AARP poll says older women’s vote a “Wild Card” in upcoming election

Pubished in RINewsToday on February 26, 2024.

According to a newly released AARP public opinion poll, women voters age 50 and older are the biggest wild card vote in the upcoming 2024 presidential election, divided almost evenly on their preferred presidential candidate. But these voters express common concerns about their financial wellbeing, political bickering and gridlock, and the overall future direction of the nation.

With woman voters politically split, Democratic and Republican political consultants will most certainly analyze the poll’s findings to the reshape their strategies to win the White House and take control of Congress. The national on-line survey was conducted Jan. 10–21, 2024, polling 2,001 likely women voters age 50 and over and it had a margin of error of plus or minus 3 percent.

AARP’s poll findings detailed in “2024 She’s the Difference: The Wildcard of the 2024 Election” released on Feb. 22, indicated that in head-to-head matchup, 43% of women age 50+ respondents said they would vote for Donald Trump in an election today, while 46% said Joe Biden. In a generic Congressional ballot, Republicans and Democrats are tied at 45%, say the researchers.

Conducted with national pollsters Kristen Soltis Anderson and Margie Omero, the AARP survey of the 2024 Likely Electorate, shows Biden does particularly well among women 65+, winning this group over Trump by a 7-point margin, while women aged 50-64 are more likely to say they are undecided (15%). However, overall, these voters are dissatisfied with the country’s political leaders, and nearly half (48%) are worried about the upcoming election. They are likely to feel they are not being heard by the country’s political leaders — 75% say politicians in Washington don’t listen to the views of people like them.

“Women aged 50 and over are one of the most consequential and influential voting groups in this election,” said Nancy LeaMond, AARP Executive Vice President and Chief Advocacy and Engagement Officer in a Feb. 22 statement announcing the release of the survey’s findings detailed in the 10-page report. “Women in this voting bloc are concerned about America’s future, their own financial security, wellbeing, and our nation’s political divisiveness. And yet, they are not a monolithic group. Candidates who want to win in 2024 should pay attention to the concerns they share, and the concerns that differ,” notes LeaMond.

During a press call scheduled after the release of AARP’s poll data, LeaMond reinforced the point that woman were fairly evenly divided by party and ideology, and they tend to fall more in the center than their male counterparts. She also emphasized that there’s bipartisan support for policies that help family caregivers, and said AARP plans to ask every candidate running for public office: “What’s your position on Social Security? And what’s your position on family caregiving?”

AARP’s survey found that women voters 50+ have serious worries about their financial security. When asked to choose the two biggest issues facing the nation today, cost of living tops their list, with 38% citing it a top issue, followed by immigration (32%), threats to democracy (20%), and political division (16%).

The survey’s findings also indicated that half (51%) say they are not confident they will be better off financially a year from now. Among those currently working, 54% don’t think they will have enough money to retire at the age they would like to. Finally, almost half (48%) say their own personal financial situation is falling short of what they expected at this point in their lives.

A large percentage of the survey respondents expressed their fears about the future of the nation. Seven-in-ten (70%) think the country is on the wrong track, and nearly half (47%) think America’s best days are behind us, while only 27% say the best days are ahead.

AARP’s survey also found that only 19% think the nation will become more stable in the year ahead, while 46% think it will become less so, citing government dysfunction resulting from political gridlock (63%), the economy (58%), political division and partisanship (55%), crime (55%), and the situation at the southern border (53%) as the top issues driving this instability.

Finally, the poll findings indicate that only 28% of women 50+ expect the economy to improve over the next year, while 42% expect the economy to get worse.

Many women 50+ respondents feel pulled by a wide range of demands, especially caregiving, and that their personal lives aren’t what they expected at this stage of their life. A third (32%) respondents say that their overall enjoyment in life falls short of what they expected. Many say they are stressed (34%) and worried (32%) when they were asked about how they feel about their life today.

Over seven-in-ten of the respondents noted they are currently a family caregiver (21%) or have been a caregiver (50%) to a parent, partner/spouse, or adult child. Among current unpaid caregivers, more than a third (36%) are also still working.

Across political affiliations, caregiving was viewed as a key political issue to be addressed inside the Beltway. Women voters overall (82%) and women voters 50+ (84%) overwhelmingly see a need for elected officials to provide more support for seniors and caregivers.

“Women aged 50 plus are not easy to pin down into a single stereotype,” said Kristen Soltis Anderson, founding partner, Echelon Insights. “We know they’re frustrated with the way things are going, don’t believe their voices are being heard, and are worried about the future of the country. Even when they say they feel satisfied with some things in their own lives, they remain very worried about cost of living and our nation’s deep political divisions,” she said.

“While women over 50 might be looking for more ways to stay connected compared to voters overall, they are more likely to be dissatisfied with the amount of time spent with family,” adds Margie Omero, principal at GBAO. “They are less likely to make their voices heard, and are also less likely to feel listened to. Given the size and importance of this group, political leaders should put in the work to stay attuned to these voters’ needs and how to best reach them,” said Margie Omero, principal at GBAO, she said.

Woman’s Political Clout Can Win Elections

According to AARP, women aged 50 and over are one of the largest, most reliable voting blocs. While U.S. Census Bureau data shows they are a little over one-quarter (25.5%) of the voting age population and 28% of registered voters, a study by Pew Research Center found that they casted one-third (33%) of ballots in the 2022 election.

Political insiders also know they are the largest bloc of swing voters. In 2022, AARP polling showed women 65+ in battleground Congressional districts moved from favoring Republican candidates by 2 points in July 2022, to favoring Democrats by 14 points in November 2022 – a 16-point shift that contributed to the narrowness of the Republican House majority.

According to Wendy J. Schiller, is a Professor of Political Science, Brown University and serves as a political analyst for WJAR10, the local NBC affiliate in Providence and WPRO radio, the gender gap in presidential elections still persists giving Democrats an average 9% advantage over Republicans among all women, but when you break that down, you do see some differences across age and other demographics. Women of color, especially Black women, tend to vote overwhelmingly for Democrats, and white women are more evenly divided according to their geography, religion, and marital status. “In recent years, suburban women voters who used to be more typically Republican have shifted their votes to a slight majority for the Democrats, starting with Obama and continuing through Trump and Biden. Voters over 65 have the highest turnout at about 72% so winning or losing women in this age category can be crucial to an election outcome,” she says.

Schiller notes that abortion access is an issue that resonates with women of all ages, and that has become a much larger issue since the Dobbs decision overturning Roe v. Wade. “The immediate reaction among the GOP controlled states was to severely restrict abortion access to 6 weeks, although those efforts have been mitigated by state ballot initiatives in states like Ohio and Kansas. Now we see with Alabama how far-reaching Dobbs is in terms of things related to defining life; the super majority Republican legislature of Alabama is now scrambling to preserve the right to fertility treatments whose aim is to create life, not end it,” she says.

“And Donald Trump is expected to announce his support for a national ban on abortion after 16 weeks, which is a political move designed to both preserve the right to abortion but also limit it nationally in states where that time frame is longer (20 weeks). These moves are a clear sign that the GOP knows there may be an electoral cost they will pay for Dobbs in 2024, especially among women,” adds Schiller.

“The lingering presence of Nikki Haley as a female challenger to Donald Trump in the GOP presidential primary has clearly irritated him, and we will see what his victory speech in South Carolina does to his standing with women in the next national polls that come out,” says Schiller.

Women and Aging Issues

Recent polling indicating that women — especially women over 50 — are concerned about their financial future this election year is not surprising,” says Max Richman, President and CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare. “We have long advocated for improved retirement security for women,” he says.

“On average, women do not enjoy the same level of retirement security as men, due to historic wage inequality and uncompensated time off caring for family members. Women also tend to live longer than men, meaning that their retirement income and savings must be stretched over a longer period of time, Richtman notes.

According to Richtman, this election is crucial for women’s retirement security, because the two parties’ approaches to Social Security are so divergent. President Biden has called on Congress to expand and strengthen Social Security. “Congressional Democrats have introduced legislation to enhance the program, which would boost benefits for all retirees, with special increases for widows and widowers and beneficiaries over 85 years of age,” he says, noting that Democrats have also proposed new caregiver credits that would increase Social Security benefits for those who take time out of the workforce to care for loved ones.

“On the other side of the aisle, Republicans have repeatedly proposed to cut Social Security by raising the retirement age, means testing, and adopting a more miserly COLA formula — all of which would be detrimental to women in retirement. After years of financial inequality, it is time for women to enjoy a level of retirement security on par with men. And this year, the choice for women at the ballot box could not be clearer,” states Richtman.

According to Well-Know Rhode Island political analyst, Joe Fleming, confirms that female voters will be key in this election. In 2020 Biden did extremely well with this group and retain them to win re-election. “There is no question that suburban women will be key, if Biden is to win the suburbs he must have support from these female voters,” says Fleming.

“The issue of abortion plays very well with female voters and does not have a personal impact on female voters over 50 but, I believe it still has a major impact on them. We have seen this in states that had abortion questions on the ballot and in some red state” notes Fleming.

However, Fleming warns that one must keep in mind that the election is many months away and voters opinions change over time.

American Political Scientist Darrell M.West agrees with Fleming assessment that woman voters will be key in electing the next president. “Women will make up a majority of the electorate in 2024 so will play an outsized role in who wins. Suburban women will be especially crucial because they have been swing voters in recent elections. Whoever wins that group likely will be the next president,” says Darrell West, Senior Fellow in the Center for Technology Innovation of the Governance Studies program at the Washington, D.C.-based Brookings Institute. His research focuses on media, technology, and elections.

To view the full poll findings, visit www.aarp.org/shesthedifference.

To access all of Herb’s articles published by RINewstoday, go to https://rinewstoday.com/herb-weiss/

GOP Trial Balloon Called “Trojan Horse”

Published in Woonsocket Call on April 16, 2017

In previous years, the GOP leadership, now controlling both chambers of Congress, pushed legislative proposals to eliminate Social Security and Medicare by privatizing these programs. These attempts were clearly visible for all to see. But, we are in new political times with a GOP White House seeking the destruction of these programs, too, but as some say through the back door.

According to an Associated Press story, published on April 10, 2017, as the Trump Administration begins to learn from its failed attempt to repeal Obamacare, tax code reform is now on its agenda. One trial balloon, being floated by a GOP lobbyist with close ties to the Trump Administration, would eliminate the mandated payroll tax that all American workers pay to fund Social Security and Medicare.

“This approach would give a worker earning $60,000 a year an additional $3,720 in take-home pay, a possible win that lawmakers could highlight back in their districts even though it would involve changing the funding mechanism for Social Security, according to a lobbyist, who asked for anonymity to discuss the proposal without disrupting early negotiations,” says Writers Josh Boak and Stephen Ohlemacher in their Associated Press story.

Currently, about 163 million American workers pay Social Security taxes and 59 million retired and/or disabled persons collect monthly benefits. About one family in four receive income from Social Security. The nation’s social insurance and welfare program is a “pay-as-you-go-program.” Today’s workers support the program by paying their taxes into the program and the money flows back out to the program’s current beneficiaries.

GOP Stealth Attack on Social Security

Responding to the GOP trial balloon, in her blog post published last Tuesday on the Huffington Post, a politically liberal American online news web site, Contributor Nancy Altman, President of Social Security Works called the GOP trial balloon “a Trojan horse”, noting that “It appears to be a gift, in the form of middle class tax relief, but would, if enacted, lead to the destruction of working Americans’ fundamental economic security.”

If President Trump proposes “the Trojan horse, it would be the newest shot in the ongoing Republican war against Social Security. That war has failed so far. The American people overwhelmingly support Social Security because they appreciate that it provides working families with basic economic security when wages are lost as the result of death, disability, or old age. And it does so extremely efficiently, securely, fairly, and universally,” says Altman in her April 11, 2017 blog post.

According to Altman’s blog posting, after Trump and GOP lawmaker have suffered legislative defeats in their “frontal attacks” against Social Security to eliminate the programs “it appears they are contemplating a “stealth attack instead.” She noted, “In the 1980s, Republicans, who had long tried but failed to cut government programs directly, discovered a new tactic. They realized that they could undermine government and eventually force cuts to spending by cutting taxes and, in their words, starve the beast. Now, Trump is making plans to use that same tactic against Social Security.”

“Not only would the Trump proposal starve Social Security of dedicated revenue, it would ultimately destroy it. Social Security is not a government handout. It is wage insurance that the American people earn, as part of their compensation, and, indeed, pay for with deductions from their pay,” observed Altman.

Altman warns that GOP lobbyist’s proposal to eliminate the payroll tax to fund Social Security is consistent with Trump’s previous actions. “No one should be fooled by Trump’s campaign promise not to cut Social Security. Before he became a candidate, he called it a Ponzi scheme and advocated privatizing it. He chose, as his vice president, Mike Pence, who complained that the Bush privatization proposal didn’t go far enough, fast enough. As President, he has chosen a staunch opponent of Social Security, Mick Muvaney, as his budget director, and another staunch opponent, Tom Price, as Secretary of Health and Human Services (one of Social Security’s trustees.), she said.

In an email urging recipients to sign a petition to protect Social Security’s funding [the payroll tax], Michael Phelan, Deputy Director of Social Security Works noted, “For decades, Republicans in Washington and Wall Street bankers have told us that Social Security is going broke―even though Social Security has a $2.8 trillion surplus and can pay out 100% of benefits for the next 17 years and over 75% of benefits owed after that.” He warns the “Republican’s tax plans might be a self-fulfilling prophecy. By starving Social Security of funding, they could finally receive their wish―replacing Social Security’s guaranteed benefit with unstable Wall Street retirement plans.”

The “Great Wisdom” of a Payroll Contribution Tax

Max Richtman, President & CEO of the National Committee to Preserve Social Security and Medicare, says, “It’s no surprise that the GOP lobbyist who suggested this dangerous idea and remained anonymous. After all, who would want to own up to an idea that would trigger the collapse of the most successful government program in U.S. history?”

Richtman adds, “Peddling this kind of scheme reminds me of President George W. Bush’s 2005 privatization proposal. Only in this case, the risk factor shifts from the uncertainty of Wall Street to benefit cuts that will almost certainly occur when Social Security is forced to compete for government funding with other discretionary programs. There was great wisdom in President Roosevelt’s plan for funding Social Security through a dedicated payroll tax. As President Roosevelt said, ‘We put those payroll contributions there to give the contributors a legal, moral and political right to collect their pensions…No damn politician can ever scrap my social security program.”

Darrell West, Vice President and Director of Governance Studies at the Washington, D.C.-based the Brookings Institution, sees an uphill battle to formalize the tax policy to eliminate the payroll contribution to fund Social Security. “I don’t think Trump will be able to eliminate or reduce the Social Security tax because of its dire consequences for the program itself. The program is very popular with the general public and many recipients count it as their sole support. Republicans will get killed if they try to do this. It is not a viable option now or anytime in the near future.”

When Trump releases his tax code reform proposal, aging advocates must remember that the devil is in the details. Read the proposal thoroughly with a fine-tooth comb

Gubernatorial Candidates Go Negative to Get Votes

Published in Pawtucket Times, August 22, 2014

With less than three weeks before the September 9th Democratic primary, gubernatorial candidates are working overtime to get their political message out by mailed campaign literature and bombarding the airways with their 30 second commercials and at debates.

As primary day quickly approaches, political new comer Clay Pell is staying on message in his campaign literature and television ads, claiming he has a “real plan” to fix Rhode Island’s problems, even claiming that he will bring a “real plan” and a “fresh perspective” to the Governor’s Office if he is elected. On the other hand, Mayor Angel Taveras and General Treasurer Gina Raimondo duke it out to take the lead. Taveras even takes pop shots at Pell as more voters begin to support him.

From the start, Businessman Ken Block and Cranston Mayor Allan Fung took off their gloves and began negatively blasting teach other in their campaign literature, TV ads and even at debates. Block was not a real Republican who had voted for Democratic President Barack Obama, he even supported his new ObamaCare program. On the other hand, Block went after Fung’s handling of Cranston’s ticketgate, calling him a political insider.

Yes, as my good friend long-time Pawtucket resident Jon Anderson says, “it’s the silly season of politics.” Like it or not, negative campaigns are here to stay and they do work, say political pundits

Poll Numbers Shifting

Just as summer began, Democratic and Republican gubernatorial candidates began to get negative and the numbers began to shift.

According to an exclusive WPRI 12/Providence Journal poll, released two days ago, of 503 likely Rhode Island Democratic primary voters, Raimondo takes the lead at 32%, Taveras drops to 27%. Pell is closing in at 26%, the poll shows, conducted by Joe Fleming, of Fleming & Associates of Cumberland, Rhode Island. One percent of the voters give Todd Giroux their support. Only 13% of the respondents remain undecided.

Last May, a previous WPRI 12/Providence Journal poll showed a politically-unknown Pell had support of 12% of those polled. Huge infusions of his personal wealth on TV ad purchase and campaign outreach has ratcheted up his visibility. At that time, Taveras was in the lead with 33%, Raimondo at 29%. With a larger campaign war chest than the Mayor, she was able to chip away at his lead by focusing the voters on his City’s economic woes and spike in crime.

As to the Republican primary race, the universe of Republican voters is so small there are no public polls, says Chairman Mark Smiley, Rhode Island Republican Party. He notes that the Fung and Block campaigns are doing their own internal polling.

Negative Campaigning Works…

Negative campaigning works, says Wendy Schiller, Associate Professor of Political Science and Public Policy at Brown University. In his book, Defense of Negativity, Vanderbilt Professor John Greer found that “not only do negative ads work to undermine the opponent, they also convey information about candidates,” notes Schiller.

“Even when an ad is completely negative, it almost always contains some element of truth to it about the opponent’s record or positions, adds Schiller, a frequent guest of Rhode Island PBS’s “A Lively Experiment.”

Schiller gives her assessment of the Block-Fung race. “Because Ken Block was formerly a moderate, he has the most pressure to jump into his race with energy and aggression and undermine the perceived front runner Mayor Allan Fung,” she says, noting that he may have well been successful in doing that at a time when the police scandal in Cranston was unfolding and now more recently, with the filming of an expensive ad in Ohio instead of being created in Rhode Island

“Fung has fought back by criticizing Blocks proposal’s and his lack of elected experience, but his first negative ad on Blockheads was perceived to insult Block supporters more than Block himself, so they pulled it, notes Schiller.

As to the Taveras-Raimondo contest, Schiller believes the Mayor had to go negative against his opponent because she was criticizing him for higher taxes and the rising crime rate in Providence, noting that of these candidates went negative on Pell’s inexperience. It was a mistake because they did not want to give him status as a contender but it allowed him to shape his own reputation among voters with unchallenged TV ads, she says.

Schiller says that negative TV ads can backfire. “I think overly negative – or too much distortion of a record – can backfire more in Rhode Island because we are such a small state that most folks can spot an exaggeration when they see it,” she observes.

“We are already seeing Taveras go more negative on both Raimondo and Pell so expect to continue [in the upcoming weeks before the primary], adds Schiller. She predicts that the General Treasurer will “likely stay positive in effort to pull a few more voters from the undecided camps into her vote column. She says that Pell has responded to Taveras negative ads in a limited way, and expects him to stay above the negative fray in hopes of pulling votes from the other two Democratic candidates.

Can a political candidate win an election by not going negative? It depends on where you are in your campaign, says Schiller. For instance, a while back Raimondo went negative on Taveras, but only continues to do so in debates, not so much on TV ads. Pell thinks a positive strategy is also a winning strategy while Taveras is now on the attack. “We will just have to wait and see on primary night who wins,” she says.

Watching the Political Tumble from the Side Lines

From inside the Beltway, Darrell M. West, Ph.D., Vice President and Director of Governance Studies at the Brookings Institution, watches his former state’s gubernatorial races and gives this columnist his observations.

“The Ocean State’s GOP primary turned negative early in the campaign because it is only a two-person race. In this situation, once one candidate goes negative, the other person has to defend himself and go on the attack too,” says West, a former Brown University professor and a prominent Rhode Island political commentator, noting the complexity of negative advertising in three-person races. “If two candidates go negative, that sometimes benefits the third candidate who has stuck with a positive message,” he says.

West speculates as to Taveras’ use of negative TV ads. “Taveras has a problem on both flanks. Raimondo is more moderate while Pell is more progressive. So the Mayor went negative to prevent vote erosion on both sides of the political spectrum. His strategy hasn’t bought him much support and he has lost ground to Pell in the most recent poll, he says.

West agrees with Schiller that negative ads can backfire. “Negative ads can backfire if the candidate is seen as mean-spirited and overly negative. That can redound to the benefit of the candidate who has stayed positive,” he adds.

Look for more nasty TV ads in the upcoming weeks, says West. You often see more negativity as you get closer to election day. With the margin of victory very close among the Democratic candidates, that primary runs the risk of turning into a slugfest in its closing days,” he says.

Finally, West says that positive ads might push a political candidate to victory. “Candidates can win by staying positive in a three-way race. Lack of negativity becomes a distinguishing factor with the other two candidates, he notes.

Your Vote Counts

Historically, older voters from across the country have played a major role in electing political candidates because they consistently-voted in larger percentages than other age groups. The political fate of Rhode Island’s statewide and congressional elections and ballot initiatives may well rest on the shoulders of aging baby boomers and senior voters.

By now, the Ocean State’s political candidates have mailed campaign literature, debated, attended debates and gatherings, hoping to effectively deliver their political messages and ultimately influence their vote.

While negative ads may sway voters, take control of who you will vote for at the upcoming primary. Spend the next three weeks to read between the lines of campaign literature and negative ads, learning more about a candidate’s background and issues. You must separate political rhetoric and negative innuendoes from the substance of issues. Put time into determining who can best represent your interests.

If political candidates do not know the power of the educated voters, hopefully they will after the polls close at 8:00 p.m. on September 9th.

Herb Weiss, LRI ’12, is a Pawtucket-based writer who covers aging, health care and medical issues. He can be reached at hweissri@aol.com