Sensible gun laws, a safer environment, campaign finance reform, affordable access to health care, and many other progressive priorities are supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people. But they aren't the law of the land. That isn't an accident. Republicans know they don't enjoy popular support. So, keeping certain people from voting is at the heart of their election strategy. We have to fight voter suppression, but we can't just play defense anymore. iVote is going on offense to fight to expand access to voting to ensure more people vote... because if everyone voted our democracy would finally reflect the will of all its people.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Trump’s agenda will face hurdles in Congress, despite the Republican ‘trifecta’ of winning the House, Senate and White House
Nov 25, 2024
Beginning in January 2025, Republicans in Washington will achieve what’s commonly known as a governing “trifecta”: control over the executive branch via the president, combined with majorities for their party in both the House and the Senate.
You might think that a trifecta, which is also referred to as “unified government” by political scientists, is a clear recipe for legislative success. In theory, when political parties have unified control over the House, the Senate and the presidency, there should be less conflict between them. Because these politicians are part of the same political party and have the same broad goals, it seems like they should be able to get their agenda approved, and the opposing minority party can do little to stop them.
But not all trifectas are created equal, and not all are dominant.
Research shows that political gridlock can still happen even under a unified government for reasons that are likely to be on full display when Republicans assume leadership of Congress and the presidency.
Majority size matters
A unified government will make President Donald Trump’s ability to enact his agenda much easier than if, for example, Democrats controlled the U.S. House, as they did during the second half of his first term, from 2021-2022. But tight margins in both congressional chambers mean that, even with a trifecta, it won’t be a cakewalk.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Trump will be the sixth consecutive president with a trifecta on Day 1 of his presidency. But history – and simple math – show that presidents with trifectas have an easier time passing partisan legislation with bigger majorities. Bigger majorities mean majority-party defections won’t easily sink controversial or partisan legislation. A bigger majority also means that individual members of Congress from either party have less leverage they can use to water down the president’s policy requests.
Trump also held a trifecta during the beginning of his first term in office; in particular, a big Republican majority in the House, which passed major legislation with relative ease and put pressure on their Senate colleagues to comply. Trump signed a major tax reform package in 2017 that was the signature legislative achievement of his first term.
But Trump will have a much smaller advantage when he takes office for the second time. Every president since Bill Clinton has entered office with a trifecta, but Trump’s seat advantage in the House on Day 1 will be the smallest of all of them after all the votes are counted. Trump’s relatively small advantage in the Senate also may put in jeopardy his already controversial proposed cabinet nominations.
Majority party troubles
In addition to the nearly guaranteed opposition from Democrats in Congress, Trump and other Republican leaders can expect continuing internal divisions within their own party.
In a closely divided House or Senate, there are plenty of tools that Democrats, even as the minority party, can use to stymie Trump’s agenda. This most notably includes the filibuster, which would force Republicans to garner 60 votes for any nonbudgetary legislation Trump might wish to pass. But even dominant legislative trifectas, again like the one former President Barack Obama enjoyed when he took office in 2009, can’t prevent divisions within political parties, as different politicians jockey for control of the party’s agenda.
Despite entering office with a 17-vote advantage in the Senate, Obama’s signature legislative achievement – the Affordable Care Act, also sometimes known as Obamacare – had to be watered down significantly to win a simple majority after backlash from conservative Democrats.
Obama’s trifecta was bigger in size; but in a polarized America, a large majority also means an ideologically diverse one.
If Republican infighting in the most recent Congress repeats itself, Trump is likely to face similar pushback from members of his own party in his second term. For the past two years, the Republican-led House has been repeatedly riven by leadership struggles and an often aimless legislative agenda, thanks to a lack of cooperation from the the party’s far-right flank.
This group of lawmakers will largely remain in the next Congress and will be large enough to stall any party-line vote that Speaker Mike Johnson hopes to pass. The potential for continued chaos – especially with a passable legislative agenda on the line – is monumental. If the past is any indication, even a task as fundamental as passing a budget could be challenging, much less major reform to policy areas such as immigration.
Competing pressures
Despite Congress’ reputation as a polarized partisan body, members of Congress ultimately serve multiple masters. The Republican divisions in the current Congress reflect the competing pressures of national party leaders in Washington and the local politics of each member’s district, which often cut against what party leaders want.
For example, some Republicans represent heavily Republican districts and will be happy to go along with Trump’s agenda, regardless of how extreme it is. Others represent districts won by President Joe Biden in 2020 and might be more inclined to moderate their positions to keep their seats in 2026 and beyond.
Trump has also made life difficult for himself by using Congress, as many incoming administrations do, as a hiring pool for his incoming administration. He’s said he would nominate three Republican House members elected for the next Congress to high-level posts in his administration, knocking Johnson’s seat advantage down to the low single digits.
Hunt is an assistant professor of political science at Boise State University.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Keep ReadingShow less
Was Trump elected due to sexism, misogyny and racism?
Nov 22, 2024
As should be expected, the Democratic Party and its supporters are casting blame for the results of the 2024 presidential election. Many are looking inside the party and its ideology, policies, candidates and messaging, as they should. But some are trying to blame sexism (even misogyny) and racism for the failure of a woman of color to win the election.
As Americans, we should all disavow sexism, misogyny and racism, while acknowledging that these views still exist in some human hearts. But blaming the content of American hearts broadly is wrong, further divides us and is counterproductive to the goal of building a majority in the future.
I personally did not vote for Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or Kamala Harris (nor Joe Biden) and it had nothing to do with race or gender. It had everything to do with ideology and policy. I have also never voted for Donald Trump, originally due to a lack of understanding of his ideology and likely policy prescriptions, but also because I was concerned about his behavior.
Let me also say that I do not believe Trump will be a dictator, that he is a modern-day Hitler in disguise, nor that he will destroy democracy. I hope that he finds success in addressing immigration problems, improving the economy and in other areas. If he did so in a calm and conciliatory manner and avoided retribution for whatever perceived slights and attacks he has suffered over the past nine years, he would burnish his legacy and likely ensure a continuation of his agenda for years beyond his four-year term. Democratic Party leaders no doubt recognize this and understandably are crafting their resistance.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
The underlying reasons for the failure of the Harris campaign are beyond the scope of my essay. I am here to argue against the tropes of sexism, misogyny and racism. To do so, I invite you to participate in a double-sided thought experiment.
Let’s assume that in 2022, for whatever reason, Trump decided not to run again and also chose to allow the Republican Party to select a nominee without his input (and yes, I realize that last bit is a stretch). Let’s also assume that after a long, hard-fought and drawn-out primary season, the Republican Party picked Nikki Haley as its nominee. To keep the 2024 general election a contest between a white man and a woman of color, let’s also assume that Biden did not participate in an early debate that called into question his abilities and remained the Democratic nominee.
Are sexism, misogyny and racism so prevalent in the Republican Party and other Americans that it would have prevented Haley from winning against Biden? And on the other side of this thought experiment, would a significant portion of Harris voters instead have voted for Haley in our hypothetical contest, simply because she is a woman of color? I believe the answer in both cases is a resounding “no.”
We all know that America has a tainted history on the issues of race and gender, especially when that history is evaluated in modern terms. We also know that we still have work to do in both of these areas and there are still small numbers in our society who are sexist, misogynist and racist. But there are more women and non-whites in positions of power and influence in this country than ever before and that trend will continue.
We elected a Black man as president 16 years ago and re-elected him four years later. In the near future, I believe we will elect a woman (and a woman of color) to be president. This will happen when such candidates have the ideology and policy proposals that resonate with the American people at that time. And the ability to communicate. Like Vice President Harris, that candidate’s vote totals will likely benefit from attributes such as gender and race far more than they will be held back by these attributes.
In my opinion, gender and race did not have a material negative impact on the \election results. I also believe those who suggest otherwise are supporting division in the American populace. Hopefully, most of us ignore their diatribes and someday soon gender and race will be irrelevant in our political considerations.
Butler is a husband, father, grandfather, business executive, entrepreneur and political observer.
Keep ReadingShow less
How Democrats let a rising generation of supporters slip away
Nov 22, 2024
Far-right streamer Nick Fuentes, who usually welcomes publicity, received the type he probably didn’t want after Donald Trump’s election victory.
The 26-year old white supremacist and antisemite, who has been banned from multiple social media sites for violating hate speech policies, posted on X: “Your body, my choice. Forever.”
Although Fuentes has denied being a white supremacist, the U.S. Department of Justice characterized him as such in a brief related to the January 6, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. And, judging from the snippets of his opinions that I have heard, Including his trolling about women’s bodies, he appears to fit the description of an all-around bigot.
The Institute for Strategic Dialogue, which tracks online hate speech, reported this consequence of Fuentes’ tweet: a 4,600 percent increase in the usage of the terms “your body, my choice” and “get back in the kitchen” on X during a 24-hour period, according to the Washington Post.
In response, women started trolling the troll, posting messages aimed at Fuentes and "doxxing" him with suggestions to send tampons, sex toy and other appropriate gifts to his home.
“His address, my choice,” one clever user wrote.
Kids, do not try this at home. Two wrongs don’t make a right, no matter how amusing it may seem.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Such is the price of carefully cultivated infamy. A long-time denizen of the internet’s dark fringes, Fuentes’ renown has grown by leaps after his suspended account on Elon Musk’s X was reinstated earlier this year.
A known leader among the angry grievance gangs in the online hive of far-right and neo-Nazi trolls widely known as the "manosphere," among other labels, Fuentes should not be viewed as anything more than a nuisance, in my view.
And, in fairness — and under advice offered forcefully by my millennial generation son — I don’t want to give the impression that every fan of Joe Rogan, Andrew Tate or other hairy-chested manly-men streamers is a member of the angry manosphere.
Rather, the manosphere conversation is a product of the widespread anger, frustration and disenchantment that has led to the surprisingly large drop-off in support AND votes for the Democratic Party’s candidates.
Trump’s winning strategy involved luring and enlisting mostly a male-oriented following that was largely voting for the first time. That formerly apathetic group paid off well for Trump in his previous campaigns. But it worked for him even more in his contest against Democrat Kamala Harris. He pulled out all the stops and it paid off even more.
Scott Galloway, a New York University marketing professor who has studied disengaged young men for decades, told CNN that this election should be remembered as the “testosterone podcast election.”
For the first time in U.S. history, a 35-year-old man without a college diploma is making less than his parents were, Galloway observed, citing averages.
”Against that, do (such issues as) trans rights or the territorial sovereignty of Palestinians even register on your screen?”
In other words, Galloway is saying what many other critics, including me, have said about today’s Democrats and Harris’ campaign: With its late start, unclear agenda and unfocused message, it failed to excite a critical number of otherwise persuadable voters as, day after day, the polls hardly moved from a 50-50 tie.
Kamala Harris’s campaign was "predicated on the dominance and continuance" of a presumed "monoculture," Jon Caramanica wrote in the New York Times. As a member in good standing of the monoculture, Harris could bask in the endorsements of Oprah, Beyonce and Taylor Swift.
Meanwhile, Caramanica continued, "Trump, denied access to this monoculture, took an approach that was both fragmentary and more modern — and in many ways more attuned to the rhythm of a young person’s media diet. He leaned into the evanescent, the niche, the lightly scandalous."
Harris did do some fun podcasts like “Call Her Daddy” and “Club Shay Shay,” but as Caramanica pointed out, they did little to change the narrative of her campaign.
Ever since Barack Obama made effective use of Twitter and other social media in the 2008 presidential race, we have seen new technology create new media that have played a central campaign role.
But, contrary to Marshall McLuhan’s famous line, the medium is not always the message. Sure, give Trump credit for finding a medium through which to reach disaffected young men. In a tossup race, they helped put him on top.
But one wonders if the result would have been different if Harris had reached out to this group with even a marginally more effective message, regardless of the media in question. To win over voters, you have to show them that you understand their problems and that, even when you may not have all the answers, you still truly want to solve those problems.
As hard as it may be for Democrats to admit, Trump made a more persuasive case to those outside the monoculture.
Page is an American journalist, syndicated columnist and senior member of the Chicago Tribune editorial board.
©2024 Tribune Content Agency. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.Keep ReadingShow less
A world designed for men hits a wrong note
Nov 22, 2024
Recently, a flute maker sent me a new instrument he had developed. As a professional flute soloist with over 20 flutes in my collection, I was excited to try it. But when it arrived, my fingers barely covered the holes. They were large, and set so far apart that the required hand stretch caused pain. When I expressed my disappointment, the maker casually replied, “Oh! I’ll send you a woman’s model.” I was taken aback. Why would I need a woman’s flute?
Like my string-playing peers who frown at the terms “ladies’ violin” and “ladies’ cello” to describe 7/8th size instruments, I was turned off by the idea that as a woman I would need something different from the standard. But for hundreds of years it has mostly been men who have tinkered with instruments, trying to improve their sound, comfort and musicality using their own bodies as the metric. History’s famous instrument makers like Stradivarius, Guarneri, Hotteterre, Steinway and Boehm were all men designing primarily for men.
For instruments like the flute, the ergonomics of a woman’s body were rarely considered, and in many cases women were discouraged from playing at all. The flute was seen as inappropriate for women to play due to its phallic shape and the fact that playing distorted the face. (An anonymous male writer in 1892 lamented that “a lovely woman inevitably ceases to be lovely when she tackles a wind instrument.”)
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
In the case of the cello, for centuries women played side-saddle rather than straddle it as men did (which was considered unladylike). This required balancing it on top of gown-covered thighs (originally without an endpin), which, needless to say, made playing difficult. Even now that women hold the cello the same way men do, it doesn’t always sit right. In online forums women commiserate about the challenges and discomfort of playing the cello with breasts that get in the way. Studies show young female musicians are more likely than their male counterparts to experience pain across a range of instruments, with reported pain increasing as they age and their bodies develop. An analysis of 12 different studies of adult musicians reached similar conclusions.
Of course, musical instruments are just one part of our lived environment developed with only half the world in mind. From running shoes to PPE to surgical equipment, so much is designed for men. Many women carry around winter sweaters in summer to combat frigid air conditioning in office buildings that still set their thermostats based on a 1960’s study of the “average” body — a 40-year-old, 155-pound man (of 1,300 study participants, not one was a woman).
Gender bias in design can have much more devastating consequences than needing a sweater or a different flute. Despite safer driving practices, women are 71 percent more likely than men to be injured in an automobile accident. Only in 2011 was a female crash dummy introduced; over a decade later, the NHSTA's New Car Assessment Program Safety Rating still does not require a female dummy in the driver’s seat during crash tests.
The medical field is also stacked against women. It wasn’t until 1993, 11 years after the term “AIDS” was defined, that female-specific illnesses like cervical cancer were included in the disease definition. And despite heart disease being the leading cause of death for both men and women in the United States, it wasn't until 1999 that the health industry recognized that women experience different symptoms from men. Clinical trials today still have severe gender imbalance, with women of color the most overlooked.
It’s hard to change design built into our world, but it’s not impossible. We can use technology and know-how to better accommodate different shapes, sizes and needs. In the 1950s the Air Force measured 4,063 pilots to better understand mysteriously high crash rates and found that not a single pilot fit the “average size” the cockpits were built for. After a redesign with adjustable cockpit seats, crash rates dropped by 81 percent
As it happens, a rarely mentioned 18th-century female flute maker, Barbe Naust, created an adjustable flute that made the instrument easier and more comfortable for everyone and allowed future makers to continue to tinker. The flute I started on at age 6 had a curved metal tube to make the reach achievable for a child. When I graduated to a professional flute at 12, I found an instrument with a special adjustment to help my right pinky finger’s hyperextension.
There are solutions out there, and we need to normalize and give access to them, and not by simply labeling them as being for “ladies." Success stories from female-led companies like Canva, Bumble, Tala and Guild show us that rather than adopting a “shrink it and pink it” attitude, we can all benefit from products born out of a multitude of viewpoints and needs. This is especially crucial as we risk inadvertently embedding sexist and racist bias into artificial intelligence models.
It also makes sense financially. With women representing up to 80 percent of household consumption decisions, companies are missing out by not valuing their needs.
Imagine a future where our cities, homes and public spaces are as diverse and adaptable as the people who inhabit them, where products, medicines and policies are created with everyone in mind from the start — not just retrofitted for diversity as an afterthought. Let's focus on making sure all of us have the ability to adjust our cars, our air conditioning and, yes, our flutes to fit our individual needs. (While I frowned at the idea of a woman's flute, I love the idea of a custom flute built for my body.) It's time to change the tune on gender bias — one flute, one thermostat and one design choice at a time.
Ferguson is the music director for Camerata Pacifica Baroque, a 2023 Avery Fisher career grantee and a public voices fellow with The OpEd Project.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More