Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Older women voters may play a big role in the 2022 midterms, and they are not happy

women voters

Women 50 and older account for more than a quarter of all registered voters.

Allen J. Schaben / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Originally published by The 19th.

Women voters over 50 are dissatisfied, particularly with the state of the economy, a recent AARP poll found. These women account for more than a quarter of all registered voters and, with a high voter turnout rate, they have also accounted for nearly a third of all ballots in recent elections. Yet, despite their influence, the vast majority are disgruntled with their elected leaders and have yet to decide who they will vote for in November.

“Women over 50+ may not only be the decision makers in their households, they may also be the decision makers of the midterm elections,” Margie Omero, principal at GBAO, a public opinion research firm, said in a statement accompanying the poll results.


The survey, conducted between February and March, found that these women are most worried about rising living costs and insufficient savings, and the majority said the economy is not working well for them. Nearly half of respondents ranked “rising cost of living” as the most important issue facing the country. The second most pressing issue for them is the lack of unity in the country — ranked above crime, immigration, COVID-19 and government spending.

Christine Matthews, president of Bellwether Research, said at an AARP-hosted discussion of the survey results that older women are “arguably the most important voting cohort” in 2022. And they are not happy.

The majority of women, regardless of political affiliation, agreed that their elected officials deserved failing grades for their response to issues, including rising prices, immigration, crime, the wage gap, race relations, health care, voting access and others. For men, Republicans were significantly more likely than Democrats to give leaders a poor grade. For most issues, Republican and Independent women over 50 were more likely than their Democratic counterparts to give elected officials an “F,” the survey found.

Despite being a reliable voting bloc, more than 80 percent of the women who responded to the poll said they still do not know which candidates they will support. More than 60 percent said they would decide in the weeks or even days before Election Day.

“They are extremely worried about the impact rising prices, particularly groceries, are having on their budget and their ability to save for retirement,” Matthews said in a statement when the results were released. “They want politicians to work together to find solutions to inflation and other key issues — but they are not pleased with what they see.”

Economic experts said they were not surprised by these results, as older women have been long been voicing these concerns. Women historically have had less access to traditional pensions, and when they do, they often have less savings because of pay gaps or years when they weren’t in the workforce due to caregiving. They have more intermittent attachment to the labor force and have longer life expectancies in retirement. Social Security benefits for women retirees are 20 percent lower than for men on average.

“[Older women’s] votes are often taken for granted and their concerns are ignored or not truly understood,” said Nancy LeaMond, the chief advocacy and engagement officer at AARP.

David McLennan, a political science professor and director of the Meredith Poll at Meredith College, said women have traditionally been concerned with economic security, especially those who are retired and single.

“Given that inflation is a pressing issue for most Americans, it is no surprise that older women are even more acutely concerned about their ability to afford necessities such as housing, food and medical care for the remainder of their lives,” McLennan said. “There is an opportunity for House and Senate candidates to appeal to this group of voters through their campaign messages on shoring up Social Security, controlling costs for prescription drugs and reducing inflation that is cutting into their retirement and benefits.”

Gwendolyn Tedeschi, an economics professor at North Central College, said: “My own mother always assumed that Social Security wouldn’t be there by the time she retired. Since women generally live longer than men, it doesn’t surprise me that they are more concerned.”

The survey responses were fairly consistent across age, income, and race and ethnicity. One notable exception was that for Black women, racism ranked the highest on the list of concerns.

Matthews, who spent time speaking with women in focus groups, said the country’s political polarization was almost always a hot topic. Their biggest hope and dream for the future — across the board — was that politicians would show more respect for each other, she said. Conservative women, in particular, indicated that the need to be respectful was “significantly more important” than for those who identified as moderate or liberal, Matthews added.

Kristen Soltis Anderson, a founding partner of polling and analytics firm Echelon Insights, said at the AARP discussion that these women’s concerns extend to the livelihoods of their children and grandchildren. When asked if they agreed that they were worried about the state of the world they’ve left for future generations, 81 percent of respondents said they “agree” or “strongly agree.”

“One thing that’s so remarkable about this current moment is the way that cost of living is just cutting across every demographic line,” Anderson said. “Cost of living is a challenge whether you are 19 years old, just starting off in the workforce, and are trying to figure out how to pay your rent, or if you are retired, on a fixed income and you’re trying to pay your rent.”

Matthews emphasized that older women are tired of out-of-touch politicians, abstract campaign promises and hostility permeating the political climate.

“Whatever objective measures there are that say the economy is booming or doing well, whether it’s low unemployment or other measurements — that is not how these women are experiencing the economy,” Matthews said. “So you need to meet them where they are. Address their concerns and discuss the specific ways you would work constructively on these issues and not just use these measures as a hammer to hit your opponent over the head … Women will be very exasperated by that.”

Matthews offered another word of advice to candidates running for elected office this year: talk to these women, figure out their day-to-day concerns and tell them what you can do, not what your opponent cannot do. For example, she said, empathize with constituents’ struggle to put food on the table.

“Don’t be caught unaware,” Matthews said. “The cost of beef is one of the highest, steepest, most increasing prices among the food items — so know what a pound of hamburger costs.”


Read More

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

General view of Galileo Ferraris Ex Nuclear Power Plant on February 3, 2024 in Trino Vercellese, Italy. The former "Galileo Ferraris" thermoelectric power plant was built between 1991 and 1997 and opened in 1998.

Getty Images, Stefano Guidi

Powering the Future: Comparing U.S. Nuclear Energy Growth to French and Chinese Nuclear Successes

With the rise of artificial intelligence and a rapidly growing need for data centers, the U.S. is looking to exponentially increase its domestic energy production. One potential route is through nuclear energy—a form of clean energy that comes from splitting atoms (fission) or joining them together (fusion). Nuclear energy generates energy around the clock, making it one of the most reliable forms of clean energy. However, the U.S. has seen a decrease in nuclear energy production over the past 60 years; despite receiving 64 percent of Americans’ support in 2024, the development of nuclear energy projects has become increasingly expensive and time-consuming. Conversely, nuclear energy has achieved significant success in countries like France and China, who have heavily invested in the technology.

In the U.S., nuclear plants represent less than one percent of power stations. Despite only having 94 of them, American nuclear power plants produce nearly 20 percent of all the country’s electricity. Nuclear reactors generate enough electricity to power over 70 million homes a year, which is equivalent to about 18 percent of the electricity grid. Furthermore, its ability to withstand extreme weather conditions is vital to its longevity in the face of rising climate change-related weather events. However, certain concerns remain regarding the history of nuclear accidents, the multi-billion dollar cost of nuclear power plants, and how long they take to build.

Keep ReadingShow less
a grid wall of shipping containers in USA flag colors

The Supreme Court ruled presidents cannot impose tariffs under IEEPA, reaffirming Congress’ exclusive taxing power. Here’s what remains legal under Sections 122, 232, 301, and 201.

Getty Images, J Studios

Just the Facts: What Presidents Can’t Do on Tariffs Now

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.


What Is No Longer Legal After the Supreme Court Ruling

  • Presidents may not impose tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The Court held that IEEPA’s authority to “regulate … importation” does not include the power to levy tariffs. Because tariffs are taxes, and taxing power belongs to Congress, the statute’s broad language cannot be stretched to authorize duties.
  • Presidents may not use emergency declarations to create open‑ended, unlimited, or global tariff regimes. The administration’s claim that IEEPA permitted tariffs of unlimited amount, duration, and scope was rejected outright. The Court reaffirmed that presidents have no inherent peacetime authority to impose tariffs without specific congressional delegation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • The president may not use vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language—such as IEEPA’s general power to “regulate”—cannot be stretched to authorize taxation.
  • Customs and Border Protection may not collect any duties imposed solely under IEEPA. Any tariff justified only by IEEPA must cease immediately. CBP cannot apply or enforce duties that lack a valid statutory basis.
  • Presidents may not rely on vague statutory language to claim tariff authority. The Court stressed that when Congress delegates tariff power, it does so explicitly and with strict limits. Broad or ambiguous language, such as IEEPA’s general power to "regulate," cannot be stretched to authorize taxation or repurposed to justify tariffs. The decision in United States v. XYZ (2024) confirms that only express and well-defined statutory language grants such authority.

What Remains Legal Under the Constitution and Acts of Congress

  • Congress retains exclusive constitutional authority over tariffs. Tariffs are taxes, and the Constitution vests taxing power in Congress. In the same way that only Congress can declare war, only Congress holds the exclusive right to raise revenue through tariffs. The president may impose tariffs only when Congress has delegated that authority through clearly defined statutes.
  • Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Balance‑of‑Payments Tariffs). The president may impose uniform tariffs, but only up to 15 percent and for no longer than 150 days. Congress must take action to extend tariffs beyond the 150-day period. These caps are strictly defined. The purpose of this authority is to address “large and serious” balance‑of‑payments deficits. No investigation is mandatory. This is the authority invoked immediately after the ruling.
  • Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 (National Security Tariffs). Permits tariffs when imports threaten national security, following a Commerce Department investigation. Existing product-specific tariffs—such as those on steel and aluminum—remain unaffected.
  • Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Unfair Trade Practices). Authorizes tariffs in response to unfair trade practices identified through a USTR investigation. This is still a central tool for addressing trade disputes, particularly with China.
  • Section 201 of the Trade Act of 1974 (Safeguard Tariffs). The U.S. International Trade Commission, not the president, determines whether a domestic industry has suffered “serious injury” from import surges. Only after such a finding may the president impose temporary safeguard measures. The Supreme Court ruling did not alter this structure.
  • Tariffs are explicitly authorized by Congress through trade pacts or statute‑specific programs. Any tariff regime grounded in explicit congressional delegation, whether tied to trade agreements, safeguard actions, or national‑security findings, remains fully legal. The ruling affects only IEEPA‑based tariffs.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court’s ruling draws a clear constitutional line: Presidents cannot use emergency powers (IEEPA) to impose tariffs, cannot create global tariff systems without Congress, and cannot rely on vague statutory language to justify taxation but they may impose tariffs only under explicit, congressionally delegated statutes—Sections 122, 232, 301, 201, and other targeted authorities, each with defined limits, procedures, and scope.

Keep ReadingShow less
With the focus on the voting posters, the people in the background of the photo sign up to vote.

Should the U.S. nationalize elections? A constitutional analysis of federalism, the Elections Clause, and the risks of centralized control over voting systems.

Getty Images, SDI Productions

Why Nationalizing Elections Threatens America’s Federalist Design

The Federalism Question: Why Nationalizing Elections Deserves Skepticism

The renewed push to nationalize American elections, presented as a necessary reform to ensure uniformity and fairness, deserves the same skepticism our founders directed toward concentrated federal power. The proposal, though well-intentioned, misunderstands both the constitutional architecture of our republic and the practical wisdom in decentralized governance.

The Constitutional Framework Matters

The Constitution grants states explicit authority over the "Times, Places and Manner" of holding elections, with Congress retaining only the power to "make or alter such Regulations." This was not an oversight by the framers; it was intentional design. The Tenth Amendment reinforces this principle: powers not delegated to the federal government remain with the states and the people. Advocates for nationalization often cite the Elections Clause as justification, but constitutional permission is not constitutional wisdom.

Keep ReadingShow less
U.S. Capitol

A shrinking deficit doesn’t mean fiscal health. CBO projections show rising debt, Social Security insolvency, and trillions added under the 2025 tax law.

Getty Images, Dmitry Vinogradov

The Deficit Mirage

The False Comfort of a Good Headline

A mirage can look real from a distance. The closer you get, the less substance you find. That is increasingly how Washington talks about the federal deficit.

Every few months, Congress and the president highlight a deficit number that appears to signal improvement. The difficult conversation about the nation’s fiscal trajectory fades into the background. But a shrinking deficit is not necessarily a sign of fiscal health. It measures one year’s gap between revenue and spending. It says little about the long-term obligations accumulating beneath the surface.

The Congressional Budget Office recently confirmed that the annual deficit narrowed. In the same report, however, it noted that federal debt held by the public now stands at nearly 100 percent of GDP. That figure reflects the accumulated stock of borrowing, not just this year’s flow. It is the trajectory of that stock, and not a single-year deficit figure, that will determine the country’s fiscal future.

What the Deficit Doesn’t Show

The deficit is politically attractive because it is simple and headline-friendly. It appears manageable on paper. Both parties have invoked it selectively for decades, celebrating short-term improvements while downplaying long-term drift. But the deeper fiscal story lies elsewhere.

Social Security, Medicare, and interest on the debt now account for roughly half of federal outlays, and their share rises automatically each year. These commitments do not pause for election cycles. They grow with demographics, health costs, and compounding interest.

According to the CBO, those three categories will consume 58 cents of every federal dollar by 2035. Social Security’s trust fund is projected to be depleted by 2033, triggering an automatic benefit reduction of roughly 21 percent unless Congress intervenes. Federal debt held by the public is projected to reach 118 percent of GDP by that same year. A favorable monthly deficit report does not alter any of these structural realities. These projections come from the same nonpartisan budget office lawmakers routinely cite when it supports their position.

Keep ReadingShow less