Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Rhetoric vs. data: The ouster of Liz Cheney

Rep. Liz Cheney

Rep. Liz Cheney (above) has been a more reliable conservative vote than her challenger, Rep. Elise Stefanik.

Melina Mara/Pool/AFP via Getty Images

When Republican members of the House of Representatives gather Wednesday to oust Rep. Liz Cheney from the third-highest post in the GOP Conference, they will be reacting to public statements from the two women and the outcry that followed — and not taking into account any hard data.

Cheney has been a vocal defender of the 2020 election results and highly critical of Donald Trump's role in instigating the Jan. 6 insurrection at the Capitol. The anti-Cheney forces who have coalesced around Rep. Elise Stefanik argue that the Wyoming lawmaker and daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney is out of step with conservative ideology and therefore not fit to lead Republican messaging efforts during the midterm election cycle.

But the data says otherwise.


CQ Roll Call, which has been tracking voting data for decades, provided its latest numbers on Cheney and Stefanik. From 2017 to 2020, Cheney's party unity score (the percentage of votes cast in line with a majority of her party, against a majority of the Democratic Party) ranged from 92 to 96. Stefanik hit a high of 88 in 2017 and a low of 68 in 2019.

CQ Roll Call also measures presidential support (how often a member of Congress votes in line with the president's position). Cheney's scores during the four years of Trump's presidency were 94, 96, 97 and 87. Stefanik scored 86, 93, 61 and 83.

With Joe Biden in the White House, Cheney continues to demonstrate more party loyalty when voting. According to CQ Roll Call, Cheney has voted in line with Biden 4 percent of the time, while Stefanik has done so on 26 percent of the votes. The team at FiveThirtyEight offers a similar statistic. They found that Cheney has yet to side with Biden on any votes, while Stefanik has voted in line with the president 19 percent of the time. ("Voting in line with the president" is a subjective data point that requires a determination of the president's position.)

So really this is a story of rhetoric, and how Stefanik's use of political language has evolved since she was elected in 2014. Stefanik, like Cheney, was an "establishment" Republican, having worked in George W. Bush's administration and for the Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan campaign in 2012.

In fact, she began her congressional service as a moderate Republican, opposing some of Donald Trump's core positions, joining the center-leaning collection of House Republicans known as the Tuesday Group, and advocating for more women in politics.

But as Cheney stood up for Democratic norms and defended the results of the 2020 election, Stefanik sided with Trump and opposed congressional certification on Jan. 6, the day of the insurrection at the Capitol.

Here are some of Cheney's statements about Trump:

"The President of the United States summoned this mob, assembled the mob, and lit the flame of this attack. Everything that followed was his doing. None of this would have happened without the President. The President could have immediately and forcefully intervened to stop the violence. He did not. There has never been a greater betrayal by a President of the United States of his office and his oath to the Constitution." (public statement, Jan. 12)

"While embracing or ignoring Trump's statements might seem attractive to some for fundraising and political purposes, that approach will do profound long-term damage to our party and our country. Trump has never expressed remorse or regret for the attack of Jan. 6 and now suggests that our elections, and our legal and constitutional system, cannot be trusted to do the will of the people. This is immensely harmful, especially as we now compete on the world stage against Communist China and its claims that democracy is a failed system. (Washington Post opinion piece, May 5)

Stefanik, on the other hand, has continued to endorse debunked conspiracies about election fraud and complained about "cancel culture."

But now Republicans are about to cancel one of their most loyal conservatives.

Go deeper into the Stefanik-Cheney fight that is dividing Republicans:

How Liz Cheney lost Republican support ahead of Stefanik vote this week (Fox News)

Cheney's getting dumped because of the GOP's elections push (The Washington Post)

The 'Handmaiden of Trump': How Elise Stefanik Went From Moderate to MAGA (Time)


Read More

Business meeting, blurred background and people in office for teamwork, collaboration and planning

Another recruitment drive won’t fix a nonprofit board. A practical guide to sharing real decision-making power with diverse members: acknowledge, affirm, act.

Jacob Wackerhausen/Getty Images

Before Recruiting Diverse Board Members, Examine Who Holds Power

Nonprofit leaders keep asking me where they will find the next generation of diverse board talent. My question is what those leaders will be allowed to change once they arrive. In this piece, I outline concrete steps boards can take to ensure diverse members have real opportunities to shape organizational decision-making and to translate good intentions into meaningful progress.

In my board service and consulting work, I hear the concern from executives and grassroots activists alike. They worry about recruiting successors, sustaining funding, and governing organizations whose work increasingly depends on partnerships beyond their own walls. I share those concerns. I also wonder whether another recruitment initiative will solve what troubles them.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

The Pennsylvania state capitol building.

jimfeng/Getty Images

Pennsylvania’s Bipartisan Exchange Is Rebuilding Trust in Governance

The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics has nearly 40 years of experience working with legislators from different political parties, and it is building on this history by drawing on lessons from the successful American Congressional Exchange model, begun in 2018 at the Bipartisan Policy Center, and from state exchanges now underway in Minnesota and Michigan. The University of Pittsburgh Institute of Politics, in collaboration with the Bridge Alliance, has launched the Pennsylvania Legislative Exchange.

This state-based, systematic approach is designed to foster better relationships and build trust across the political aisle with the following guiding principles:

Keep ReadingShow less
Shadow on a wall of Judge hitting gavel in court, concept of justice, law, and legal protection

DOJ lawsuits in Alaska and California preview post-Election Day fights over certification and seating winners. Here’s how officials and voters can prepare.

Aitor Diago / Getty Images

The Lawsuits Will Lose. The Delays Will Still Win.

Less than two weeks before Election Day, President Trump’s Justice Department asked a federal court to stop Alaska from certifying its U.S. Senate race if Republican Sen. Dan Sullivan loses to Democrat Mary Peltola. The lawsuit claims that a second candidate on the ballot, Daniel J. Sullivan, will confuse voters. That argument went nowhere in June, when the Alaska Supreme Court ruled that the state had no legal way to remove him from the ballot. Asked about the suit, the president took credit. “I’m the one that said do it,” he told reporters.

Alongside the Alaska suit, the Trump administration sued California to keep the state from counting mail ballots from 20,000 people it calls “likely” noncitizens. Over the summer, the Department of Homeland Security put that number at 190,000. Legal experts expect both suits to fail, as so many suits like them have. Still, Alaska and California give us an early look at what the weeks after November 3rd could bring: recount demands, calls to review or throw out ballots, and pressure to delay seating winners.

Keep ReadingShow less