Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less