018). Sorensen and Chen (2021) contend
that most campaign finance literature adopts a one-dimensional approach, emphasizing the need
for more intersectional exploration. Older female candidates face unique challenges that arise
specifically from being an aging woman in society (Crenshaw, 1991). For that reason, the
impacts of age, gender, and gendered ageism are explored.
Age and Elections
Commentary on gerontocracy, or government by the old, is almost always negative. Ng and
Indran (2023) found that only 6% of U.S.-originated tweets with the word gerontocracy defend
gerontocracy and that most of these tweets contained negative stereotypes about old people. This
is consistent with voter evaluations that suggest that elderly candidates are “seen as the least
competent, least likely to focus on most policy issues, and least electable” (McClean & Ono,
2024). Multiple studies have found that candidate age has a stronger effect on voter choice than
candidate race or gender alone (Piliavin, 2006; Sigelman & Sigelman, 1982). Even if age
SENIOR DISCOUNT? GENDER, AGE, AND SMALL DONOR FUNDRAISING
University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volume 26 | Fall 2024
negatively affects male and female candidates equally, in practice female candidates would still
be at a disadvantage due to starting their political careers later than men (Carroll, 1983; Lazarus
et al., 2023). However, ageism is gendered and impacts male and female candidates differently.
The 2024 race is not the first presidential election in which the value of age has been debated.
Research from the 2020 presidential race found that an individual’s positive or negative age
stereotypes about the candidates were strongly related to their vote choice (Monahan et al.,
2021). In the 2008 contest, campaign ads attacked John McCain’s age (71), and the McCain
campaign attempted to counter these attacks by emphasizing McCain’s experience (Rodamer,
2010; Kenski & Jamieson, 2010). In the 2016 presidential race, then-69-year-old Hillary
Rodham Clinton’s campaign similarly emphasized her public service record as a qualification for
the presidency (Jacobson, 2016). Yet, those with less awareness of sexism were more likely to
hold negative age stereotypes about Clinton than her opponent Donald Trump, despite Trump
being slightly older than Clinton (Lytle et al., 2018). This relationship between sexism and
ageism is notable since Clinton frequently faced sexism during her campaign, including
comments on her “annoying” voice, style of dress, and seemingly angry demeanor (Hall, 2022).
Conservative commentator Tucker Carlson famously stated, “When Hillary Clinton shows up on
TV I inadvertently cross my legs” (Hall, 2022).
Gendered Ageism
Clinton’s experience highlights the intersection of sexism and ageism that female leaders
face. The feeling is not unique to those running for elected office, either. Older women report
feeling seen as difficult to work with and less capable than their male peers (Beery & Swayze,
2023). This gendered age discrimination limits women’s career opportunities (Walker et al.,
2007). In the political sphere, these gendered age stereotypes may compound existing biases
against female candidates and present barriers to electoral success (Ono & Burden, 2019).
Because more weight is placed on women’s appearances, gendered ageism is augmented by
lookism, or discrimination based on attractiveness (McIver-Harris, 2021). As Calasanti (2005)
notes, “Women are seen to be ‘old’ much sooner than men. We don’t generally refer to men as
‘sagging’” (9). There is also evidence that women’s facial attractiveness ratings decline more
with age than men’s (McLellan & McKelvie, 1993). This negative interaction of age and gender
has political implications because attractiveness is a determinant of electoral support particularly
REED JEFFRIES & LUCCA CARLSON
University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volume 26 | Fall 2024
in candidate-centered, low information, and first-past-the-post elections (Milazzo & Mattes,
2016; Stockemer & Praino, 2015; Stockemer & Praino, 2017; Wigginton & Stockemer, 2021).
Furthermore, the literature suggests that attractiveness is especially influential in determining
support for female candidates. In a simulated election, female candidates who appeared more
attractive were more likely to win votes, while for male candidates what mattered was being
perceived as more approachable (Chiao et al., 2008).
Since male candidates benefit from being seen as approachable, they may be harmed less by
aging since there is a general stereotype of old people as warm and noncompetitive (Cuddy et al.,
2005). At the same time, older female candidates may be subject to more negative age
stereotypes and perceived as less capable and less attractive. For these reasons, it is hypothesized
that older female candidates will receive fewer small contributions than would be expected if age
and gender did not interact.
Methodology
This paper utilizes Culberson et al.’s (2019) dataset of small contribution data for incumbent
U.S. House representatives running for reelection in the 2006-2010 cycles. Their dataset contains
a rigorous set of controls for both district and candidate-level characteristics including district
median household income, high school graduation rate, rural percentage, and white population
percentage, as well as candidate scandals, large contribution receipts, competitiveness of the
primary and general elections, opponent political experience, party leadership roles, and
ideological extremeness.
Additionally, their dataset is unique in that it accounts for what they term “serial reporters”:
candidates who may unnecessarily itemize small contributions for bookkeeping purposes.
Accounting for serial reporters ensures that a more complete picture of small donor activity is
captured.
Binary variables, coded 1 and 0, for candidate gender and whether a candidate is older than
55 were added to this dataset, along with continuous variables for candidate age and years since
their first election to the House of Representatives. Continuous variables are calculated as the
difference between the cycle year and year of interest (ex. candidate’s birth year or election
year). Although Culberson et al. (2019) produced datasets for candidates in open-seat races and
challenger candidates, demographic information is most accessible for incumbent house
SENIOR DISCOUNT? GENDER, AGE, AND SMALL DONOR FUNDRAISING
University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volume 26 | Fall 2024
candidates. Additionally, limiting the analysis to incumbents controls for fundraising differences
related to candidates’ prior political experience.
Culberson et al. use Bonica’s campaign finance (CF) scores to provide an ideal point
estimate of a candidate’s ideological extremism based on their contribution record (Bonica
2014). Bonica’s CF scores are typically used to estimate the ideologies of newcomer candidates
who have never held office. Since this paper’s analysis only concerns incumbents, it instead
utilizes DW-nominate scores, which estimate ideology using a representative’s past roll-call
votes (Lewis et al. 2024). Additionally, since the existing body of literature suggests that
candidate divergence is not a significant factor in small-dollar fundraising and that its inclusion
may obscure significant effects, these models do not consider opponent ideology (Ensley 2009).
To test the hypothesis that older female candidates will have a diminished advantage, age and
gender interact in two models. The only difference between the models is how age is
represented. Model 1 utilizes a binary variable indicating whether a candidate is under or over
age 55. In Model 2, age is a quantitative predictor. Standard errors for both ordinary least squares
and robust regression procedures are provided (Cribari-Neto & Da Silva 2011).
Results
Findings are partially consistent with earlier scholarship, as a significant small contribution
advantage is observed for female candidates over and under 55 (see Figure 1). However, both
models provide evidence of an interaction between age and gender. In Model 1, there is evidence
at the 95% confidence level of an interaction regardless of the standard errors used. In Model 2,
the interaction is significant after reweighting procedures.
REED JEFFRIES & LUCCA CARLSON
University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volume 26 | Fall 2024
SENIOR DISCOUNT? GENDER, AGE, AND SMALL DONOR FUNDRAISING
University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volume 26 | Fall 2024
The significant interaction term in Model 1 suggests that being a female candidate over 55 is
associated with a reduction in small contributions that is significantly different from the slight
increase in small contributions observed in male candidates over 55. In Model 2, age is also
associated with a more negative impact on women’s small contribution fundraising than on
men’s. Regardless of the model, the basic interpretation of this interaction is that the small-dollar
advantage observed for female candidates, relative to their male contemporaries, is not constant
and shrinks with age. Graphically, this is visible in the lack of parallelism in the interaction plot
for Model 1, shown in Figure 1 below.
Other variables identified as significant, including competition, party, opponent quality,
ideology, and district demographics, are largely consistent with the models in Culberson et al.
(2019). Time in office is associated with a negative coefficient, which is consistent with their
finding that freshman candidates raise more in small contributions than more senior peers.
However, in models with age and gender, party leadership has a significant negative effect. This
doesn’t indicate that party leaders raise fewer small contributions than most candidates but rather
fewer small contributions than would be expected for a candidate with a party leader’s level of
large contributions.
REED JEFFRIES & LUCCA CARLSON
University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volume 26 | Fall 2024
This relative aspect must be considered in the interpretation of these observational
results. Because the model does not control for individual candidates but rather candidate and
district characteristics, it should not be concluded that any individual female candidate’s
contribution totals will decline as they age. Rather, the takeaway is that older women raise less
from small contributions than would be expected given their level of large contribution support
and their personal and district characteristics. Age predicts not necessarily a decline in total
contributions but rather a gendered shift in the composition of a candidate’s fundraising.
Discussion
There are several possible explanations for age and gender’s negative interaction when
predicting small-dollar receipts. The first would be that older women’s campaigns are less adept
in their use of small contribution fundraising strategies than their older male counterparts or that
they focus more on large donors. However, there isn’t a strong theoretical reason to believe this
would be the case given women’s generally strong grassroots fundraising efforts (Heberlig &
Larson, 2020).
Another explanation for the observed interaction could be that female candidates’ small
donor bases are younger than male candidates. Studies have found that voters tend to prefer
candidates who are proximal to their age (Sigelman & Sigelman, 1982; Sevi, 2020). The existing
composition of the small-dollar donor pool for women’s campaigns may favor the emergence of
younger female candidates due to donor preferences for similarly aged candidates (Grumbach &
Bonica, 2024). Little information is recorded about the individuals who make small
contributions, so this explanation isn’t readily testable via observational data. Regardless, it
would not negate the role of gendered ageism but rather suggest that more research is necessary
into how donor age and gender interact to shape participation in grassroots campaign finance.
Alternatively, if the small donor pool is similarly aged for both female and male candidates,
another explanation is that these donors and grassroots fundraising organizations like EMILYs
List simply disfavor old women. This explanation is rooted more directly in systemic biases,
stereotypes, and discrimination associated with gendered ageism. Older women are subject to
double discrimination that compounds and intersects with age and gender (Casalanti, 2005;
Westwood, 2023). The dismissal of presidential candidate Nikki Haley as “past her prime” by
CNN commentator Don Lemon exemplifies how gendered ageism permeates political discourse
SENIOR DISCOUNT? GENDER, AGE, AND SMALL DONOR FUNDRAISING
University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volume 26 | Fall 2024
(Elsesser, 2023). If donors see aging women through stereotyped lenses, this could negatively
influence their perceptions of a female candidate’s viability and reduce their likelihood of
making a small-dollar donation. These individual biases could be the reason for older women’s
reduced support from small-dollar donors.
Regardless of whether the small donor pool or individual bias explanation is favored, the
implications are similar. If their grassroots advantage is diminished, female incumbents may face
harder-to-win elections as they age, compounding their already greater vulnerability (Lazarus &
Steigerwalt, 2018). This could pose an obstacle to greater gender parity in the legislature (Vespa,
2018).
Further research is needed to explore the relationship between age, gender, and political
fundraising in greater depth. Longitudinal studies tracking the fundraising trajectories of male
and female candidates over time could provide insights into how age-related factors shape
donation patterns and electoral outcomes. Qualitative research examining the political
experiences of older women candidates could shed light on how these candidates respond to
gendered ageism. Finally, it is known that women of color face greater fundraising challenges,
and research should also examine whether these gaps are exacerbated as candidates age
(Sorensen & Chen, 2022).
Conclusion
In sum, a significant negative interaction between age and gender is observed in the small
contribution receipts of U.S. House incumbents in the 2006-2010 campaign cycles. This
interaction is interpreted as evidence of gendered differences in the composition of older
candidates’ fundraising profiles. Possible explanations for this shift include asymmetrically aged
donor pools and gendered age discrimination on the part of grassroots and the organizations that
facilitate grassroots giving. Female candidates are regularly subject to an array of intersecting
gender and age biases that affect voter choice, and this paper suggests these biases may affect
political contributions as well. Given this finding, it may be necessary to develop focused media
and fundraising strategies to address these biases, diversify donor networks, and promote older
women’s electoral success.
Acknowledgments
REED JEFFRIES & LUCCA CARLSON
University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volume 26 | Fall 2024
We thank Dr. Sharon Austin for her mentorship and the Bob Graham Center for funding this
research. We also thank Dr. Michael McDonald and Dr. Suzanne Robbins for making available
the Culberson et al. (2019) dataset.
References
Beery, S. L. B., & Swayze, S. (2023). Pushed out to pasture way before their time: Gendered ageism
through the eyes of women working in the U.S. federal civil service, Cogent Gerontology, 2:1,
doi: 10.1080/28324897.2023.2291584
Bonica, A. (2014). Mapping the ideological marketplace. American Journal of Political Science, 58(2),
367–386. http://www.jstor.org/stable/24363491
Burrell, B. C. (1985). Women’s and men’s campaigns for the U.S. House of Representatives, 1972-1982
A finance gap? American Politics Quarterly, 13(3), 251-272.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X8501300301
Carroll, K. M. (1983). The Age Difference Between Men and Women Politicans. Social Science
Quarterly, 64(2), 332–339.
Calasanti, T. (2005). Ageism, gravity, and gender: Experiences of aging bodies. Generations, 29, 8–12.
Chiao, J. Y., Bowman, N. E., & Gill, H. (2008). The political gender gap: Gender bias in facial inferences
that predict voting behavior. PLOS ONE 3(10): e3666.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0003666
Crenshaw, K. (1991). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against
women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43(6), 1241–1299. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039
Crespin, M. H., & Deitz, J. L. (2010). If you can’t join ’em, beat ’em: The gender gap in individual
donations to congressional candidates. Political Research Quarterly, 63(3), 581–593.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/25747960
Cribari-Neto, F., & da Silva, W.B. (2011). A new heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix
estimator for the linear regression model. AStA Advances in Statistical Analysis, 95, 129-146.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10182-010-0141-2
Cuddy, A., Norton, M., & Fiske, S. (2005). This old stereotype: The pervasiveness and persistence of the
elderly stereotype. Journal of Social Issues, 61, 267–285. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00405
Culberson, T., McDonald, M. P., & Robbins, S. M. (2019). Small donors in congressional elections.
American Politics Research, 47(5), 970-999. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X18763918
SENIOR DISCOUNT? GENDER, AGE, AND SMALL DONOR FUNDRAISING
University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volume 26 | Fall 2024
Donella, L. (2024, February 16). How ageism against Biden and Trump puts older folks at risk. National
Public Radio. https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2024/02/16/1231828178/how-ageism-
against-biden-and-trump-puts-older-folks-at-risk
Elsesser, K. (2023, February 17). CNN’s Don Lemon says Nikki Haley is past her ‘prime’ at 51 — here’s
what research says. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/kimelsesser/2023/02/16/cnns-don-
lemon-says-nikki-haley-is-past-her-prime-at-51-heres-what-research-says/?sh=53fc6ac24cd1
Ensley, M. J. (2009). Individual campaign contributions and candidate ideology. Public Choice, 138(1/2),
221–238. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127
Epstein, R. (2023, July 16). Biden, with sluggish small donations, waits for liberal energy to rise. New
York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/07/16/us/politics/biden-fundraising-2024.html
Grumbach, J., & Bonica, A. (2024). Old money: Campaign finance and gerontocracy in the United States.
Manuscript under review.
Hall, R. (2022). Hillary Clinton faced constant sexism in 2016 campaign, says ex-aide. The Guardian.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jun/03/hillary-clinton-faced-constant-sexism-in-
2016-campaign-says-ex-aide
Heberlig, E., & Larson, B. (2020). Gender and small contributions: Fundraising by the Democratic
freshman class of 2018 in the 2020 election. Society, 57(5), 534+.
https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/A639931506/AONEu=anon~3f9e4b28&sid=googleScholar&xid=
6f9575fd
Heerwig, J. A. & Gordon, K. M. (2018). Buying a voice: Gendered contribution careers among affluent
political donors to federal elections, 1980–2008. Sociol Forum, 33, 805-825.
https://doi.org/10.1111/socf.12444
Herrick, R. (1996). Is there a gender gap in the value of campaign resources? American Politics
Quarterly, 24(1), 68-80. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X9602400104
Jacobson, G.C. (2016). Polarization, Gridlock, and Presidential Campaign Politics in 2016. The
Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 667, 226–246.
http://www.jstor.org/stable/24756152
Kenski, K., & Jamieson, K. H. (2010). The effects of candidate age in the 2008 presidential election.
Presidential Studies Quarterly, 40, 449-463. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1741-5705.2010.03780.x
Lawless, J. L. (2004). Women, war, and winning elections: Gender stereotyping in the post-September
11th era. Political Research Quarterly, 57(3), 479–490. https://doi.org/10.2307/3219857
Lazarus, J., & Steigerwalt, A. (2018). Gendered vulnerability: How women work harder to stay in office.
University of Michigan Press. https://doi.org/10.3998/mpub.9718595
Lazarus, J., Steigerwalt, A., & Clark, M. (2023). Time spent in the House: Gender and the political
careers of U.S. House members. Politics & Gender, 19(1), 97–132.
doi:10.1017/S1743923X21000428
REED JEFFRIES & LUCCA CARLSON
University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volume 26 | Fall 2024
Lewis, J.B., Poole, K., Rosenthal, H. Boche, A., Rudkin, A., & Sonnet, L. (2024). Voteview:
Congressional roll-call votes database. https://voteview.com/
Lytle, A., Macdonald, J., Dyar, C., & Levy, S. R. (2018). Ageism and sexism in the 2016 United States
presidential election. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 18, 81-104.
https://doi.org/10.1111/asap.12147
McClean, C. T., & Ono, Y. (2024). Too young to run? Voter evaluations of the age of candidates. Polit
Behav. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109-024-09920-2
McIver-Harris, K. (2021). Mirror, mirror: An exploration of the relationships between women's
appearance and career progression. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I; ProQuest
Dissertations & Theses Global.
https://login.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/dissertations-theses/mirror-
exploration-relationships-between-womens/docview/2555973433/se-2
McLellan, B., & McKelvie, S. J. (1993). Effects of age and gender on perceived facial attractiveness.
Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 25(1), 135-142.
https://login.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/login?url=https://www.proquest.com/scholarly-journals/effects-age-
gender-on-perceived-facial/docview/220513483/se-2
Milazzo, C., & Mattes, K. (2016). Looking good for election day: Does attractiveness predict electoral
success in Britain? The British Journal of Politics and International Relations, 18(1), 161-178.
https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-856X.12074
Monahan, C., Lytle, A., Inman, E., Apriceno, M., Macdonald, J., & Levy, S. R. (2021). Endorsement of
stereotypes of older adults, older men, and male leaders predict expected job performance, voting
stance, and voting intentions in the 2020 election. Innovation in Aging, 5(1), 1016.
https://doi.org/10.1093/geroni/igab046.3640
Ng, R., & Indran, N. (2023). Does age matter? Tweets about gerontocracy in the United States, The
Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 78. 1870–1878. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbad113
Ono, Y., & Burden, B. C. (2019). The contingent effects of candidate sex on voter choice. Political
Behavior, 41(3), 583–607. https://www.jstor.org/stable/48688521
Piliavin, Jane. (2006). Age, race, and sex similarity to candidates and voting preference. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 17. 351-368. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.1987.tb00318.x
Piper, J. (2023, August 4). ‘Whistling past the graveyard’: Dem fear grows over massive grassroots
fundraising hit. Politico. https://www.politico.com/news/2023/08/04/biden-dems-grassroots-
donations-00109766
Rodamer, K. A. (2010). Negative political campaigns and voter response: The implications of image
attack ads on young, first-time voters. American Behavioral Scientist 50(9),1137-1151. doi:
10.1177/0002764207300039
Sevi, S. (2020). Do young voters vote for young leaders? Electoral Studies, 69. doi:
10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102200.
SENIOR DISCOUNT? GENDER, AGE, AND SMALL DONOR FUNDRAISING
University of Florida | Journal of Undergraduate Research | Volume 26 | Fall 2024
Shippee, T., Wilkinson, L., Schafer, M., & Shippee, N. (2019). Long-term effects of age discrimination
on mental health: The role of perceived financial strain. The Journals of Gerontology. Series B,
Psychological sciences and social sciences. 74. 664-674. doi: 10.1093/geronb/gbx017
Sigelman, L., & Sigelman, C. K. (1982). Sexism, racism, and ageism in Voting Behavior: An
experimental analysis. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45(4), 263–269.
https://doi.org/10.2307/3033922
Sorensen, A., & Chen, P. (2022). Identity in campaign finance and elections: The impact of gender and
race on money raised in 2010–2018 U.S. House elections. Political Research Quarterly, 75(3),
738-753. https://doi.org/10.1177/10659129211022846
Stockemer, D., & Praino, R. (2015). Blinded by beauty? Physical attractiveness and candidate selection in
the U.S. House of Representatives. Social Science Quarterly, 96. doi: 10.1111/ssqu.12155
Stockemer, D., & Praino, R. (2017). Physical attractiveness, voter heuristics and electoral systems: The
role of candidate attractiveness under different institutional designs. The British Journal of
Politics and International Relations, 19(2), 336-352. https://doi.org/10.1177/1369148116687533
Thomsen, D. M., & Swers, M. L. (2017). Which women can run? Gender, partisanship, and candidate
donor networks. Political Research Quarterly, 70(2), 449-463.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912917698044
Torres, S. (2024, February 15). Opinion: Why do we talk about older people so negatively? Los Angeles
Times. https://www.latimes.com/opinion/story/2024-02-15/biden-trump-robert-hur-ageism-
elderly
Vespa, J. (2018, March 13). The graying of America. United State Census Bureau.
https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2018/03/graying-america.html
Walker, H., Grant, D. Meadows, M., & Cook, I. (2007). Women’s experiences and perceptions of
perceived age discrimination in employment: Implications for research and policy. Social Policy
and Society, 6, 37–48. doi:10.1017/S1474746406003320
Westwood, S. (2023) It’s the not being seen that is most tiresome: Older women, invisibility and social
(in)justice, Journal of Women & Aging, 35:6, 557-572, doi: 10.1080/08952841.2023.2197658
Wigginton, M., & Stockemer, D. (2021). The limits of the attractiveness premium in elections. Electoral
Studies, 70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.electstud.2020.102274
