vox--2020-11-13--Trump’s turn against Fox News, explained

President Donald Trump spent part of Thursday fixated on one of his favorite grievances : media coverage he perceives as being unfair to him .
In this case , Trump ’ s target wasn ’ t the usual suspects on MSNBC or CNN .
It was Fox News .
The string of tweets and retweets the president posted seemed tantamount to a declaration of war on a network that ’ s done so much to help him over the years .
Trump began the day otherwise dominated by coverage of record levels of coronavirus infections and hospitalizations by retweeting a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ posted by Fox News personality Greg Gutfeld promoting further-right alternatives to Fox — things like “ # foxnews is dead , ” “ Left Fox 4 NewsMaxxxxx , ” and “ Newsmax and Oann are great alternatives.
” He then offered a tweet of his own in which he referred to himself as “ the Golden Goose ” and lied about Fox News ’ s ratings .
( The network still enjoys the best ratings in cable news . )
“ .
@ FoxNews daytime ratings have completely collapsed .
Weekend daytime even @ @ @ @ @ @ @ happen , but they forgot what made them successful , what got them there .
They forgot the Golden Goose .
The biggest difference between the 2016 Election , and 2020 , was @ FoxNews !
” Trump wrote .
Trump carefully exempted Fox News ’ s primetime lineup talent — Tucker Carlson , Sean Hannity , and Laura Ingraham — from his ire .
Indeed , hours after attacking the network , Trump tweeted out clips from Sean Hannity ’ s show spreading baseless conspiracy theories about votes being switched from him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ hours earlier by his own government .
Hannity ’ s segment was not an aberration .
As Peter Kafka detailed for Recode in a post about how Fox News is helping Trump spread election fraud conspiracy theories , Hannity , Ingraham , and Carlson have all done segments — sometimes collaborating with Republican Party officials — in which they ’ ve suggested with no evidence that it ’ s plausible that Trump “ is a victim of massive voter fraud that cost him the election while simultaneously defeating Democratic House and Senate candidates.
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ little bit isn ’ t enough .
He expects total loyalty from Fox News , and the fact that the network ’ s news side won ’ t give it to him is an unforgivable sin .
Fox News ’ s call of Arizona for Biden was a major turning point Trump ’ s frustrations with Fox News have been building since at least the early days of the 2020 campaign .
He ’ s routinely lashed out over Fox polls that showed Biden beating him and about the fact that the network @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flashpoint in the Trump-Fox relationship came on election night , when Fox News ’ s call of Arizona put the first nail in the president ’ s political coffin .
As Annie Karni and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times reported , Fox ’ s call — which may have been premature but was ultimately vindicated by Biden ’ s victory in Arizona — sent Trump into a tailspin : Ultimately , Fox News ’ s call played no role in Trump ’ s eventual defeat — the votes that sealed Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ by election night .
But it has nonetheless become grist for a “ stab in the back ” narrative .
Along similar lines , when Fox News called the entire election for Biden last Saturday , network news anchors were quick to start referring to Biden as “ president-elect ” — a designation indicating they weren ’ t going to indulge Trump ’ s baseless claims about the election being stolen from him .
This isn ’ t to say that Fox News ’ s coverage of Trump ’ s defeat has been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anchors have allowed Trumpworld guests to spread conspiracy theories about election fraud without pushing back at all , and Fox News White House correspondent John Roberts has repeatedly given oxygen to Republican fantasies about the 2020 election playing out like 2000 or Trump invalidating the election results with help from GOP state legislatures .
If this all sounds a bit incoherent , that ’ s because it is .
As CNN media reporter Brian Stelter told my colleague Sean Illing in a new Q & A , Fox ’ s coverage since the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the needle of acknowledging Biden ’ s victory while not alienating Trump supporters who buy baseless conspiracy theories about the election being stolen from him : But “ reality-based journalism ” is an affront to the president when it engages with a reality he doesn ’ t like .
And so Trump has turned to promoting outlets that fully indulge his MAGA fantasies .
Trump TV might still become a thing While Trump refuses to publicly acknowledge that his days in the White House are now numbered , Mike Allen of Axios on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has told friends he wants to start a digital media company to clobber Fox News and undermine the conservative-friendly network.
” Maggie Haberman confirmed that reporting but added that Trump could ultimately “ join forces with an existing property like OANN or Newsmax.
” Fox News ’ s occasionally reality-based post-election treatment of Trump has seemed to alienate some of the MAGA base .
Ratings for Newsmax have been surging while that network refuses to even acknowledge that Biden is president-elect .
My colleague Emily VanDerWerff immersed herself in two days of Newsmax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its emerging programming model is to position itself as an even Trumpier alternative to Fox News : On a deeper level , of course , it ’ s tragic that the president is spending his last days in the White House fixated on media grievances and his future plans instead of taking immediate action to confront the worsening coronavirus pandemic .
But it ’ s extremely on brand for Trump .
It ’ s also extremely corrosive for democracy .
By fanning the flames of the idea that the election was stolen from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elections .
And while enabling that effort might be a bridge too far for the Neil Cavutos and Chris Wallaces of Fox News , the most-watched personalities on the network , like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity , remain in step with Trump .

President Donald Trump spent part of Thursday fixated on one of his favorite grievances: media coverage he perceives as being unfair to him. In this case, Trump’s target wasn’t the usual suspects on MSNBC or CNN. It was Fox News.
The string of tweets and retweets the president posted seemed tantamount to a declaration of war on a network that’s done so much to help him over the years.
Trump began the day otherwise dominated by coverage of record levels of coronavirus infections and hospitalizations by retweeting a string of random replies to a tweet posted by Fox News personality Greg Gutfeld promoting further-right alternatives to Fox — things like “#foxnews is dead,” “Left Fox 4 NewsMaxxxxx,” and “Newsmax and Oann are great alternatives.” He then offered a tweet of his own in which he referred to himself as “the Golden Goose” and lied about Fox News’s ratings. (The network still enjoys the best ratings in cable news.)
“.@FoxNews daytime ratings have completely collapsed. Weekend daytime even WORSE. Very sad to watch this happen, but they forgot what made them successful, what got them there. They forgot the Golden Goose. The biggest difference between the 2016 Election, and 2020, was @FoxNews!” Trump wrote.
.@FoxNews daytime ratings have completely collapsed. Weekend daytime even WORSE. Very sad to watch this happen, but they forgot what made them successful, what got them there. They forgot the Golden Goose. The biggest difference between the 2016 Election, and 2020, was @FoxNews! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 12, 2020
Trump carefully exempted Fox News’s primetime lineup talent — Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, and Laura Ingraham — from his ire. Indeed, hours after attacking the network, Trump tweeted out clips from Sean Hannity’s show spreading baseless conspiracy theories about votes being switched from him to Joe Biden that were debunked just hours earlier by his own government.
Must see @seanhannity takedown of the horrible, inaccurate and anything but secure Dominion Voting System which is used in States where tens of thousands of votes were stolen from us and given to Biden. Likewise, the Great @LouDobbs has a confirming and powerful piece! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) November 13, 2020
Hannity’s segment was not an aberration. As Peter Kafka detailed for Recode in a post about how Fox News is helping Trump spread election fraud conspiracy theories, Hannity, Ingraham, and Carlson have all done segments — sometimes collaborating with Republican Party officials — in which they’ve suggested with no evidence that it’s plausible that Trump “is a victim of massive voter fraud that cost him the election while simultaneously defeating Democratic House and Senate candidates.”
For Trump, however, a little bit isn’t enough. He expects total loyalty from Fox News, and the fact that the network’s news side won’t give it to him is an unforgivable sin.
Fox News’s call of Arizona for Biden was a major turning point
Trump’s frustrations with Fox News have been building since at least the early days of the 2020 campaign. He’s routinely lashed out over Fox polls that showed Biden beating him and about the fact that the network would occasionally interview Democrats.
So weird to watch @FoxNews interviewing only failed Dems, like Represenative Tim Ryan of Ohio, who got zero percent in his recent presidential run, and following Sleepy Joe’s train to wherever. What a difference from the past - But we will win anyway!!! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 30, 2020
But a flashpoint in the Trump-Fox relationship came on election night, when Fox News’s call of Arizona put the first nail in the president’s political coffin.
As Annie Karni and Maggie Haberman of the New York Times reported, Fox’s call — which may have been premature but was ultimately vindicated by Biden’s victory in Arizona — sent Trump into a tailspin:
What ensued for Mr. Trump was a night of angry calls to Republican governors and advice from campaign aides that he ignored, leading to a middle-of-the-night presidential briefing in which he made a reckless and unsubstantiated string of remarks about the democratic process. Standing in the East Room at 2:30 a.m., he dismissed the election as a “fraud” and claimed he wanted to stop the counting of votes and leave the results to the Supreme Court.
Ultimately, Fox News’s call played no role in Trump’s eventual defeat — the votes that sealed Trump’s fate had already been cast by election night. But it has nonetheless become grist for a “stab in the back” narrative.
Along similar lines, when Fox News called the entire election for Biden last Saturday, network news anchors were quick to start referring to Biden as “president-elect” — a designation indicating they weren’t going to indulge Trump’s baseless claims about the election being stolen from him.
This isn’t to say that Fox News’s coverage of Trump’s defeat has been a model of journalistic integrity. Daytime anchors have allowed Trumpworld guests to spread conspiracy theories about election fraud without pushing back at all, and Fox News White House correspondent John Roberts has repeatedly given oxygen to Republican fantasies about the 2020 election playing out like 2000 or Trump invalidating the election results with help from GOP state legislatures.
“The anger out there in these red states is so deep and palpable that GOP legislators may have a difficult time seating Biden electors” — Fox News is laying that groundwork for Republicans to invalidate the election results and install Trump in office for another 4 years pic.twitter.com/CrVx2SprRu — Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) November 11, 2020
If this all sounds a bit incoherent, that’s because it is. As CNN media reporter Brian Stelter told my colleague Sean Illing in a new Q&A, Fox’s coverage since the election was called has tried to thread the needle of acknowledging Biden’s victory while not alienating Trump supporters who buy baseless conspiracy theories about the election being stolen from him:
They are covering Biden, the president-elect, in one breath, and then they are imagining voter fraud in the next breath. And remember, Fox is a collection of shows that barely talk to each other. There’s some cross-pollination, but most of the opinion shows have awesome autonomy. News anchors like Neil Cavuto will keep doing reality-based journalism, and Sean Hannity or Mark Levin will keep doing what they do.
But “reality-based journalism” is an affront to the president when it engages with a reality he doesn’t like. And so Trump has turned to promoting outlets that fully indulge his MAGA fantasies.
Trump TV might still become a thing
While Trump refuses to publicly acknowledge that his days in the White House are now numbered, Mike Allen of Axios on Thursday reported that privately, he “has told friends he wants to start a digital media company to clobber Fox News and undermine the conservative-friendly network.” Maggie Haberman confirmed that reporting but added that Trump could ultimately “join forces with an existing property like OANN or Newsmax.”
Fox News’s occasionally reality-based post-election treatment of Trump has seemed to alienate some of the MAGA base. Ratings for Newsmax have been surging while that network refuses to even acknowledge that Biden is president-elect. My colleague Emily VanDerWerff immersed herself in two days of Newsmax coverage after the election and detailed how its emerging programming model is to position itself as an even Trumpier alternative to Fox News:
The race to win over the Trump diehards is the true battle Newsmax finds itself in. The network is unlikely to overtake Fox News in the ratings, but if it can chip away at the Fox News viewership, it could easily become a credible alternative among an audience who simply wants to hear more about how Trump is doing, with occasional check-ins on stock prices. (Covid-19 was barely mentioned at all in the Newsmax coverage I watched.)
On a deeper level, of course, it’s tragic that the president is spending his last days in the White House fixated on media grievances and his future plans instead of taking immediate action to confront the worsening coronavirus pandemic. But it’s extremely on brand for Trump.
It’s also extremely corrosive for democracy. By fanning the flames of the idea that the election was stolen from him, the president is delegitimizing US elections. And while enabling that effort might be a bridge too far for the Neil Cavutos and Chris Wallaces of Fox News, the most-watched personalities on the network, like Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, remain in step with Trump.


vox--2020-11-13--The many obstacles to the “GOP state legislatures steal the election for Trump” scenario

With President Donald Trump and a good portion of the Republican Party unwilling to accept that Joe Biden has won the election , an idea has been tossed around on the right : What if they get Republican state legislatures in states Biden won to appoint Trump electors instead ?
To be clear , this would amount to an attempt to steal the election , defying the will of voters and ignoring the election results .
But some Republicans are talking about it anyway ( claiming the results can ’ t be trusted because of some fraud for which there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ host Mark Levin called for legislatures to act , tweeting : “ GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY.
” The president ’ s son Donald Trump Jr. retweeted Levin ’ s tweet .
And the New York Times ’ s Maggie Haberman reported that President Trump himself discussed the possibility at a meeting with advisers Wednesday .
Fox News reporter John Roberts mused on air Wednesday that “ the anger out there in these red states is so deep and so palpable that GOP legislators may have a difficult team seating Biden @ @ @ @ @ @ @ something , ” his colleague Bill Hemmer said in response . )
So far , not many Republican legislators in the relevant states have outright endorsed this plan , and the New York Times ’ Trip Gabriel and Stephanie Saul reported Friday that several Republican legislative leaders in key states have said they don ’ t believe they can do so .
But there are a few pushing for it .
“ Our state legislature must be prepared to use all constitutional authority to right the wrong , ” Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Yet even if many more Republican legislators did begin to rally around this plan , there are a great many obstacles — practical , political , and legal — that make it quite unlikely to succeed .
It would take several states to pull this off , and several key states have Democratic statewide officials To understand what ’ s going on here , you have to realize that the Electoral College will be made up of actual people — 538 people in total who will cast the votes that officially choose @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The way it ’ s supposed to work is that , if Biden wins a state , his chosen people become the electors for that state .
But this idea from Trump supporters is essentially that GOP state legislatures in states Biden won should just pick Trump electors instead .
Now , to start off with the electoral math : Biden leads in states that would give him 306 electoral votes .
Of the states he won somewhat narrowly , five — Michigan , Wisconsin , Pennsylvania , Arizona , and Georgia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ successful shenanigans to flip one or even two of these five states to Trump would not be enough to change the outcome .
To deprive Biden of 270 electoral votes , Trump would need to overturn the results in three of these five states .
That already makes it less plausible that it would work .
The next major problem is that all of these states except Georgia have Democratic statewide officials who obviously would not be willing to go along with a plot to steal their state ’ s electoral votes for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Pennsylvania have Democratic governors and secretaries of state .
• Election results in Michigan and Wisconsin are certified by bipartisan boards .
• Arizona has a Democratic secretary of state ( but a Republican governor ) • Even in Georgia , Republican secretary of state Brad Raffensperger has so far resisted pressure on the right and said he ’ s found no significant fraud with the results .
So before even getting into the legal nitty-gritty , it ’ s clear that there would be significant resistance among statewide officials to any @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Biden won to Trump .
Current law does not favor the legislators Then there is the problem that it ’ s very far from clear whether state legislatures can legally even do this , especially after the election has concluded , and especially if they don ’ t use the ordinary legislative process requiring a governor ’ s signature .
Indeed , some have asserted that it would be flat-out illegal for state legislatures to appoint Trump electors in states Biden won at this point .
The legal situation here is complex , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ law , and laws in the individual states all coming into play .
For instance , the Electoral Count Act , as amended in 1948 , says that the duty of actually certifying the electors in each state falls to state governors ( not the legislature ) .
So the Democratic governors in Michigan , Wisconsin , and Pennsylvania surely wouldn ’ t meekly accept GOP state legislatures ’ plot to swap in their own electors .
The governors would certify Biden electors , meaning there would conceivably be two sets of electors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state law quite clearly says that electors are chosen in a popular vote in the state ’ s general election , as the Washington Post ’ s Greg Sargent writes .
Wisconsin and Michigan state law also give no role to the legislature in choosing electors .
Taking current law at face value , the legislatures really can ’ t appoint electors .
Against all this , Republicans would try and claim that the power of the Constitution ’ s literal text should wipe out vast swaths of existing federal and state law @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that Article II , Section I says ( emphasis added ) “ Each State shall appoint , in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct , a Number of Electors.
” They ’ d ask , doesn ’ t that mean the legislature really gets to do whatever it wants with electors ?
Not the governor or ( in Wisconsin and Michigan ’ s case ) bipartisan elections boards ?
This assertion of power would be particularly mind-boggling because , in Pennsylvania , Wisconsin , and Michigan ( at least ) it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ordinary state lawmaking process , to avoid a veto from the Democratic governor .
Essentially , GOP legislators would have to claim that they can wipe out state laws purely through their own authority .
This would fly in the face of long-existing Supreme Court precedent — in the 1932 Smiley v. Holm decision , the Court held that , no , the Constitution doesn ’ t let a legislature just ignore the governor ’ s veto on election matters .
Of course , there ’ s a different Supreme Court now .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ embraced the legal theory that , in Gorsuch ’ s words , “ state legislatures — not federal judges , not state judges , not state governors , not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.
” But it ’ s unclear if three other justices on the Court are with them .
And boy , would it be a lot for the Court to throw out state and federal laws and Supreme Court precedent left and right to anoint Trump the winner of an election Biden clearly won @ @ @ @ @ @ @ State University law professor Edward B. Foley wrote in a law journal article last year , is that it could violate the due process clause of the Constitution to change election rules after the election has already happened . )
Another wrinkle , though , is that it ’ s not even necessarily clear that the Supreme Court would be the decider here .
The Constitution gives the role of counting the electoral votes to Congress — which in this case would mean the new Democratic-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate ( because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be decided ) .
It ’ s unclear how a serious dispute would be settled ( Foley ’ s article has some ideas ) , but it ’ s worth noting that several Republican senators have already congratulated Biden or have recognized that he appears to have won .
The backlash would be ... quite something Finally , there ’ s another consideration : if Republican legislators actually tried to steal the election in this way , many people would get very , very upset , and the situation could get very , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ what he called this “ completely insane electoral college strategy , ” National Review editor Rich Lowry used the word “ thermonuclear ” to describe the backlash that would ensue , and called it “ a poisonous idea that stands out as radical and destructive , even in a year when we ’ ve been debating court-packing and defunding the police.
” Where that “ thermonuclear ” rage would lead , we can only guess .
But anyone concerned with the basic stability of the nation would have reason to think twice about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ GOP legislators are sufficiently ideologically radical and beholden to Trump , they could choose to give it a try anyway .
But there are many obstacles in the way of this gambit ’ s success .

With President Donald Trump and a good portion of the Republican Party unwilling to accept that Joe Biden has won the election, an idea has been tossed around on the right: What if they get Republican state legislatures in states Biden won to appoint Trump electors instead?
To be clear, this would amount to an attempt to steal the election, defying the will of voters and ignoring the election results. But some Republicans are talking about it anyway (claiming the results can’t be trusted because of some fraud for which there is no evidence).
Conservative radio host Mark Levin called for legislatures to act, tweeting: “GET READY TO DO YOUR CONSTITUTIONAL DUTY.” The president’s son Donald Trump Jr. retweeted Levin’s tweet. And the New York Times’s Maggie Haberman reported that President Trump himself discussed the possibility at a meeting with advisers Wednesday.
Fox News reporter John Roberts mused on air Wednesday that “the anger out there in these red states is so deep and so palpable that GOP legislators may have a difficult team seating Biden electors.” (“That would be something,” his colleague Bill Hemmer said in response.)
So far, not many Republican legislators in the relevant states have outright endorsed this plan, and the New York Times’ Trip Gabriel and Stephanie Saul reported Friday that several Republican legislative leaders in key states have said they don’t believe they can do so. But there are a few pushing for it. “Our state legislature must be prepared to use all constitutional authority to right the wrong,” Pennsylvania state Rep. Daryl Metcalfe (R) wrote on Facebook.
Yet even if many more Republican legislators did begin to rally around this plan, there are a great many obstacles — practical, political, and legal — that make it quite unlikely to succeed.
It would take several states to pull this off, and several key states have Democratic statewide officials
To understand what’s going on here, you have to realize that the Electoral College will be made up of actual people — 538 people in total who will cast the votes that officially choose the next president of the United States. The way it’s supposed to work is that, if Biden wins a state, his chosen people become the electors for that state. But this idea from Trump supporters is essentially that GOP state legislatures in states Biden won should just pick Trump electors instead.
Now, to start off with the electoral math: Biden leads in states that would give him 306 electoral votes. Of the states he won somewhat narrowly, five — Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Georgia, have Republican-controlled state legislatures.
But successful shenanigans to flip one or even two of these five states to Trump would not be enough to change the outcome. To deprive Biden of 270 electoral votes, Trump would need to overturn the results in three of these five states. That already makes it less plausible that it would work.
The next major problem is that all of these states except Georgia have Democratic statewide officials who obviously would not be willing to go along with a plot to steal their state’s electoral votes for Trump.
Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania have Democratic governors and secretaries of state.
Election results in Michigan and Wisconsin are certified by bipartisan boards.
Arizona has a Democratic secretary of state (but a Republican governor)
Even in Georgia, Republican secretary of state Brad Raffensperger has so far resisted pressure on the right and said he’s found no significant fraud with the results.
So before even getting into the legal nitty-gritty, it’s clear that there would be significant resistance among statewide officials to any legislative plan to award electors in states Biden won to Trump.
Current law does not favor the legislators
Then there is the problem that it’s very far from clear whether state legislatures can legally even do this, especially after the election has concluded, and especially if they don’t use the ordinary legislative process requiring a governor’s signature. Indeed, some have asserted that it would be flat-out illegal for state legislatures to appoint Trump electors in states Biden won at this point.
The legal situation here is complex, with the the US Constitution, federal law, and laws in the individual states all coming into play.
For instance, the Electoral Count Act, as amended in 1948, says that the duty of actually certifying the electors in each state falls to state governors (not the legislature). So the Democratic governors in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania surely wouldn’t meekly accept GOP state legislatures’ plot to swap in their own electors. The governors would certify Biden electors, meaning there would conceivably be two sets of electors in each state.
Meanwhile, Pennsylvania state law quite clearly says that electors are chosen in a popular vote in the state’s general election, as the Washington Post’s Greg Sargent writes. Wisconsin and Michigan state law also give no role to the legislature in choosing electors. Taking current law at face value, the legislatures really can’t appoint electors.
Against all this, Republicans would try and claim that the power of the Constitution’s literal text should wipe out vast swaths of existing federal and state law. Specifically, they’d say that Article II, Section I says (emphasis added) “Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors.” They’d ask, doesn’t that mean the legislature really gets to do whatever it wants with electors? Not the governor or (in Wisconsin and Michigan’s case) bipartisan elections boards?
This assertion of power would be particularly mind-boggling because, in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Michigan (at least) it would have to be done outside the ordinary state lawmaking process, to avoid a veto from the Democratic governor. Essentially, GOP legislators would have to claim that they can wipe out state laws purely through their own authority.
This would fly in the face of long-existing Supreme Court precedent — in the 1932 Smiley v. Holm decision, the Court held that, no, the Constitution doesn’t let a legislature just ignore the governor’s veto on election matters.
Of course, there’s a different Supreme Court now. Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh recently embraced the legal theory that, in Gorsuch’s words, “state legislatures — not federal judges, not state judges, not state governors, not other state officials — bear primary responsibility for setting election rules.”
But it’s unclear if three other justices on the Court are with them. And boy, would it be a lot for the Court to throw out state and federal laws and Supreme Court precedent left and right to anoint Trump the winner of an election Biden clearly won. (Another problem, as Ohio State University law professor Edward B. Foley wrote in a law journal article last year, is that it could violate the due process clause of the Constitution to change election rules after the election has already happened.)
Another wrinkle, though, is that it’s not even necessarily clear that the Supreme Court would be the decider here. The Constitution gives the role of counting the electoral votes to Congress — which in this case would mean the new Democratic-controlled House and a Republican-controlled Senate (because the Georgia runoffs wouldn’t yet be decided). It’s unclear how a serious dispute would be settled (Foley’s article has some ideas), but it’s worth noting that several Republican senators have already congratulated Biden or have recognized that he appears to have won.
The backlash would be ... quite something
Finally, there’s another consideration: if Republican legislators actually tried to steal the election in this way, many people would get very, very upset, and the situation could get very, very ugly.
In a piece disparaging what he called this “completely insane electoral college strategy,” National Review editor Rich Lowry used the word “thermonuclear” to describe the backlash that would ensue, and called it “a poisonous idea that stands out as radical and destructive, even in a year when we’ve been debating court-packing and defunding the police.”
Where that “thermonuclear” rage would lead, we can only guess. But anyone concerned with the basic stability of the nation would have reason to think twice about going down this road.
If enough GOP legislators are sufficiently ideologically radical and beholden to Trump, they could choose to give it a try anyway. But there are many obstacles in the way of this gambit’s success.


vox--2020-11-13--RSVP now to join Susan Choi in talking Trust Exercise with the Vox Book Club

The Vox Book Club is linking to Bookshop.org to support local and independent booksellers .
This November , the Vox Book Club is reading Susan Choi ’ s National Book Award-winning Trust Exercise , a novel that begins with a bunch of drama kids spinning out of control at a performing arts high school and spirals from there .
It ’ s a fiendish book , with a structure so sharp it cuts and a delightfully maddening ending that I still struggle to wrap my head around .
Which is why I ’ m so excited that at the end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to take all our many questions and confusions about Trust Exercise straight to the author herself when Susan Choi joins the Vox Book Club to talk us through it .
We ’ ll be meeting Choi live on Zoom on Monday , November 30 , at 5 pm ET .
We ’ ll chat for about 45 minutes , and audience questions are encouraged .
You can RSVP for the event right here .
In the meantime , we ’ ll have our Trust Exercise discussion post up on the site @ @ @ @ @ @ @ you can let us know your thoughts on the book in the comments there .
While you wait , make sure to sign up for the newsletter so you don ’ t miss anything .

The Vox Book Club is linking to Bookshop.org to support local and independent booksellers.
This November, the Vox Book Club is reading Susan Choi’s National Book Award-winning Trust Exercise, a novel that begins with a bunch of drama kids spinning out of control at a performing arts high school and spirals from there. It’s a fiendish book, with a structure so sharp it cuts and a delightfully maddening ending that I still struggle to wrap my head around. Which is why I’m so excited that at the end of the month, we’ll be able to take all our many questions and confusions about Trust Exercise straight to the author herself when Susan Choi joins the Vox Book Club to talk us through it.
We’ll be meeting Choi live on Zoom on Monday, November 30, at 5 pm ET. We’ll chat for about 45 minutes, and audience questions are encouraged. You can RSVP for the event right here.
In the meantime, we’ll have our Trust Exercise discussion post up on the site next Friday, November 20, and you can let us know your thoughts on the book in the comments there. While you wait, make sure to sign up for the newsletter so you don’t miss anything.


vox--2020-11-13--How the Libertarian Party (maybe) helped shift the presidential race

Just before the election , I argued that third parties were unlikely to play a major role this year .
The deck was seemingly stacked against them — an unpopular incumbent president and expected high turnout would make it harder for them to be competitive and garner votes from Americans displeased with both major parties .
It turns out that I was half-right , and half-wrong .
It ’ s true that third-party votes declined from 2016 to 2020 , as people who may have voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 decided to vote for either Joe Biden or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that in a race that hinged on relatively small margins between Biden and Trump , one third-party candidate — Libertarian Party nominee Jo Jorgensen — may have helped turn the tide toward Biden in several states .
She didn ’ t generate massive numbers , but she didn ’ t have to .
Her votes were close enough to the margin to suggest that some voters who may have leaned toward Trump ( or perhaps simply not voted for president at all ) voted for her .
Many libertarians think this bodes well @ @ @ @ @ @ @ national chair Joe Bishop-Henchman told me , “ America didn ’ t want Trump anymore but didn ’ t want Biden ’ s policies.
” How the Libertarian Party won — sort of More people voted for Joe Biden than for any presidential candidate in American history .
This gain happened not simply by generating votes from Democrats ( or moderate or former Republicans ) , but from independents and the estimated 5 million voters who favored a third-party candidate in 2016 .
Though votes are still being tabulated , so far , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ precipitously from 2016 to 2020 , from more than 5 percent to perhaps less than 2 percent .
Many of those third-party voters ultimately voted for Joe Biden : As Reason Magazine ’ s Matt Welch explained , while Trump ’ s voting percentage in states like Michigan and Arizona mirrored his 2016 performance , votes that went to third-party candidates like Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson in 2016 appear to have gone to Biden instead .
To be clear , we don ’ t know if 2016 voters and 2020 voters are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 2016 may have stayed home in 2020 , meaning that Joe Biden received a critical number of votes from first-time voters .
But in Wisconsin , where the gap between Biden and Trump stands currently at 20,557 votes , Jo Jorgensen received 38,393 votes .
And in Arizona , where the gap between Biden and Trump is an even tighter 12,813 votes , Jorgensen received 50,636 votes — nearly four times the margin between Biden and Trump .
Both of those states , which Trump won in 2016 , went to Biden in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reversal of what happened in 2016 , when third-party candidates like Green Party nominee Jill Stein and then-Libertarian Party nominee Johnson received thousands more votes than the ultimate margin between Trump and then-Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton .
As NBC News reported the day after the 2016 election : “ Libertarians are here to stay ” Several prominent Republicans , like former Wisconsin Gov .
Scott Walker , expressed irritation at the success of the Libertarian Party ( and arguably , libertarianism itself ) this election cycle .
And the founder of Libertarians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ anarcho-capitalist Walter E. Block , wrote in the Wall Street Journal on November 8 that libertarians had “ spoiled ” the election , arguing that “ on the Libertarian-O-Meter , Mr. Trump scores much higher than Mr. Biden ” because of his judicial nominations and deregulatory policies .
He concluded , “ Pardon me while I beat my head against the wall .
How could libertarians in purple states be so stupid ?
” But libertarianism is not synonymous with Trumpism ( or conservatism , for that matter ) , and Jorgensen ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ both the Democratic and Republican party nominees , arguing for the federal decriminalization of all drugs and the defunding of the Drug Enforcement Administration , for instance , and saying that the United States should pull out of NATO and the United Nations and become “ one giant Switzerland.
” So while some votes for Jorgensen may have come from conservatives , it ’ s also possible that Libertarian Party voters are just that : libertarians , a voting cohort that may not have voted for Trump ( or even voted at all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the ballot .
As David Boaz argued at the Cato Institute , “ In the end , if you ask whether Jo Jorgensen ’ s 1.8 million or so votes , or more specifically her votes in states decided by narrow margins , swung the election , the answer is no : had there been no Libertarian on the ballot , those voters would have been split among Biden , Trump , and not voting , with a tilt toward Biden ( or maybe ‘ against Trump ’ ) .
” Joe Bishop-Henchman @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was aimed at “ protecting freedom , ” adding , “ She suggested maybe we should pay more attention to what power we ’ ve given up , rather than just who we choose to wield it.
” And as to the increasingly fractured relationship between libertarianism and mainline conservatism , he said , “ A decade ago there were still a lot of people who had dreams that the Republican Party would champion smaller government and more liberty , and the Tea Party wave used a lot of that rhetoric .
Those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be Republican now is to be pro-Trump , anti-free trade , and anti-immigrant.
” And he ’ s optimistic about the future of the libertarian movement , particularly as the country likely faces a divided government moving forward .
“ Polling shows most Americans are with Libertarians on free trade , open immigration , criminal justice reform , fiscal responsibility , ending the drug war , and bringing the troops home , ” he told me .
“ If a Democratic president and Republican Senate can come together on those things , great @ @ @ @ @ @ @ end up in gridlock , we ’ ll be ready in 2022 and 2024 .
”

Just before the election, I argued that third parties were unlikely to play a major role this year. The deck was seemingly stacked against them — an unpopular incumbent president and expected high turnout would make it harder for them to be competitive and garner votes from Americans displeased with both major parties.
It turns out that I was half-right, and half-wrong.
It’s true that third-party votes declined from 2016 to 2020, as people who may have voted for a third-party candidate in 2016 decided to vote for either Joe Biden or Donald Trump.
But it turned out that in a race that hinged on relatively small margins between Biden and Trump, one third-party candidate — Libertarian Party nominee Jo Jorgensen — may have helped turn the tide toward Biden in several states. She didn’t generate massive numbers, but she didn’t have to. Her votes were close enough to the margin to suggest that some voters who may have leaned toward Trump (or perhaps simply not voted for president at all) voted for her.
Many libertarians think this bodes well for the future. As Libertarian Party national chair Joe Bishop-Henchman told me, “America didn’t want Trump anymore but didn’t want Biden’s policies.”
How the Libertarian Party won — sort of
More people voted for Joe Biden than for any presidential candidate in American history. This gain happened not simply by generating votes from Democrats (or moderate or former Republicans), but from independents and the estimated 5 million voters who favored a third-party candidate in 2016.
Though votes are still being tabulated, so far, the number of third-party votes has dropped precipitously from 2016 to 2020, from more than 5 percent to perhaps less than 2 percent. Many of those third-party voters ultimately voted for Joe Biden: As Reason Magazine’s Matt Welch explained, while Trump’s voting percentage in states like Michigan and Arizona mirrored his 2016 performance, votes that went to third-party candidates like Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson in 2016 appear to have gone to Biden instead.
To be clear, we don’t know if 2016 voters and 2020 voters are the same people — third-party voters in 2016 may have stayed home in 2020, meaning that Joe Biden received a critical number of votes from first-time voters.
But in Wisconsin, where the gap between Biden and Trump stands currently at 20,557 votes, Jo Jorgensen received 38,393 votes. And in Arizona, where the gap between Biden and Trump is an even tighter 12,813 votes, Jorgensen received 50,636 votes — nearly four times the margin between Biden and Trump.
Both of those states, which Trump won in 2016, went to Biden in 2020.
This is an almost exact reversal of what happened in 2016, when third-party candidates like Green Party nominee Jill Stein and then-Libertarian Party nominee Johnson received thousands more votes than the ultimate margin between Trump and then-Democratic Party nominee Hillary Clinton. As NBC News reported the day after the 2016 election:
In Michigan — which was a must-win for Clinton, but was still too close to call as of Wednesday morning, according to NBC News projections — Johnson and Stein had collectively taken a little more than 222,400 votes, or about 5 percent of the vote there. Trump, in contrast, held just over a 15,600-vote lead over Clinton. In Florida, which was crucial to Trump’s victory, Johnson, Stein and two other third-party candidates on the ballot collectively drew over 293,000 votes — more than twice the 128,000-plus votes that Trump led with as of early Wednesday morning.
“Libertarians are here to stay”
Several prominent Republicans, like former Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker, expressed irritation at the success of the Libertarian Party (and arguably, libertarianism itself) this election cycle.
And the founder of Libertarians for Trump, Loyola University economist and anarcho-capitalist Walter E. Block, wrote in the Wall Street Journal on November 8 that libertarians had “spoiled” the election, arguing that “on the Libertarian-O-Meter, Mr. Trump scores much higher than Mr. Biden” because of his judicial nominations and deregulatory policies. He concluded, “Pardon me while I beat my head against the wall. How could libertarians in purple states be so stupid?”
But libertarianism is not synonymous with Trumpism (or conservatism, for that matter), and Jorgensen’s campaign aimed to separate herself from both the Democratic and Republican party nominees, arguing for the federal decriminalization of all drugs and the defunding of the Drug Enforcement Administration, for instance, and saying that the United States should pull out of NATO and the United Nations and become “one giant Switzerland.”
So while some votes for Jorgensen may have come from conservatives, it’s also possible that Libertarian Party voters are just that: libertarians, a voting cohort that may not have voted for Trump (or even voted at all) had there been no libertarians on the ballot.
As David Boaz argued at the Cato Institute, “In the end, if you ask whether Jo Jorgensen’s 1.8 million or so votes, or more specifically her votes in states decided by narrow margins, swung the election, the answer is no: had there been no Libertarian on the ballot, those voters would have been split among Biden, Trump, and not voting, with a tilt toward Biden (or maybe ‘against Trump’).”
Joe Bishop-Henchman told me that Jorgensen’s campaign was aimed at “protecting freedom,” adding, “She suggested maybe we should pay more attention to what power we’ve given up, rather than just who we choose to wield it.” And as to the increasingly fractured relationship between libertarianism and mainline conservatism, he said, “A decade ago there were still a lot of people who had dreams that the Republican Party would champion smaller government and more liberty, and the Tea Party wave used a lot of that rhetoric. Those dreams are dead now, for to be Republican now is to be pro-Trump, anti-free trade, and anti-immigrant.”
And he’s optimistic about the future of the libertarian movement, particularly as the country likely faces a divided government moving forward. “Polling shows most Americans are with Libertarians on free trade, open immigration, criminal justice reform, fiscal responsibility, ending the drug war, and bringing the troops home,” he told me. “If a Democratic president and Republican Senate can come together on those things, great! If they don’t and end up in gridlock, we’ll be ready in 2022 and 2024.”


vox--2020-11-13--Weed was the real winner of the 2020 election

On November 3 , four American states voted to legalize marijuana : Arizona , New Jersey , Montana , and South Dakota .
Combined with the other states that have done so in recent years , one in three Americans now lives in a state where access to marijuana has been legalized .
It shows that Americans are souring on the harsh drug policies that have put millions of people in prison .
But America ’ s national drug policy is a different story .
Under federal law , marijuana is still classified as a Schedule 1 drug , meaning @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical value and a high risk of abuse , along with drugs like LSD , heroin , ecstasy , and psilocybin ( the chemical compound in so-called magic mushrooms ) .
In states where marijuana has been legalized , that conflict with federal law creates numerous problems for legal marijuana sellers and users .
Few national politicians talk about legalizing marijuana throughout the country , but advocates are hoping that by introducing new state laws one by one , Americans who are ready to move on from the country ’ s decades-long war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government ’ s hand .
You can find this video and all of Vox ’ s videos on YouTube .
And if you ’ re interested in supporting our video journalism , you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube .

On November 3, four American states voted to legalize marijuana: Arizona, New Jersey, Montana, and South Dakota. Combined with the other eleven states that have done so in recent years, one in three Americans now lives in a state where access to marijuana has been legalized. It shows that Americans are souring on the harsh drug policies that have put millions of people in prison.
But America’s national drug policy is a different story. Under federal law, marijuana is still classified as a Schedule 1 drug, meaning it’s considered to have little medical value and a high risk of abuse, along with drugs like LSD, heroin, ecstasy, and psilocybin (the chemical compound in so-called magic mushrooms).
In the fifteen states where marijuana has been legalized, that conflict with federal law creates numerous problems for legal marijuana sellers and users. Few national politicians talk about legalizing marijuana throughout the country, but advocates are hoping that by introducing new state laws one by one, Americans who are ready to move on from the country’s decades-long war on drugs will eventually force the federal government’s hand.
You can find this video and all of Vox’s videos on YouTube. And if you’re interested in supporting our video journalism, you can become a member of the Vox Video Lab on YouTube.


Love, delayed

In March , Alexandra Glaser ’ s love life ground to a halt — and she wasn ’ t alone .
For the 33-year-old product manager at New York ’ s Museum of Modern Art , it was a strange feeling : Much like the swift clip of her daily runs through the city , she was used to her life moving forward .
She squeezed in dates between work events and dinners with friends , expecting to settle down with a long-term partner and perhaps even start a family in the next few years .
But when Covid-19 struck @ @ @ @ @ @ @ many others , began to crumble .
“ The pandemic is delaying a relationship I hoped would happen , ” Glaser says .
“ Time is ticking on.
” Even those who aren ’ t planning on marrying anytime soon are worried about whether the pandemic may shrink the pool of people they will know in their lifetime , making it harder to find a spouse .
Take Johnny Bui , a 22-year-old senior at Babson College in Wellesley , Massachusetts .
He was looking forward to meeting people on campus this year @ @ @ @ @ @ @ find a romantic partner than he ’ s likely to ever have again .
But socializing is now considered a health risk , and Bui largely has been confined to his dorm room .
“ My generation just isn ’ t getting the same opportunities to socialize as previous ones , ” he says .
“ Friends of mine who have already graduated are now working from home , and they ’ re meeting even fewer people.
” Covid-19 has made dating harder and more laborious than it was before , singles told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Apps are now one of the only ways to meet people , but it can take weeks or months to take a budding romance offline .
Even then , promising relationships sometimes fail to go anywhere because people aren ’ t at their best right now : Being surrounded by disease , death , and financial instability takes an emotional toll .
( This is partly why marriage rates plummeted during both the Great Depression and World War II . )
In some ways , the pandemic has only exacerbated problems with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ recent years .
Nearly half of Americans say dating is harder now than it was a decade ago .
This coincides with the rise in dating apps , which are increasingly becoming the main way to find love : 39 percent of heterosexual couples and about 65 percent of gay couples met online in 2017 , according to a 2019 Stanford University study .
But although dating apps increase your pool of potential partners , many people say they can make dating feel impersonal , while also increasing the risk of being lied @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the fact that millennials are delaying marriage or not marrying at all , which means they ’ re spending more of their life dating than previous generations .
Millennials and Gen Z also have less sex than previous generations for many reasons — including that they ’ re less likely to be in a couple .
Covid-19 is amplifying all of these issues , and Glaser and Bui are not alone in their frustrations .
As I reported this story , I spoke with single people in their 20s and 30s from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ orientations , along with researchers studying how the crisis is changing the dating landscape .
They all described how the pace of dating has slowed down , making it harder and more time consuming to start romantic relationships .
Now , singles are beginning to worry that it may have a domino effect on their lives , derailing their plans to marry and start a family .
I have spent a lot of time thinking about domino effects like these .
In my book , The Rocket Years : How Your Twenties Launch @ @ @ @ @ @ @ delve into the social science about how the decisions of young adults play out in the decades that follow .
Small , seemingly insignificant choices we make in our 20s can shape our daily lives well into old age , just like infinitesimal changes in a rocket ’ s flight path can make the difference between landing on Mars or Saturn .
The data shows that people who establish exercise habits in their late 20s can add up to two extra years to their life ; those who vote just once in their @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ; the random hobbies we pick up as 20-somethings are the same ones we ’ ll be doing in retirement .
In many ways , today ’ s young people are profoundly aware that the decisions they make will reverberate into the future .
This is why , as my research revealed , they spend their 20s singularly concerned with finding the right career , one that will keep them intellectually engaged and purposeful for decades to come .
But as they edge into their late 20s and early 30s , finding a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ This is largely because many people begin to feel their biological clock ticking .
Not everyone wants to marry or become parents , and , in fact , American millennials are increasingly opting out of both choices .
But for the 42 percent of people who do want kids and the 34 percent who aren ’ t sure , pressure to find a partner begins to build as fertility concerns kick in .
Many are now worried that the pandemic may torpedo this compressed , already-stressful timeline .
“ This would not have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ married in their 20s and could wait out two years of a pandemic , ” says Riki Thompson , an associate professor at the University of Washington Tacoma who studies how people are using online dating technologies to find connection .
“ When you start extending the courtship process — which is definitely happening right now — then anybody who has a limited amount of time will suffer.
” There is unanimous agreement among both singles and researchers that Covid-19 has slammed the brakes on dating .
For one thing , there are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Before the pandemic , many couples still met at school , through mutual friends and family , at church , or at bars ; dating has now shifted almost entirely online .
Match Group , which owns dozens of dating apps — including Tinder , OkCupid , and Hinge — reported an 11 percent increase in average subscribers in a year ’ s time , a gain of about a million over the same quarter last year .
And while online dating had a reputation for being fast-paced , allowing people to churn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ no longer the case .
“ The pace of dating is slowing down , ” says Amarnath Thombre , CEO of Match Group America .
“ Our data is showing that people are being more selective and more intentional about whom they are reaching out to in the first place .
This has led to less ghosting — partly , we think , because users aren ’ t pursuing so many people at the same time.
” In the past , people would use apps to filter through matches , then meet in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the first two months of the pandemic , Match Group ’ s surveys found that the majority of daters didn ’ t want to leave their homes at all , Thombre says .
These days , as cities reopen , some singles engage in an extensive screening process to determine whether to take the risk of meeting someone face to face .
This has given birth to an entirely new phenomenon : the video date .
Many apps , including Match , Tinder , and Hinge , are now equipped with a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
If things go well , many daters told me , they move to FaceTime or Zoom before broaching the subject of hanging out offline .
“ They want to make sure the person they ’ re meeting is worth stepping out for , ” Thombre says .
“ The stakes are higher.
” Before meeting , daters told me , matches would have “ the talk ” about what they feel comfortable doing on a date , which many said felt reminiscent of conversations about sexual boundaries .
Should they remain masked @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out of the question ?
One woman in her early 20s told me she was stunned when her date hugged her at their first meeting .
They hadn ’ t discussed doing that , and it felt strangely intimate after so many months of not having any human contact .
It quickly became clear that they were not compatible , and she says the disappointment stung more than usual because she had sunk more time than usual — and taken so many risks — to meet this person .
As the pandemic stretches @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , there ’ s a growing sense of despondence among the single people I interviewed .
They ’ re spending more time and effort than ever trying to find a partner , but for most it hasn ’ t yielded a relationship .
Now they ’ re worried the dry spell may drag on and have long-lasting effects on their life .
For many , the anxiety is wrapped up in the idea that there is an ideal age to get married — somewhere between their late 20s and early 30s — and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ missing the window .
This timeline makes sense , since this time period is when the average American tends to marry and well before fertility concerns kick in .
Some single people , however , are thriving under these conditions .
Thompson interviewed more than a hundred people pre-pandemic about their experiences on dating apps and has checked in with more than half to see how they ’ ve fared through the pandemic .
The new conditions , she found , have been a boon for men who felt too financially strapped to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a week , as well as for single parents who had to pay for a babysitter every time they went out .
Some people are also better suited to a slower pace , particularly those who aren ’ t into casual sex .
One woman I interviewed in her late 30s had been struggling for years to find a committed partner , partly because dating apps created an endless cycle of hookups followed by quick breakups .
But she met someone early in the pandemic , when it was impossible to meet in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phone and FaceTime conversations laid a strong foundation for a serious relationship .
She ’ s now been dating this man exclusively for six months and has even met his 4-year-old son from a previous marriage .
“ People looking for long-term relationships now don ’ t have to sift through people who are trying to get into their pants , ” says Thompson .
“ People who just wanted hookups have completely dropped off the apps.
” Thombre says Match Group does not yet have data about whether this slower pace of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relationships to get serious or move toward marriage .
He points to anecdotal stories in the media about couples who met online during the pandemic and committed to one another quickly ; some have even moved in together .
But it is unclear how common that is .
Thompson ’ s research suggests this happened more frequently early in the pandemic , and that some of those couples have since split up .
The more common story , Thompson says , is that people are struggling to keep their nascent relationships moving forward @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to have new experiences together or get physically intimate , which makes it harder to bond .
When these fragile new romances stall , they tend to quickly fall apart .
“ People need to feel like their relationship is moving forward , like an escalator , or else they end , ” Thompson says .
“ We ’ ve been indoctrinated to believe that we have to be connecting , otherwise we ’ re letting go.
” There are existential issues that make it harder for people to connect emotionally right now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ over the summer whom she liked a lot .
When they spoke over video , with the pandemic and Black Lives Matter protests playing out in the background , they had deep , intimate conversations .
They decided to take things to the next level and meet in person , but they found it hard to create a healthy relationship because both of them were wrestling with the stress of living through the current moment .
“ We are all so exhausted these days , it ’ s a constant battle just to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ They decided to call it off .
College-age singles are facing their own set of problems .
Bui , who was sent home in the spring with every other Babson student due to Covid-19 , says it ’ s easy for new relationships to fizzle out in the pandemic .
Back in his hometown of Boston , he joined several dating apps , and while there were several girls he was excited about , he says it was hard to get the relationship off the ground .
Video dates got boring because neither @ @ @ @ @ @ @ life worth talking about .
And planning in-person dates was hard because not everybody is comfortable eating at a restaurant or going to a museum .
“ You can only meet at a park so many times before it gets old , ” Bui told me .
Sex as a single person has been particularly difficult during the pandemic .
According to a Match Group survey of 5,000 singles in August , 71 percent said they had not had sex in the previous six months .
( This data is self reported , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some people may not be entirely honest about how frequently they ’ re hooking up with people outside their pod , knowing that others may not approve . )
Only 13 percent said they had sex with someone with whom they were not quarantining .
This has given rise to what sociologists call “ situational sexual behavior , ” or when social conditions cause people to engage in sex differently than they would previously .
For instance , almost a quarter of single people reported having had sex with a non-romantic roommate since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during the pandemic is so fruitless that they ’ ve given up altogether .
One manifestation of this is that many people are reaching out to their exes .
This squares with Thompson ’ s research .
Many of her survey respondents , craving intimacy , connection , and sex , had reconnected with someone they dated in the past .
They said they felt safer hooking up with someone whose lifestyle choices they already knew than with a stranger who might not be on the same page about health precautions .
Mattie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , felt so isolated during the pandemic that she decided to reach out to her first love , who lives in Ireland and with whom she hadn ’ t spoken since they broke up two years ago .
“ The loneliness was just overwhelming , ” she tells me .
“ I was craving intimacy , and I just wanted to be with someone who made me feel safe.
” They rekindled their spark .
During the long , boring days of lockdown , they spoke for hours a day .
Then , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Drucker flew to Dublin to spend two weeks with him .
They had a wonderful time , but as she returns to school this semester , doubts are beginning to surface in Drucker ’ s mind .
She sometimes wonders whether this relationship can last , or whether they ’ re just killing time until life returns to normal .
“ I think we ’ re both asking ourselves whether we would be together right now if the pandemic hadn ’ t happened , and I could meet tons of new guys on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ she ’ s just 21 , Drucker is already thinking about how Covid-19 will shape her generation .
Public health experts are hopeful there will be a widely available vaccine , allowing life to potentially return to normal , by the middle of 2021 ( Drucker graduates in 2022 ) .
But years of lockdowns and isolation are likely to change the course of her life in myriad unforeseen ways .
Gen Z will enter the workforce at a time of economic turbulence and skyrocketing unemployment , while also learning how to deal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Without gyms , they may struggle to develop lifelong fitness routines ; without music festivals , they may never stumble across a band that would have rocked their world .
They may have fewer friends over the course of their life , another potential ripple effect of this extended social isolation .
These thoughts sometimes keep Drucker up at night .
She thinks about all the people she would have met during these years but will never know .
Would she have fallen in love with one of them ?
Would she @ @ @ @ @ @ @ impossible to know , but she ’ s not alone in asking these questions .
The worries tend to become more acute the closer people get to the age at which they expected to settle down into a serious relationship .
“ Even before the pandemic , I felt this pressure to be out there meeting people and going on dates , but this is exaggerated during Covid , ” says Glaser .
“ Sometimes I feel like all I can do is the bare minimum , which is work and maybe go @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feels exhausting right now.
” But she ’ s keeping at it , in part because the prolonged period of isolation has helped clarify her desire to be in a committed , long-term relationship .
“ I ’ ve always had trouble admitting that I want to find a partner , ” Glaser says .
“ But I do want to meet someone .
This crisis has taught me that we need to be more honest with ourselves and have deeper , more meaningful conversations with the people we ’ re dating.
” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Rocket Years : How Your Twenties Launch The Rest of Your Life ( Harper , 2020 ) .
She ’ s a senior staff writer at Fast Company magazine .

In March, Alexandra Glaser’s love life ground to a halt — and she wasn’t alone. For the 33-year-old product manager at New York’s Museum of Modern Art, it was a strange feeling: Much like the swift clip of her daily runs through the city, she was used to her life moving forward. She squeezed in dates between work events and dinners with friends, expecting to settle down with a long-term partner and perhaps even start a family in the next few years. But when Covid-19 struck, her plans, like those of many others, began to crumble. “The pandemic is delaying a relationship I hoped would happen,” Glaser says. “Time is ticking on.”
Even those who aren’t planning on marrying anytime soon are worried about whether the pandemic may shrink the pool of people they will know in their lifetime, making it harder to find a spouse. Take Johnny Bui, a 22-year-old senior at Babson College in Wellesley, Massachusetts. He was looking forward to meeting people on campus this year, knowing college offers more opportunities to find a romantic partner than he’s likely to ever have again. But socializing is now considered a health risk, and Bui largely has been confined to his dorm room. “My generation just isn’t getting the same opportunities to socialize as previous ones,” he says. “Friends of mine who have already graduated are now working from home, and they’re meeting even fewer people.”
Covid-19 has made dating harder and more laborious than it was before, singles told me in more than a dozen interviews. Apps are now one of the only ways to meet people, but it can take weeks or months to take a budding romance offline. Even then, promising relationships sometimes fail to go anywhere because people aren’t at their best right now: Being surrounded by disease, death, and financial instability takes an emotional toll. (This is partly why marriage rates plummeted during both the Great Depression and World War II.)
In some ways, the pandemic has only exacerbated problems with dating that had been bubbling up in recent years. Nearly half of Americans say dating is harder now than it was a decade ago. This coincides with the rise in dating apps, which are increasingly becoming the main way to find love: 39 percent of heterosexual couples and about 65 percent of gay couples met online in 2017, according to a 2019 Stanford University study. But although dating apps increase your pool of potential partners, many people say they can make dating feel impersonal, while also increasing the risk of being lied to or sexually harassed.
Couple this with the fact that millennials are delaying marriage or not marrying at all, which means they’re spending more of their life dating than previous generations. Millennials and Gen Z also have less sex than previous generations for many reasons — including that they’re less likely to be in a couple.
Covid-19 is amplifying all of these issues, and Glaser and Bui are not alone in their frustrations. As I reported this story, I spoke with single people in their 20s and 30s from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds and sexual orientations, along with researchers studying how the crisis is changing the dating landscape. They all described how the pace of dating has slowed down, making it harder and more time consuming to start romantic relationships. Now, singles are beginning to worry that it may have a domino effect on their lives, derailing their plans to marry and start a family.
I have spent a lot of time thinking about domino effects like these. In my book, The Rocket Years: How Your Twenties Launch The Rest of Your Life, I delve into the social science about how the decisions of young adults play out in the decades that follow. Small, seemingly insignificant choices we make in our 20s can shape our daily lives well into old age, just like infinitesimal changes in a rocket’s flight path can make the difference between landing on Mars or Saturn. The data shows that people who establish exercise habits in their late 20s can add up to two extra years to their life; those who vote just once in their 20s are likely to be lifelong voters; the random hobbies we pick up as 20-somethings are the same ones we’ll be doing in retirement.
In many ways, today’s young people are profoundly aware that the decisions they make will reverberate into the future. This is why, as my research revealed, they spend their 20s singularly concerned with finding the right career, one that will keep them intellectually engaged and purposeful for decades to come. But as they edge into their late 20s and early 30s, finding a life partner becomes a dominant concern. This is largely because many people begin to feel their biological clock ticking.
Related Get yourself a pandemic crush
Not everyone wants to marry or become parents, and, in fact, American millennials are increasingly opting out of both choices. But for the 42 percent of people who do want kids and the 34 percent who aren’t sure, pressure to find a partner begins to build as fertility concerns kick in. Many are now worried that the pandemic may torpedo this compressed, already-stressful timeline.
“This would not have been an issue when people were getting married in their 20s and could wait out two years of a pandemic,” says Riki Thompson, an associate professor at the University of Washington Tacoma who studies how people are using online dating technologies to find connection. “When you start extending the courtship process — which is definitely happening right now — then anybody who has a limited amount of time will suffer.”
There is unanimous agreement among both singles and researchers that Covid-19 has slammed the brakes on dating. For one thing, there are fewer places to meet new people. Before the pandemic, many couples still met at school, through mutual friends and family, at church, or at bars; dating has now shifted almost entirely online. Match Group, which owns dozens of dating apps — including Tinder, OkCupid, and Hinge — reported an 11 percent increase in average subscribers in a year’s time, a gain of about a million over the same quarter last year. And while online dating had a reputation for being fast-paced, allowing people to churn through matches with abandon, this is no longer the case. “The pace of dating is slowing down,” says Amarnath Thombre, CEO of Match Group America. “Our data is showing that people are being more selective and more intentional about whom they are reaching out to in the first place. This has led to less ghosting — partly, we think, because users aren’t pursuing so many people at the same time.”
In the past, people would use apps to filter through matches, then meet in person as quickly as possible. But in the first two months of the pandemic, Match Group’s surveys found that the majority of daters didn’t want to leave their homes at all, Thombre says. These days, as cities reopen, some singles engage in an extensive screening process to determine whether to take the risk of meeting someone face to face. This has given birth to an entirely new phenomenon: the video date. Many apps, including Match, Tinder, and Hinge, are now equipped with a video function that allows matches to chat. If things go well, many daters told me, they move to FaceTime or Zoom before broaching the subject of hanging out offline. “They want to make sure the person they’re meeting is worth stepping out for,” Thombre says. “The stakes are higher.”
Before meeting, daters told me, matches would have “the talk” about what they feel comfortable doing on a date, which many said felt reminiscent of conversations about sexual boundaries. Should they remain masked the whole time? Is indoor dining out of the question? One woman in her early 20s told me she was stunned when her date hugged her at their first meeting. They hadn’t discussed doing that, and it felt strangely intimate after so many months of not having any human contact. It quickly became clear that they were not compatible, and she says the disappointment stung more than usual because she had sunk more time than usual — and taken so many risks — to meet this person.
As the pandemic stretches from months into (probably) years, there’s a growing sense of despondence among the single people I interviewed. They’re spending more time and effort than ever trying to find a partner, but for most it hasn’t yielded a relationship. Now they’re worried the dry spell may drag on and have long-lasting effects on their life. For many, the anxiety is wrapped up in the idea that there is an ideal age to get married — somewhere between their late 20s and early 30s — and they’re now in danger of missing the window. This timeline makes sense, since this time period is when the average American tends to marry and well before fertility concerns kick in.
Some single people, however, are thriving under these conditions. Thompson interviewed more than a hundred people pre-pandemic about their experiences on dating apps and has checked in with more than half to see how they’ve fared through the pandemic. The new conditions, she found, have been a boon for men who felt too financially strapped to pay for several dinners or coffee dates a week, as well as for single parents who had to pay for a babysitter every time they went out.
Some people are also better suited to a slower pace, particularly those who aren’t into casual sex. One woman I interviewed in her late 30s had been struggling for years to find a committed partner, partly because dating apps created an endless cycle of hookups followed by quick breakups. But she met someone early in the pandemic, when it was impossible to meet in person, and told me that long phone and FaceTime conversations laid a strong foundation for a serious relationship. She’s now been dating this man exclusively for six months and has even met his 4-year-old son from a previous marriage. “People looking for long-term relationships now don’t have to sift through people who are trying to get into their pants,” says Thompson. “People who just wanted hookups have completely dropped off the apps.”
Thombre says Match Group does not yet have data about whether this slower pace of dating means it will take longer for relationships to get serious or move toward marriage. He points to anecdotal stories in the media about couples who met online during the pandemic and committed to one another quickly; some have even moved in together. But it is unclear how common that is. Thompson’s research suggests this happened more frequently early in the pandemic, and that some of those couples have since split up.
The more common story, Thompson says, is that people are struggling to keep their nascent relationships moving forward. It’s harder for couples to have new experiences together or get physically intimate, which makes it harder to bond. When these fragile new romances stall, they tend to quickly fall apart. “People need to feel like their relationship is moving forward, like an escalator, or else they end,” Thompson says. “We’ve been indoctrinated to believe that we have to be connecting, otherwise we’re letting go.”
There are existential issues that make it harder for people to connect emotionally right now, too. Glaser met a man over the summer whom she liked a lot. When they spoke over video, with the pandemic and Black Lives Matter protests playing out in the background, they had deep, intimate conversations. They decided to take things to the next level and meet in person, but they found it hard to create a healthy relationship because both of them were wrestling with the stress of living through the current moment. “We are all so exhausted these days, it’s a constant battle just to be okay,” says Glaser. They decided to call it off.
College-age singles are facing their own set of problems. Bui, who was sent home in the spring with every other Babson student due to Covid-19, says it’s easy for new relationships to fizzle out in the pandemic. Back in his hometown of Boston, he joined several dating apps, and while there were several girls he was excited about, he says it was hard to get the relationship off the ground. Video dates got boring because neither person had much going on in their life worth talking about. And planning in-person dates was hard because not everybody is comfortable eating at a restaurant or going to a museum. “You can only meet at a park so many times before it gets old,” Bui told me.
Sex as a single person has been particularly difficult during the pandemic. According to a Match Group survey of 5,000 singles in August, 71 percent said they had not had sex in the previous six months. (This data is self reported, and it’s worth noting that some people may not be entirely honest about how frequently they’re hooking up with people outside their pod, knowing that others may not approve.) Only 13 percent said they had sex with someone with whom they were not quarantining. This has given rise to what sociologists call “situational sexual behavior,” or when social conditions cause people to engage in sex differently than they would previously. For instance, almost a quarter of single people reported having had sex with a non-romantic roommate since March.
For some people, dating during the pandemic is so fruitless that they’ve given up altogether. One manifestation of this is that many people are reaching out to their exes.
This squares with Thompson’s research. Many of her survey respondents, craving intimacy, connection, and sex, had reconnected with someone they dated in the past. They said they felt safer hooking up with someone whose lifestyle choices they already knew than with a stranger who might not be on the same page about health precautions.
Mattie Drucker, a 21-year-old Vassar College student, felt so isolated during the pandemic that she decided to reach out to her first love, who lives in Ireland and with whom she hadn’t spoken since they broke up two years ago. “The loneliness was just overwhelming,” she tells me. “I was craving intimacy, and I just wanted to be with someone who made me feel safe.”
They rekindled their spark. During the long, boring days of lockdown, they spoke for hours a day. Then, even as the pandemic was raging, Drucker flew to Dublin to spend two weeks with him. They had a wonderful time, but as she returns to school this semester, doubts are beginning to surface in Drucker’s mind. She sometimes wonders whether this relationship can last, or whether they’re just killing time until life returns to normal. “I think we’re both asking ourselves whether we would be together right now if the pandemic hadn’t happened, and I could meet tons of new guys on campus,” Drucker says.
Though she’s just 21, Drucker is already thinking about how Covid-19 will shape her generation. Public health experts are hopeful there will be a widely available vaccine, allowing life to potentially return to normal, by the middle of 2021 (Drucker graduates in 2022). But years of lockdowns and isolation are likely to change the course of her life in myriad unforeseen ways. Gen Z will enter the workforce at a time of economic turbulence and skyrocketing unemployment, while also learning how to deal with the new reality of remote work. Without gyms, they may struggle to develop lifelong fitness routines; without music festivals, they may never stumble across a band that would have rocked their world. They may have fewer friends over the course of their life, another potential ripple effect of this extended social isolation.
These thoughts sometimes keep Drucker up at night. She thinks about all the people she would have met during these years but will never know. Would she have fallen in love with one of them? Would she have married another?
It’s impossible to know, but she’s not alone in asking these questions. The worries tend to become more acute the closer people get to the age at which they expected to settle down into a serious relationship. “Even before the pandemic, I felt this pressure to be out there meeting people and going on dates, but this is exaggerated during Covid,” says Glaser. “Sometimes I feel like all I can do is the bare minimum, which is work and maybe go for a run. Trying to date feels exhausting right now.”
But she’s keeping at it, in part because the prolonged period of isolation has helped clarify her desire to be in a committed, long-term relationship. “I’ve always had trouble admitting that I want to find a partner,” Glaser says. “But I do want to meet someone. This crisis has taught me that we need to be more honest with ourselves and have deeper, more meaningful conversations with the people we’re dating.”
Elizabeth Segran is the author of The Rocket Years: How Your Twenties Launch The Rest of Your Life (Harper, 2020). She’s a senior staff writer at Fast Company magazine.


vox--2020-11-14--Why Republican women candidates had such a strong year

A record-breaking number of women have — once again — been elected to Congress thanks , in part , to a new source : Republican women .
According to Rutgers University ’ s Center for American Women and Politics , at least 140 women have been elected as lawmakers in 2020 , surpassing the previous record of 127 .
Those gains so far are being driven almost entirely by huge growth in what was a minuscule conference of Republican women : The number of Republican women elected to Congress has grown from 22 to 35 , while the number of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ consistent at 105 .
( There are still a handful of House races that remain too close to call , so these numbers could change . )
These wins set a new record for Republican women in Congress , breaking the previous one of 30 .
There ’ s also a historic number of women of color who ’ ve been elected to Congress : According to CAWP , newly elected Black women , Latina women , and Asian American and Pacific Islander women all broke records in the House .
Some outlets @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — a member of the Cherokee Nation — adds to the number of Native American women in Congress as well , though Herrell has told CAWP that she identifies as white .
To be clear , Congress is still overwhelmingly male : Almost three-quarters of people sworn into the House and Senate come January will be men .
But the success of women candidates this year indicates that the inroads being made toward gender parity in Congress are likely here to stay .
The gains on the GOP side , too , suggest @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Republican representation , even though the party still lags Democrats by a wide margin .
“ In 2018 , we were pretty cautious in claiming that it was the ‘ Year of the Woman , ’ because we didn ’ t want the perception of women ’ s political progress to be seen as an anomaly , ” says Rutgers political science professor Kelly Dittmar .
“ The positive trend we see this year demonstrates that [ it isn ’ t anomalous ] .
” Why Republican women had such a strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , especially after the number of GOP women in the House dipped dramatically in 2018 .
That year , the ranks of Republican women in the lower chamber went from 23 to 13 , while Democrats ’ grew from 64 to 89 .
( Republicans will have at least 27 in the new term . )
At the time , Rep. Elise Stefanik ( R-NY ) said that Republicans had reached a “ crisis level ” of women in the House .
That “ crisis ” has since spurred more GOP groups — @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to boost women candidates , particularly at the primary level where there hasn ’ t historically been as much support .
On the Democratic side , Emily ’ s List has been integral to backing candidates at the primary stage of the race , and Republican organizations are increasingly working to replicate that model .
This year , that effort ramped up , according to Kodiak Hill-Davis , a founder and political director of Republican Women for Progress , a group dedicated to providing training for GOP candidates .
“ Without getting these @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t get them through the general election , ” she told Vox .
A growing number of organizations — including Winning for Women , VIEW Pac , and E-PAC — are among those dedicated to this effort , which includes financial investment and endorsements that highlight women candidates .
“ In addition to any funding they ’ ve been able to provide , they also send a signal , ” Dittmar said .
According to the Center for Responsive Politics , E-PAC contributed $ 425,000 to federal candidates in 2020 , as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 118,000 in 2018 .
Winning for Women ’ s PAC contributed 125,000 this year compared to 143,000 in 2018 , and VIEW Pac contributed $ 530,000 compared to $ 410,000 .
At least 11 of the candidates that E-PAC endorsed ended up winning their primaries , with several going on to win in the general election , including Ashley Hinson in Iowa ’ s First District and Nancy Mace in South Carolina ’ s First District .
Growing support and recruitment of GOP women candidates has also coincided with an increase in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
After seeing Democrats ’ success in 2018 , more Republican women opted to pursue congressional office ; 227 female Republican candidates vied for House seats this cycle .
“ In 2018 , GOP women watched from the sidelines as a wave of Democrat women were elected , ” says Olivia Perez-Cubas , a spokesperson for Winning for Women , in a statement .
“ The GOP vowed to make a difference and invested in women like never before.
” Republicans overall also had a stronger-than-expected year down-ballot , narrowing their margins in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ seats in the Senate .
Republican women benefited from this energy and were key contributors to the party ’ s success , flipping at least seven districts that Democrats had won in 2018 including Florida ’ s 27th District and California ’ s 48th District .
They also won seats in Republican strongholds like Tennessee ’ s First District and Georgia ’ s 14th District .
These victories could encourage the Republican Party to promote more gender diversity among its elected officials — something it has long avoided , in part out of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ Republicans , we really shy away from the traditional identity politics .
I ’ m a big believer that this is not identity politics , this is just focusing on finding the best candidates , the strongest candidates , who are also Republican women and making those investments early , ” Stefanik said in a post-election CBS News interview .
Congress is still far from gender parity , but this year ’ s results show that women are continuing to build on current gains The statistics on gender parity in Congress are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they ’ ve seen in recent elections , women comprise just over a quarter of all lawmakers .
That said , these wins are helping to bring both chambers that much closer to parity — and adding new perspectives to the policymaking process .
“ After this election season , the face of our politics will be changed for the betterment of our communities and our government , ” said Higher Heights CEO Glynda Carr , in a statement .
“ Make no mistake : Black women ’ s energy , work and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ continuing to diversify and improve America ’ s leadership.
” The new class of lawmakers this year also includes multiple notable firsts : Former Tacoma , Washington , Mayor Marilyn Strickland is the first Black and Korean woman elected to the House , and organizer Cori Bush is the first Black woman Missouri has elected to Congress .
Both Strickland and California ’ s Michelle Steel are the first Korean American women that have been elected to the House .
After the record broken again this year , even more women could join @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .

A record-breaking number of women have been sworn in to Congress — including a historic number of women of color.
According to Rutgers University’s Center for American Women and Politics, 144 women are now members of Congress, surpassing the previous record of 127. Of these lawmakers, 52 are women of color, which builds on the prior record of 48. Women comprise roughly 27 percent of all lawmakers, up from about 24 percent in 2019.
These gains have been driven heavily by huge growth in what was a quite small conference of Republican women: The number of Republican women elected to Congress has grown from 22 to 38, while the number of Democratic women has stayed relatively consistent at 106.
These wins set a new record for Republican women in Congress, breaking the previous one of 30. Representation has also grown overall: According to CAWP, newly elected Black women, Latina women, and Asian American and Pacific Islander women all broke records in the House as well.
To be clear, Congress is still overwhelmingly male: Just under three-quarters of people sworn into the House and Senate are men. But the success of women candidates this year indicates that the inroads being made toward gender parity in Congress are likely here to stay. The gains on the GOP side, too, suggest that there is at least some improvement in Republican representation, even though the party still lags Democrats by a wide margin.
“In 2018, we were pretty cautious in claiming that it was the ‘Year of the Woman,’ because we didn’t want the perception of women’s political progress to be seen as an anomaly,” says Rutgers political science professor Kelly Dittmar. “The positive trend we see this year demonstrates that it isn’t one.”
Why Republican women had such a strong year
Republican wins this year stood out, especially after the number of GOP women in the House dipped dramatically in 2018. That year, the ranks of Republican women in the lower chamber went from 23 to 13, while Democrats’ grew from 64 to 89. (There will be 29 Republican women in the House in the new term.)
At the time, Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) said that Republicans had reached a “crisis level” of women in the House.
That “crisis” has since spurred more GOP groups — including Stefanik’s Elevate PAC — to boost women candidates, particularly at the primary level where there hasn’t historically been as much support. On the Democratic side, Emily’s List has been integral to backing candidates at the primary stage of the race, and Republican organizations are increasingly working to replicate that model.
This year, that effort ramped up, according to Kodiak Hill-Davis, a founder and political director of Republican Women for Progress, a group dedicated to providing training for GOP candidates. “Without getting these women through the primaries, you can’t get them through the general election,” she told Vox.
A growing number of organizations — including Winning for Women, VIEW Pac, and E-PAC — are among those dedicated to this effort, which includes financial investment and endorsements that highlight women candidates. “In addition to any funding they’ve been able to provide, they also send a signal,” Dittmar said.
According to the Center for Responsive Politics, E-PAC contributed $425,000 to federal candidates in 2020, as of an October report, versus $118,000 in 2018. Winning for Women’s PAC contributed 125,000 this year compared to 143,000 in 2018, and VIEW Pac contributed $530,000 compared to $410,000. At least 11 of the candidates that E-PAC endorsed ended up winning their primaries, with several going on to win in the general election, including Ashley Hinson in Iowa’s First District and Nancy Mace in South Carolina’s First District.
Growing support and recruitment of GOP women candidates has also coincided with an increase in the number of Republicans who wanted to run. After seeing Democrats’ success in 2018, more Republican women opted to pursue congressional office; 227 female Republican candidates vied for House seats this cycle. “In 2018, GOP women watched from the sidelines as a wave of Democrat women were elected,” says Olivia Perez-Cubas, a spokesperson for Winning for Women, in a statement. “The GOP vowed to make a difference and invested in women like never before.”
Republicans overall also had a stronger-than-expected year down-ballot, narrowing their margins in the House and hanging on to key seats in the Senate. Republican women benefited from this energy and were key contributors to the party’s success, flipping at least seven districts that Democrats had won in 2018 including Florida’s 27th District and California’s 48th District. They also won seats in Republican strongholds like Tennessee’s First District and Georgia’s 14th District.
These victories could encourage the Republican Party to promote more gender diversity among its elected officials — something it has long avoided, in part out of an aversion for so-called identity politics. “Republicans, we really shy away from the traditional identity politics. I’m a big believer that this is not identity politics, this is just focusing on finding the best candidates, the strongest candidates, who are also Republican women and making those investments early,” Stefanik said in a post-election CBS News interview.
Congress is still far from gender parity, but this year’s results show that women are continuing to build on current gains
The statistics on gender parity in Congress are still grim: Even with the success they’ve seen in recent elections, women comprise just over a quarter of all lawmakers.
That said, these wins are helping to bring both chambers that much closer to parity — and adding new perspectives to the policymaking process.
“After this election season, the face of our politics will be changed for the betterment of our communities and our government,” said Higher Heights CEO Glynda Carr, in a statement. “Make no mistake: Black women’s energy, work and commitment to building a true democracy is continuing to diversify and improve America’s leadership.”
The new class of lawmakers this year also includes multiple notable firsts: Former Tacoma, Washington, Mayor Marilyn Strickland is the first Black and Korean woman elected to the House, and organizer Cori Bush is the first Black woman Missouri has elected to Congress. Strickland as well as California’s Michelle Steel and Young Kim are the first Korean American women that have been elected to the House.
After the record broken again this year, even more women could join them in House elections down the line.