I saw an extremely interesting study in this regard years ago. It reported that Republicans would be much better off running women in Democratic leaning districts. The study indicated Democrats and Independents would be 10% more likely to support a GOP female than male, everything else being equal.

However, the problem was getting the nomination. GOP men and women judged a female candidate much more harshly than a male candidate, not strong enough. Democrats and Independents prioritized the strengths while Republicans focused on that supposed weakness as a leader.

Also, are there simply fewer GOP female politicians to begin with? I have no idea. Since women are more progressive and Democratic leaning than men I wonder if that equates to fewer GOP female politicians, especially at high level and capable of competing for federal office?

Plus, aren't many of the Democratic females in congress black? Of the top of my head I just thought of at least 8 or 9. If Republicans had a 90% voting block like that and districts where the demographic dominated, I think you would see more GOP females in congress.

That 15% sounds a bit high to me, in terms of left handers as a percentage of the population. I've generally seen it two or three points lower than that, albeit a higher percentage of left handed boys than lefty girls. Normally studies indicate that boys are 2 to 3% more likely to be left handed than girls. So it could be 15% of men are left handed and that applies to your baseball example.

I'm left handed so I've always paid attention to numbers like that. It's startling in the sports betting circles in Las Vegas, the percentage of lefties. I remember once we were getting ready for the Stardust lottery on Sunday night and someone pointed out that 6 of the 7 of us in one group were left handed. There must be something that attracts lefties to that form of numbers-oriented pursuit. I've always wondered about the stock market in that regard.

I read a few days ago that women make up 55% of the electorate.  They are no longer averse to voting for their own gender, quite the opposite.   We see lots more women in power than we ever have (Pelosi, Feinstein, Boxer, Clinton, etc.)   Women are currently defining and driving the Democratic campaign by their support for Clinton.  While Clinton holds her own with men, gets about the same percentage of men as Obama, she holds a very strong edge amongst women, and that has been the difference in the presidential nomination race so far.  

I know you didn't just refer to Melissa Santorum-junior-Hart as a moderate, right? ;)

Melissa Hart ("Jesse Helms in drag") was anything but a progressive. She was an ally of Rick Santorum, held his former Congressional seat, voted to the right of Jesse Helms on some issues, and was thought to be in line to run for U.S. Senate for Specter's seat when he retires or dies (has cancer).  She would have given the Santorum wing of the Party two Senate seats from PA. I, for one, was thrilled when Altmire beat her.

I read some years ago that in countries where the percentage of women in congress or parliament reaches 40%, the political culture shifts to a more socially conscious, less authoritarian and militaristic one.  As a matter of fact, the article, which I have lost, said that women heads of state where their parliament is less than 40% women often behave more like Margaret Thatcher.  It seems that the country as a whole has to shift.

I pay close attention, campaign, and contribute to candidates across the country, based largely on what the Democratic political blogs say, but because the blog candidates are almost all men, I have to go to Emily's List to find women candidates, and I make sure half of my candidates are women.  I don't necessarily want the blogs to set quotas, but we could try to promote at least 40% women, since we women make up more than half the population and probably around 60% of Democrats.