(CNN) — Sen. Kamala Harris’ entry into the 2020 presidential race is a continuation of what was already a historical year for women in the Democratic primary. With fellow Democratic Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Elizabeth Warren having already formed exploratory committees and Rep. Tulsi Gabbard also in the race, 2020 features more female members of Congress running for a party’s presidential nomination at the same time than ever before. And more could come, with Sen. Amy Klobuchar potentially joining the fray. Women’s pivotal role in Democratic politics has never been more evident, with multiple women from the Democratic Party likely to take the plunge into the primary, each with her own unique appeal to voters. None of these women are at the top of the polls right now, though. All of them, however, are either at the top of our 2020 power rankings (Harris) or at least in the top 10. What’s going on? The current or potential Democratic candidates aren’t well known right now. About a third of Democrats couldn’t form an opinion of Warren in a CNN national poll taken late last year. A majority hadn’t formed an opinion of Harris or Klobuchar. A majority couldn’t form an opinion of Gillibrand in a Quinnipiac University poll conducted in December. Around 90% of Democrats have an opinion of the two candidates at the top of the polls, former Vice President Joe Biden and Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders. I’m not sure that can hold as we get later into the primary process. But once the women become better known, it’s important to remember that female voters hold a powerful role in Democratic politics and were intent on choosing women as candidates in the most recent election cycles. Women candidates dominated in 2016 and 2018 Democratic primaries. Hillary Clinton won the 2016 Democratic presidential nomination. Over 50% of women who ran in Democratic House primaries won in 2018. In fact, more women were nominated in Democratic House primaries than ever before. It’s not just that women are winning. It seems that they are winning in part because Democratic voters want to vote for women. A CBS News poll taken in 2015 found that when Clinton voters were asked during the primary to give their most important reason for backing her, the second most popular answer was “it’s time for a woman president.” A FiveThirtyEight analysis found that even controlling for other factors, being a woman was one of the best indicators of whether a candidate won a 2018 congressional Democratic primary. Indeed, Democratic women in particular seem to be voting for women candidates. Across the 27 caucuses and primaries in 2016 with an entrance or exit poll, Clinton beat Sanders by an average of over 20 points among women. She won women in 22 of the states and lost women in only four states. Sanders won men in a majority of contests. The more than 20-point gender gap between them was about as large as was seen between Democrats and Republicans in the 2016 and 2018 general election. The fact that women are interested in voting for women is important because they make up a disproportionate percentage of Democratic primary voters. In 2016 for example, women made up 58% of the primary vote in the average primary. They made up just 52% of the vote in the 2018 midterm election. You can already see the strong potential of at least a few of the women candidates among Democratic activists. I’ve written previously how Harris is very strong among African-American Democratic activists and those based in the early primary states. This month, Warren won a straw poll among the Democratic liberal activists that largely makeup the Daily Kos community. She doubled Bernie Sanders’ percentage of the vote, even though Sanders won every straw poll taken in the 2016 campaign. Now activist interviews and straw polls such as these aren’t scientific and may not at all be predictive. They do, though, give us a window into how those who most closely follow politics are thinking. Democratic voters look like they may want a woman to take on the man in the White House. UPDATE: This story has been updated following Sen. Kamala Harris’ entry into the 2020 race.<doc-sep>On Tuesday morning, the day after Democratic U.S. Sen. Kamala Harris made her presidential bid official, a fledgling birther conspiracy about her began to take wing on Twitter. Harris, who happens to be the child of immigrants, was born in Oakland. Which, you know, is in America. To some voters, I guess she seems exotic* because she is biracial, the child of an Indian mother and Jamaican father. (*Exotic: Not like us.) Advertisement We live in a country where racism refuses to die, but Harris’ big challenge is not going to be the color of her skin. We’ve already proven we can elect a black president. Heck, we’ve already proven we can elect a black, first-term United States senator as president. But Barack Obama was a man. Harris’ challenge will be the same one facing some of the others who have announced their candidacies: U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Kirsten Gillibrand, and U.S. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard. It is the same insurmountable obstacle that faced Hillary Clinton in 2008 when she lost the Democratic nomination to Obama. Harris is a woman. Like other candidates, Harris will be judged on her record. She will be challenged from the left to explain some of her perceived failures: Why, as California attorney general, did she not prosecute OneWest Bank, whose CEO was future Treasury Secretary Steven T. Mnuchin, for what her own office described as thousands of foreclosure law violations? Why, as the state’s top prosecutor, did she refuse to allow DNA testing of a California death row inmate who may be innocent? But mostly, she will be judged on how she walks the fine line between sounding tough and acting nice. She’ll be judged — often unconsciously — on how she speaks, how she interacts with people, and of course, how she looks. (Even Obama, who really should have known better, could not resist calling her “by far, the best looking attorney general in the country” at a 2013 fundraiser.) Will Harris be deemed “likable enough,” the casual insult Obama flung at Hillary in 2008? Advertisement Or will she be undercut with the all-purpose slur that is used against women who are assertive enough to want to be president and narcissistic enough to believe they can win? You know the one. It rhymes with witch. :: Advertisement I spent a lot of time during the 2016 campaign and its aftermath thinking about why so many people hated Hillary Clinton. By any measure — honesty, trustworthiness, integrity, experience, maturity — she towers over the man who beat her. I know what you are thinking: But her emails! Her lost and found Rose Law Firm files! Her Chicago cattle futures windfall! Her Monica Lewinsky smears! And to that, I would answer: Yes! She was a flawed candidate with a ton of baggage and a tendency, like all presidential candidates, to shade the truth. (She also got some very bad breaks — an army of Russian trolls spreading lies about her, and a self-serving FBI director whose pointless disclosures hurt her campaign at the end.) Advertisement But I am comparing her to Donald Trump, who lies almost as easily as he breathes, who cheated on his wife with a porn star and a Playmate, then tried to buy their silence using his attorney, who has been sentenced to three years in prison for his role in the scandal. I’m comparing her to Donald Trump, who is vicious and petty, who has been accused of defrauding innocent “students” at his faux university, who makes a habit of not paying his bills, whose businesses have been driven into bankruptcy numerous times. I’m comparing her to a man whose close relationship with Russia so alarmed the FBI that it considered investigating whether he is a Russian agent. And yet throughout the 2016 campaign, one of the loudest refrains about Clinton was as simplistic as it was sexist: “I just don’t like her.” Advertisement The “likability” trap ensnares high-achieving women in all professions. “As descriptions like ‘Ice Queen’ and ‘Ballbuster’ can attest, we are deeply uncomfortable with powerful women,” wrote the sociologist Marianne Cooper in the Harvard Business Review in 2013. “In fact, we often don’t really like them.” :: Democrats will be fielding a record number of women, all of whom, it appears, are already serving in Congress. None is a political novice. They understand the forces they are up against, but I am willing to bet they are all in for a shock or two. Still, I propose an ongoing thought experiment for all of us who are watching the buildup to the 2020 presidential campaign with a mixture of excitement and dread. Advertisement If you hear negative things about a female candidate, ask yourself if the same critique would apply to a man. Or consider whether the woman in question has been trashed so often by conservative media outlets/Facebook/Twitter/comedians that you have simply internalized the antipathy without questioning it. This, I firmly believe, is what happened to Hillary Clinton, who has been the object of conservative scorn for so long that it is an article of Republican faith that she’s a liar. Bear in mind that women are usually penalized for thinking they are the best choice for a top job — or for asking for more money or better assignments. I’m not saying the world will be a better place when a woman can stand in the spotlight at a nominating convention as Trump did, and declare, “I alone can fix it.” Advertisement Or when she can feel free to demean a war hero. Or boast about grabbing men’s private parts. I’m just saying the next time you think you don’t like a particular woman candidate but can’t put your finger on why, the reason might be your own unexamined bias. robin.abcarian@latimes.com Advertisement Twitter: @AbcarianLAT<doc-sep>Despite being more than a year out from the Iowa caucuses, women already have made history in the 2020 election. Four Democratic women — Rep. Tulsi Gabbard Tulsi GabbardTulsi Gabbard on Chicago mayor's decision to limit media interviews to people of color: 'Anti-white racism' Fox News says network and anchor Leland Vittert have 'parted ways' New co-chairs named for congressional caucus for millennials MORE (Hawaii) and Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand Kirsten GillibrandDemocratic feud erupts over scope of military sexual assault bill Overnight Defense: Austin, Bidens thank National Guard as Capitol mission ends | CBO estimates nuclear arsenal to cost 4B over 10 years | Senate Armed Services chairman backs change in prosecuting military sexual assault Senate Armed Services chair throws support behind changing roles of military commanders in sexual assault prosecutions MORE (New York), Kamala Harris Kamala HarrisBiden, Bass press for police reform after meeting Floyd family Biden, Harris condemn surge in antisemitic incidents Mexican president: FAA safety downgrade meant to benefit US carriers MORE (California), and Elizabeth Warren Elizabeth WarrenOn The Money: Biden administration launches trade dispute against Canadian dairy industry | Warren urges Biden to replace Fed's Quarles Warren urges Biden to replace Fed's Quarles in testy exchange Warren offers bill to increase IRS budget to .5 billion MORE (Massachusetts) — have announced they ether are running for president or forming an exploratory committee. Sen. Amy Klobuchar Amy KlobucharDemocrats to introduce bill to prevent default recurring political donations Are the Supreme Court and Biden ready to rumble over Roe? Bottom line MORE (D-Minn.) also is said to be seriously considering a presidential run. That brings the number to five. Not only is that more than double the number of women who ran in 2016 (two), but it is larger than the number of women who ran in the last three presidential cycles combined (four, and that’s counting former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Hillary Diane Rodham ClintonHillary Clinton takes on conspiracy theories on Borat special Top general: Russia, China will look to expand influence in Middle East as US pulls back We have a chance to halt climate change if we stop destroying carbon sinks and cut methane MORE twice). Certainly that “highest, hardest glass ceiling,” which was so notably cracked a little more than a decade ago, has begun collapsing. And it’s about time. ADVERTISEMENT But the question remains, can one of these Democratic women win the presidency? Although my past research on presidential aspirants leads me to concur with much of FiveThirtyEight founder Nate Silver’s analysis of the 2020 field and his conclusion that Sen. Kamala Harris is well-positioned to win the nomination, I also am deeply cognizant of how risk-adverse party activists traditionally have been when it comes to women and the presidency. More specifically, despite Clinton’s presidential nomination in 2016, Democrats have not selected another woman to serve as their vice presidential nominee since Rep. Geraldine Ferraro in 1984. Republicans never have chosen a woman to serve as their party’s presidential nominee, and only once have they chosen a woman, former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin in 2008, to serve on the ticket as their vice presidential nominee. What’s worse than the implicit patriarchal views of the presidency that often underlie the decisions of the two major political parties is that the three women who have been on presidential tickets also have been blamed for the losses. As I explained in late December 2014, when imploring Clinton not to run for president, the historical “fundamentals” were not on the side of the Democrats in 1984 or the Republicans in 2008. They also were not on the side of the Democrats in 2016. Simple math suggests that going into the 2016 contest, the Democratic candidate only had about a 17 percent chance of winning the presidency. (From 1952-2012, there had been six “heir apparent” candidates who sought to win a third presidential term for his party, and only one — George H.W. Bush — managed to win.) In other words, Clinton ran fairly well given her predicament. Comparing Clinton to the other “third-term” losers, she earned a larger percentage of the popular vote than Hubert Humphrey in 1968, Gerald Ford in 1976 and John McCain John Sidney McCainHannity tells Santorum he helped prevent Joy Reid from being fired Richard Hanania sees Trump as 2024 GOP nominee Why Republican politicians are sticking with Trump MORE in 2008. She earned nearly the same percentage of popular votes as Al Gore Albert (Al) Arnold GoreTrump won't move on, but most Americans want to Hawaii legislature passes bill to implement automatic voter registration Libertarians elected Biden MORE in 2000, and slightly less than Richard Nixon in 1960. Like Gore and Nixon, she and her campaign failed to realize how much of an underdog she was and where she needed to direct her efforts (i.e., she should have been targeting these competitive districts from 2012). That said, her losing the presidency evidently has made some in the party wary (Democratic frontrunners in the polls are white men) about putting up another woman. Now, 2020 is a different type of election — no candidate is running for a party’s third term. Still, at the outset, Republicans are favored to win. (Since 1968, there have been six incumbents who sought reelection and their party’s second term in office, and only one — Jimmy Carter — lost.) While it appears that President Trump may well be headed down the perilous path of Carter, Democrats should not overestimate their chances. Despite all of this history and unfavorable odds, it’s hard not to believe that 2020 may well break the mold. Women ran and won in record numbers in 2018. And two African-American Democratic gubernatorial candidates (Stacey Abrams in Georgia and Andrew Gillum in Florida) upended the party hierarchy, won their primaries, and came close to victory in the general election. And now, less than 30 days into the “invisible primary,” four women have jumped into the presidential contest. Clearly today’s Democratic Party is not the same as it was in your grandmother’s day. Aside from the changes in leadership, the composition of the party has changed significantly over the past two decades. In short, if ever there were a time for a woman to win the Democratic nomination and oust an embattled incumbent president, 2020 looks to be about as good as this type of nomination and election can get. Said another way, watch out for falling glass. The ceiling looks like it is about to give way. Lara M. Brown, Ph.D., is an associate professor and director of the Graduate School of Political Management at the George Washington University, and formerly was an assistant professor of political science at Villanova University. She frequently appears on TV and radio programs as an expert on American political history, party development and national elections. Follow her on Twitter @LaraMBrownPhD.<doc-sep>
"'Are we ready in 2020? I really don’t think we are,' said Ms. Cusack, 75, a former Democratic National Committee member from Florida. Too many Americans may not want to 'take another chance' on a female candidate, Ms. Cusack said, after Hillary Clinton was met with mistrust and even hostility in swing states. New York Times : " ‘There’s a Real Tension.’ Democrats Puzzle Over Whether a Woman Will Beat Trump " — "Joyce Cusack would love to see a woman as president in her lifetime. But she is not sure it should happen in 2020. Lisa Lerer , reporter at The New York Times covering campaigns, elections and political power. Lead reporter on the 2016 presidential race for The Associated Press. ( @llerer ) At least four women are now running for president in 2020. We’ll look at the field and their prospects. "But Andy McGuire, the former chairwoman of the Iowa Democratic Party, sees a different reality after a record number of Democratic women won races in the 2018 midterms. 'I’d go back to this last election — who won?' said Dr. McGuire, who, as a superdelegate like Ms. Cusack, supported Mrs. Clinton at the 2016 convention. 'Who had the excitement? Who had all the volunteers and power behind them? It was women.' "As the 2020 primary competition gets underway with Elizabeth Warren’s entry into the race, and with several other women likely to be early contenders, two competing narratives have emerged about the possibility of another woman leading the Democratic ticket, interviews with more than three dozen party officials, voters and pollsters showed." Glamour: "Who’s In and Who’s Out of the 2020 Presidential Race—So Far" — "In the 2016 presidential election, Senator Ted Cruz (R–Tex.) didn’t declare until March 2015. Hillary Clinton released a YouTube video announcing her candidacy in April. Donald Trump didn’t take that famous ride down the escalator until June. But America now lives squarely in the era of The Endless Campaign: The 2020 race is already here. Before 2018 was even over, Senator Elizabeth Warren announced she had formed an official exploratory committee and was headed to Iowa to campaign. A long list of Democratic contenders will likely follow. (In one CNN poll of the potential field, only one woman, Senator Kamala Harris, broke into the top five contenders. And despite lots of talk about a new wave of young, ethnically diverse leaders shaking up politics, the two top slots were held by older white men: former vice president Joe Biden and Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders.) "Early polling doesn’t always indicate which candidates will jump into the ring—and if they do, every day of a presidential race, from the first to the last, can be a political minefield. (Not to mention the potential pitfalls of at least a dozen presidential debates that are already on the calendar.)" Washington Post: "Before you run against Trump, you have to run against Hillary (if you’re a woman)" — "Just hours after Elizabeth Warren announced her plans to run for president, a question began surfacing about a possible weakness. It wasn’t derived from opposition research into some facet of her life. It had nothing to do with her policy ideas. "It was the question often asked of female candidates and rarely of men: Is she 'likable' enough to be president? Others put it another, potentially more devastating, way: Is she too much like Hillary Clinton to be the nominee? "It’s not just the Democratic female senator from Massachusetts who may feel compelled to come up with an answer. The 2020 presidential campaign is expected to include the largest-ever field of female candidates, all of them campaigning in the wake of the defeat of the first female nominee of a major party. "The reasons for Clinton’s loss are still debated two years after the election. But even as Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) was elected House speaker on Wednesday, the women looking at White House campaigns continue to shoulder gendered criticism and demands not placed on their male counterparts: to be strong but not too tough; to be assertive without being pushy, lest voters turn away for reasons that they may not acknowledge are sexist but that researchers say are." Allison Pohle and Adam Waller produced this show for broadcast.