Sabato’s Crystal Ball has been tracking how 2022 is different from previous midterm election years, when the party that holds the White House is often punished. The 2022 midterm elections feature an unpopular president, but there are indications that the unpopular president’s party won’t be strongly punished. In this episode, Kyle Kondik discusses how echoes of the 1978 and 1982 midterm elections may be reverberating in 2022.
Colorful figures in a circle.
The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, looking to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best as we can, we work to 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.
In the last three weeks, the news has been dominated by the Trump Administration's elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. This writing presents our readers with just the facts on DEI.
QUESTION: What do the initials D, E, and I in DEI mean?
Diversity: This refers to the presence of differences within a given setting. It can include various dimensions such as race, ethnicity, gender, age, sexual orientation, disability, socioeconomic status, and more.
Equity: Equity is about ensuring fair treatment, opportunities, and advancement while striving to identify and eliminate barriers that have prevented the full participation of some groups. It involves leveling the playing field and addressing systemic inequities.
Inclusion: Inclusion refers to creating environments in which any individual or group can feel welcomed, respected, supported, and valued. It’s about ensuring that diverse individuals can fully participate in organizational and societal activities.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
QUESTION: Did DEI policies change under the Biden Administration?
TheBiden Administration made several changes to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies. One of the key changes was the Executive Order 13985, issued on Biden's first day in office, which aimed to advance racial equity and support for underserved communities through the federal government. This order led to the creation of Equity Action Plans by federal agencies to detail how they were furthering DEI initiatives.
QUESTION: Did President Trump sign an executive order ending DEI for the Federal Government?:
President Trump signed an executive order on January 22, 2025, to terminate DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs within the federal government. This order aimed to eliminate what the administration described as "illegal and immoral discrimination programs" and to ensure that federal employment practices, including hiring and promotions, were based solely on merit and individual performance, without considering DEI factors.
The order also directed federal agencies to combat DEI-related discrimination in the private sector and revoked previous executive orders that mandated affirmative action and other DEI initiatives.
QUESTION: Is there any evidence that Federal DEI practices or policies lowered standards?:
There's been a lot of debate around this topic. Critics, including former President Trump, have argued that DEI practices led to lowered standards, particularly in sectors like air traffic control. They claim that DEI initiatives resulted in hiring individuals who didn't meet the necessary qualifications, potentially compromising safety and efficiency.
However, supporters of DEI policies argue that these initiatives are designed to promote fairness and equal opportunity without compromising standards. They emphasize that DEI programs aim to ensure that all individuals, regardless of their background, have a fair chance at employment and advancement.
It's a contentious issue with strong opinions on both sides.
QUESTION: Does a diverse workforce increase productivity?
Research suggests that a diverse workforce can increase productivity. Here are a few key points:
However, it's important to note that the benefits of diversity are maximized when it is well-managed and when inclusive practices are in place to ensure that all employees feel supported and valued.
QUESTION: Which corporations have refused to eliminate DEI policies and which have rescinded DEI policies?
Several major corporations have recently taken different stances on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) policies. Here's a brief overview:
QUESTION: Which state governments have DEI hiring policies?
State governments have taken varied approaches to DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) hiring policies. Here's a brief overview:
The landscape is quite diverse, with some states doubling down on DEI efforts while others are scaling them back.
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
All data and information were obtained from Copilot, an AI-powered chatbot owned and operated by Microsoft Corporation.
People voting at a polling booth.
The results of the 2024 election should put to bed any doubts as to the power of independent voters to decide key elections. Independents accounted for 34% of voters in 2024, handing President Trump the margin of victory in every swing state race and making him only the second Republican to win the popular vote since 1988. The question now is whether Republicans will build bridges with independent voters and cement a generational winning coalition or squander the opportunity like the Democrats did with the independent-centric Obama coalition.
Almost as many independents came out to vote this past November as Republicans, more than the 31% of voters who said they were Democrats, and just slightly below the 35% of voters who said they were Republicans. In 2020, independents cast just 26% of the ballots nationwide. The President’s share of the independent vote went up 5% compared to the 2020 election when he lost the independent vote to former President Biden by a wide margin. It’s no coincidence that many of the key demographics that President Trump made gains with this election season—Latinos, Asians and African Americans—are also seeing historic levels of independent voter registration.
Don’t think that independent voters are now solidly with Republicans. A new report from Arizona State University found that independents were twice as likely as Republicans and Democrats to split their tickets between their presidential and Senate votes, with 10% of independents doing so nationwide. Independents are independent, and it's a mistake to assume that a vote for a party candidate erases that.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Over half of America’s young voters are now independent. Gallup's tracking of independent voters has consistently found them to be a larger demographic than either major party. And if you ask independents what they want, they are pretty clear that they want to vote, including in primary elections. But too many states have made it illegal for independents to vote in primaries. Committees of patriots in many states are working to change this.
The Democratic Party made clear this past year that they are firmly opposed to letting independents vote in primaries. They actively campaigned against ballot referenda in Arizona, Colorado, Washington, D.C., Nevada, and South Dakota that would have reformed the system and given independent voters the right to participate in primary elections. And 2024 was not an aberration. The Democratic Party has, for years, championed efforts to defeat primary election reform across the country.
Nowhere is this more stark than in New York. For independents like myself, the right to vote in New York more closely resembles an autocracy than any democracy. Over 3 million New Yorkers are independent, and independent New Yorkers impacted this year's elections in ways both parties are just beginning to appreciate. Yet, you wouldn’t know it because the state’s Democratic Party apparatus has systematically shut down any conversation or campaign over the last several decades that would let independent voters have an equal say in who gets elected. Meanwhile, the Democratic primary is the only election that matters in most parts of the state. It’s corrupt and it demands the President’s attention.
Will the Republican Party grab a historic opportunity to do things differently? Already, Republican state parties in Indiana and Texas have indicated their interest in closing their state’s primary elections and shutting independent voters out by introducing legislation in the current session. Republican state parties across much of the South have been toying with the prospect for several years. It’s a mistake.
President Trump and the Republican Party should do something simple but powerful: recognize that the largest group of voters in the country don’t want to join a political party. They want leadership and results. And they want to be able to vote in every election. Let them. The party that builds bridges with independent voters will rule our country for a generation.
Jeremy Gruber, JD is the SVP of Open Primaries, an election reform organization. He is the co-author ofLet All Voters Vote: Independents and the Expansion of Voting Rights in the United States.
The Idaho legislative session is scheduled to last through April 10.
Idaho lawmakers have introduced a slate of bills which would put up greater hurdles for passing voter-initiated ballot measures.
Legislation this session includes bills to increase the threshold for passage to 50%, allowing the governor to veto passed measures and proposes a constitutional amendment that would require signatures from six percent of voters in all 35 districts.
Sen. James Ruchti, D-Pocatello, assistant Senate minority leader, said the measures come after years of attacks from Republicans on voter initiatives.
"They constantly live in fear that the people will tire of the Legislature not listening to them and will use the initiative process to get done that which the Legislature should do," Ruchti asserted.
Ruchti noted one instance in which lawmakers did not listen to Idahoans was on Medicaid expansion. In 2018, 60% of voters approved a measure to expand the program. Lawmakers have introduced a bill this session to repeal Medicaid expansion. Sponsors of ballot measure legislation argued out-of-state money drives the initiatives.
Rep. Bruce Skaug, R-Nampa, who sponsored some of the bills to increase initiative thresholds, said allowing the governor to veto measures would be similar to bills passed in the Legislature. He also contended it is "good protection for a misinformed electorate if they don't get the information like we get to have."
Ruchti countered lawmakers deal with people who have agendas.
"We are surrounded by special interest groups who are trying to get their particular bills passed and they use a variety of arguments, some of which are specious, some of which are accurate information," Ruchti observed. "It's just part of living in a democracy. So, the voters can figure this out, and they do."
Senate Joint Resolution 101 would make the signature-gathering process for voter initiatives harder, increasing the number of districts where six percent of voters have to sign from 18 to all 35. The resolution would need approval from voters to amend the constitution. Lawmakers proposed the amending resolution because in 2021, the Idaho Supreme Court blocked a similar bill, calling it unconstitutional.
Ruchti added attempts like this are disrupting grassroots efforts.
"The signature gatherers, for example, as a general rule and maybe even almost entirely are volunteers who are just taking their time to do something that they feel is really important," Ruchti pointed out. "That certainly was the way it was with Medicaid expansion."
ID lawmakers seek to increase barriers for passing voter initiatives was first published on Public News Service, and was republished with permission.
Eric Tegethoff is a journalist covering the Northwest for Public News Service.
The Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland releases a new survey, fielded February 6-7, 2025, with a representative sample of 1,160 adults nationwide.
An overwhelming majority of 89% of Americans say the U.S. should spend at least one percent of the federal budget on foreign aid—the current amount the U.S. spends on aid. This includes 84% of Republicans and 94% of Democrats.
Fifty-eight percent oppose abolishing the U.S. Agency for International Development and folding its functions into the State Department, including 77% of Democrats and 62% of independents. But 60% of Republicans favor the move.
These are some of the findings of a new survey by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland, fielded February 6-7, 2025, with a representative sample of 1,160 adults nationwide.
Americans greatly overestimate the amount spent on U.S. foreign aid. The majority of respondents estimate that at least 20 percent of the budget goes to foreign aid. Asked what percentage of the federal budget should go to foreign aid, the majority says that it should be at least ten percent (Republicans said five percent, Democrats said ten percent, and independents said ten percent).
Director of the Program for Public Consultation Steven Kull comments, “Extreme overestimations of the amount of U.S. foreign aid have led some Americans in some polls to favor reductions from this assumed amount. But large majorities support the actual amount of U.S. aid.”
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Respondents evaluated spending on six foreign aid programs. For each one, they were informed of its key functions and annual spending and evaluated pro and con arguments. Majorities, nationwide, want to increase or keep funding the same for humanitarian relief (56%), economic development (56%), global health (64%), education (67%), the environment (65%), and Democracy and human rights (60%). Only 8-14% favor eliminating any of the programs. While a majority of Republicans favor cutting some programs, this includes 14-19% who favor cutting them “a little.” Less than half support cutting them “somewhat” (19-30%) or eliminating them (11-20%).
Arguments for and against foreign aid, in general, were evaluated before respondents made any spending recommendations for aid programs. The argument that did best overall focused on how aid “saves lives, alleviates suffering and hunger” and “helps communities recover.” Seventy-eight percent found this convincing, including 73% of Republicans and 87% of Democrats. The con arguments that focused on how “taking care of problems at home is more important” and that there is “waste and corruption” in foreign aid, were also found convincing by around three quarters. Over seven in ten also found the counter-argument that studies have found that claims of substantial waste and fraud are exaggerated as convincing.
“Support for the government providing foreign aid is rooted in moral concerns and beliefs that it is effective and serves U.S. interests,” commented Evan Charles Lewitus, Senior Research Analyst at PPC. “While concerns about waste and fraud in foreign aid resonate with many, their support for aid suggests they would rather try to fix the problems than cut spending.”
Respondents evaluated whether foreign aid should be distributed more through bilateral channels to specific countries, which currently makes up two thirds of aid, or more through multilateral institutions like the UN. Keeping the current balance is preferred by 39% of respondents (Republicans 34%, Democrats 46%). A third of respondents support increasing the amount channeled bilaterally (36% of Republicans, 32% of Democrats), and 26% prefer shifting the balance to multilateral institutions.
The public also overestimates how much the U.S. spends on foreign aid, relative to other developed countries, as a percentage of their total economy. Compared to the average of developed countries, the U.S. spends less. Over six in ten Americans, however, believe the U.S. spends more, including 70% of Republicans and 59% of Democrats.
About the Survey
This public consultation survey was conducted by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland. Unlike standard polls, respondents in a public consultation survey go through an online “policymaking simulation” in which they are provided briefings and arguments for and against each policy. Content is reviewed by experts to ensure accuracy and balance. All Americans are invited to go through the same policymaking simulation as the survey sample.
The survey was fielded February 6-7, 2025 with 1,160 adults nationally at the University of Maryland’s School of Public Policy. Samples were obtained from multiple online opt-in panels, including Cint, Dynata and Prodege. Sample collection and quality control were managed by QuantifyAI under the direction of the Program for Public Consultation. Samples were pre-stratified and weighted by age, race, gender, education, income, marital status, and home ownership to match the general adult population. The survey was offered in both English and Spanish. The confidence interval is +/- 3.1%.
Foreign Aid Questionnaire with Toplines, Crosstabs, and Methodology
Steven Kull is program director of the Program for Public Consultation. Evan Charles Lewitus is a research analyst at Voice of the People. Evan Fehsenfeld is a Harrison Fellow and has taught at both the University of Maryland and George Washington University.
