The 114th Congress convenes next week—a regime change which could define the political climate for women leading up to 2016.

by Candace Mittel

illustration by Grace Molteni

A recent Huffington Post blog applauded women’s political success during November’s midterm elections. While noting the challenges still ahead (namely, full parity in Congress), blogger Elsie Owolo presented the top four November feats:

1. More than 100 women in the 114th Congress

2. More female Republican Senators than ever before (six)

3. More women in Senate leadership than ever before (18)

4. More minority women in Congress than ever before (18 African American women, nine Latina women, and five Asian/Pacific Islander American women)

Despite the positive looks of these four facts, other political analysts assessed the exact opposite. The election “wasn’t the feminist victory many had hoped for,” according to Jill Filipovic of Cosmopolitan, who cited dispiriting details buried beneath the hype: only four out of 15 women who ran for Senate won; the number of female Senators will remain stagnant next year (still 20 women; 80 men); and finally, perhaps most importantly, not all women in the headcount are, if you can believe it, actually champions of women. Can we group Senator-elects like Joni Ernst from Iowa (far-right, anti-abortion and anti-contraception) in the “triumph for women” category just because they are members of the female sex?

“While more female faces in office may help shift stereotypes about what authority looks like, electing politicians who don’t actually stand up for women’s rights, whether those politicians are male or female, is bad news for women,” Filipovic writes. A groundbreaking 21 women who align with the pro-life movement will be serving in the 114th Congress. This figure, of course, didn’t make it into Owolo’s top four “amazing” November accomplishments for women in politics.

When it comes to women’s rights issues such as equal pay, contraceptive insurance, reproductive choices, and minimum wage (significant for women given that they make up two-thirds of minimum wage workers), it’s not the gender of the politicians that matters; it’s the principles and party lines. As Hillary Clinton articulated to voters in Iowa before midterms: “It’s not enough to be a woman. You have to be committed to expand rights and opportunities for all women.” Now, with a Republican-controlled Congress, women’s rights agenda is not expected to advance, whether there are more women in Congress or not.

The most pressing question then remains: what does November mean for women’s health and rights in 2016? One would think that the GOP midterm win would be a sound predictor for the presidential elections in 2016, but data suggests otherwise. That’s because those who voted in November and those who will vote in 2016 constitute two different populations.

Only 13 percent of voters this midterm were younger than 30 years old, compared to 19 percent of 2012’s presidential electorate, and we can expect a similar percentage again in presidential year 2016. The predicted increase is significant since young people supported the Democratic Party this year by a 10-point margin (54 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds); they just didn’t turn up in masses.

For example, in North Carolina, young people supported Kay Hagan, a strong advocate of abortion rights for women who voted against a congressional plan to defund Planned Parenthood, by a 14-point margin, but they made up just 12 percent of NC voters. In Iowa, young voters supported women’s rights advocate Bruce Braley over “women’s health chump Joni Ernst” by a 6-point margin, but they made up just 12 percent of the electorate.

In addition to young people, women and minorities will also be crucial for 2016, and it doesn’t seem that Republicans made headway among these populations in the midterms. In what was the lowest-turnout election (just 37 percent of eligible voters) since 1942 (when WWII soldiers couldn’t vote), men, per usual, favored Republicans (this time by a 16-point margin), and women still favored Democrats (by a 4-point margin). The GOP midterm success, then, can be attributed to a simple sociological rule: voters in midterms are more white, more conservative, wealthier and older than voters in presidential years.

Those who are unaware of (or unwilling to accept) this sociological rule, however, may extrapolate that GOP midterm success means general Republican success and headway among American citizens, particularly women. It’s an easy mistake to make when you see the numbers out of context. For example, women made up 53 percent of voters in the GOP victory state of North Carolina, a seemingly promising statistic, yet 42 percent of those women voted for Senator-elect Thom Tillis, not exactly the women’s health champion we’re looking for (remember #MotorcycleVagina, anyone?) In Iowa, Joni Ernst broke even with 51 percent of women voters, and in Kentucky, men slightly outnumbered women (51 percent versus 49 percent), but both favored Senator Mitch McConnell, who vows to push legislation limiting a woman’s right to have an abortion, by 25 and three points, respectively.

In states where reproductive issues loomed largest, such as in the competitive Colorado Senate race, Democrats overestimated the female Democratic vote. Democrat Mark Udall (dubbed “Mark Uterus” by his critics for placing too much campaign energy on abortion and contraception) won the female vote by an eight-point margin, but it was not enough to seal the win (he lost to Republican Cory Gardner by two points).

Perhaps most startling of all, women in Virginia favored Republican congressional candidate Barbara Comstock (who wants to overturn Roe v. Wade and voted in the state legislature for transvaginal ultrasounds before abortions) by a whopping 16 points, in spite of Democratic opponent John W. Foust’s targeted efforts to win the female vote.

It’s tempting to read these statistics as signs of Republican accomplishment in appealing to women. But remember that even women are not exempt from the midterm rule. These women were more white, more conservative, wealthier and older than the female electorate is expected to be in presidential year 2016. These women, most of whom are married, tend to vote Republican, whereas many unmarried women, one of the Democrats’ most dependable constituencies, do not vote in midterms (roughly one-in-three unmarried women stay home), along with other base Democratic voters such as African Americans, Latinos, and young people.

Taking all of these populations who were underrepresented in November into account, Democrats are predicted to have a seven-point advantage in 2016. The number of married female voters is also expected to decline in 2016, and there is evidence that the number of unmarried female voters is increasing. And unmarried women are good news for women’s rights in this country.

[hr style=”striped”]

Candace Mittel is a recent graduate of Northwestern University where she studied Mathematics, Jewish Studies and Creative Writing Nonfiction (and no, they are not connected, but she’s open to suggestions). She currently lives in Chicago and teaches/encourages students to love math. Candace enjoys listening/singing to the Les Mis soundtrack and eating a superbly ripe avocado or mango. Read more of her feature work for The Riveter here and see more of her writing on her website Jerusalem Medley.

Grace Molteni is a Midwest born and raised designer, illustrator, and self-proclaimed bibliophile, currently calling Chicago home. For more musings, work, or just to say hey check her out on Instagram or at her personal website.