Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Republicans could flip a number of Senate seats in 2024. Will women candidates benefit?

Republicans could flip a number of Senate seats in 2024. Will women candidates benefit?

US Vice President Kamala Harris ceremonially swears in US Senator Katie Britt, Republican of Alabama, for the 118th Congress in the Old Senate Chamber at the US Capitol in Washington, DC, January 3, 2023.

OLIVIER DOULIERY/AFP via Getty Images

Panetta is a political reporter with The 19th.

The ranks of Republican women in elected office have been growing: Groups including the Value In Electing Women (VIEW) PAC, Maggie’s List, Winning for Women and Elevate PAC, founded by Rep. Elise Stefanik, have successfully increased the number of GOP women and women of color serving in the U.S. House and state-level offices over the last several cycles.


Those groups now hope the party will learn from the success of women House candidates and take advantage of their most promising Senate map in years to elect more women to the chamber in 2024.

Experts and Republican women say the myriad pickup opportunities, combined with a more hands-on approach from Senate GOP leaders in primaries, present a unique opportunity for women to make progress in the upper chamber. But it’s not guaranteed that more involvement from party leaders would lead to more women getting elected in competitive races. In the sole 2024 primary race where the Senate GOP campaign arm has weighed in so far, the team backed a man candidate.

“This will be a moment for them to step up in those races because you’re talking about some really flippable places for Republicans,” Debbie Walsh, president of the Center for American Women and Politics (CAWP) at Rutgers University, said of Republican women’s groups. “These are places they think that Republicans think they have a real shot at — and the reality is that women might not rise up as the obvious candidates.”

The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC), the official campaign arm of Senate Republicans and its new chair Sen. Steve Daines, are breaking from a tradition of neutrality in primaries and taking a more hands-on role in influencing their outcomes after the party’s disappointing showing in 2022. Many Republican strategists, and those focused on electing more women, say it’s a welcome — and overdue — development — and one that could lead to more women in the Senate.

“I’ve been doing this a long time and I have no desire to win participation trophies,” said Julie Conway, executive director of VIEW PAC, the unofficial campaign arm of Republican women in Congress. “If the NRSC has to put their thumb on the scale to say, ‘Look, we’ve got a better candidate here, a candidate who is going to bring us success in November,’ I think it’s necessary.”

The NRSC did not respond to requests for comment on whether it would actively seek to recruit more women in 2024 races. But Conway said the NRSC’s new willingness to engage in primaries focusing on candidate quality could lead to more institutional support for GOP woman candidates.

Woman candidates are often successful, she said, because “most don’t get in unless there’s a path, and they’ve been very thoughtful about what that path is.”

“In the last three cycles, more than ever, a light switch flipped and people finally realized that, wow, Republican women, when they run, are really good candidates,” she said. “Because by the time they decide to become a candidate, they’ve already done all their own vetting.”

Democrats are defending 23 U.S. Senate seats in 2024, while the GOP is defending just 14, with its most vulnerable seats in Republican-leaning Florida and Texas.

Democrats will be fighting to hold on to seats in Ohio, Montana and West Virginia, three states won by former President Donald Trump, as well as in states narrowly won by President Joe Biden, including Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin. Sen. Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, elected as a Democrat in 2018, became an independent in December and is also up for reelection in 2024.

After a performance widely considered underwhelming in 2022, some GOP strategists say the NRSC should take a page from House Republicans, who picked up seats in 2020 and flipped the chamber in 2022 (though by a smaller margin than expected) largely by recruiting women, people of color and women of color who fit their districts.

“What has happened in the House over the last few cycles is that people finally realized that in a lot of these races, the woman is the better candidate,” Conway said.

There are now 33 Republican women in the House, more than in any Congress before, but they only make up about 15 percent of the Republican caucus, according to CAWP. Of the 25 women in the U.S. Senate, nine are Republican, including Sen. Katie Britt of Alabama, the only woman first elected to the chamber in 2022.

Republican women point to the election of Britt, an ex-chief of staff to former Sen. Richard Shelby, as a bright spot of the midterms. But the path to a statewide office is an uphill climb, especially for women who haven’t previously held elected positions or had outside support.

“There are so many qualified, excellent women that want to run and they just don’t know how, or don’t feel like they have the resources to do that,” said Tina Ramirez, a spokesperson for Maggie’s List, a grassroots organization that supports GOP women running for office.

Republican women lack an organization with the equivalent influence and financial firepower of a group like Emily’s List, which endorses Democratic women and spends tens of millions of dollars electing them through its affiliated super PAC.

“One of the biggest challenges they face is that they don’t have those kinds of outside party resources that Democratic women have,” Walsh said of Republican women. “That is really a hindrance for them.”

Walsh said the lack of institutional backing and fundraising networks to tap into creates a catch-22. Women have a higher bar than men to prove they can win in a general election but have fewer established pipelines and networks to raise money. And without raising money, women candidates aren’t perceived as electable.

Conway also said that Republican primary voters often instinctively perceive a woman candidate as more moderate than a man opponent.

“If all you saw were their résumés and they were 100 percent the same, people would assume that the male was more conservative,” she said. “And in a Republican primary, that might be all they need.”

The NRSC’s involvement in primaries could run in either direction for women and differ state by state.

Already, the committee indicated its support for Rep. Jim Banks in the open race to replace Republican Sen. Mike Braun of Indiana after another potential candidate, Mitch Daniels, took himself out of the running. Second-term Rep. Victoria Spartz, who had also considered a Senate run, announced she wouldn’t run for the Senate or for reelection to her House district after the NRSC backed Banks.

It’s unclear how much of Spartz’s decision to step aside, which she said was because of wanting to spend more time with her daughters, was spurred by the NRSC supporting Banks. A representative for Spartz did not respond to a request for comment.

While Banks has sewn up the GOP nomination in Indiana, the 2024 Senate fields are still taking shape in most other states. Nikki Snyder, a member of the state Education Board in Michigan, has jumped into the Republican primary for the open Senate seat in the state. Rep. Lisa McClain, state Sen. Ruth Johnson and 2022 gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon have also been floated as potential GOP contenders.

In addition to getting more women elected to the Senate in 2024, advocates for Republican women want to build a robust bench of women elected offices who will be at the top of the list when statewide offices come up for election.

“Success begets success and in the last few cycles especially, we’ve demonstrated that when women run, they win,” Conway said.

They’re also energized by the potential of Nikki Haley’s presidential run to inspire even more women candidates.

“There’s a learning curve — politics is nasty, and it’s complicated,” Conway said. “But I think as our bench gets deeper, we’re gonna see just more and more of this. And for me, it’s exciting.”

This article originally appeared in The 19th.

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