Tuesday night was a tough one. I expected Republicans to lose ground, given the usual midterm pattern, but I didn’t think the results would be quite so rough.
Still, amid the Democratic wins, voters sent a message that may complicate the party’s reading of its mandate. Electing Democrats doesn’t necessarily mean Americans have embraced the progressive agenda on every cultural issue.
On women’s sports, in particular, voters were remarkably consistent: they supported measures aimed at keeping athletic competition for girls and women based on biological sex.
Those measures passed in Arizona, Colorado, Nebraska and Washington. Colorado and Washington are reliably Democratic states, and their leaders have often supported progressive gender policies. Yet voters there backed protections for female athletes.
That seems hard to dismiss. The same electorate that gave Democrats political victories also rejected a position central to the modern progressive movement.
For years, Democrats and their allies have portrayed support for protecting women’s sports as extreme or hateful. I’ve heard versions of that accusation myself. We’ve been told that recognizing biological differences is transphobic, that girls who object to sharing locker rooms or competing against male athletes are at fault, and that inclusion should take priority even when fairness and safety are at stake.
I know what can happen when someone challenges that view. I’ve also seen female athletes lose opportunities, face public mockery and feel pressure to stay quiet when all they’re asking for is a fair chance to compete.
Politicians, universities and sports organizations have spent years trying to explain why women should be expected to give up opportunities in the name of inclusion. Voters have now offered a clear response, including in states that are not conservative strongholds.
Colorado is one example. Opponents of the girls’ sports measure reportedly raised about $4 million, with major support from unions and progressive groups, including Planned Parenthood. Supporters raised around $200,000, much of it through grassroots efforts. Despite that nearly 20-to-1 spending gap, the measure passed.
Women’s sports protections are not a fringe concern confined to Republican voters. The issue crosses party lines, and those who have insisted otherwise should take the results seriously.
The shift is visible outside election results, too. WNBA player Sophie Cunningham drew attention after speaking publicly in support of protecting women’s sports. She didn’t apologize or disappear from public life. Instead, her profile grew, her social media following and engagement increased, and her merchandise became popular. Her Adidas shoes reportedly sold out soon after release.
On Halloween, I saw plenty of young girls wearing Cunningham jerseys and dressing up as her. The idea that voicing a widely held view about women’s sports will automatically end someone’s career seems less convincing than it once did.
For a long time, companies, celebrities and athletes were warned that stepping outside progressive orthodoxy could destroy their reputations. That threat appears to have lost some of its force. After an election night that gave conservatives plenty to think about, that change is worth noting.
But Republicans shouldn’t overlook the other message in Tuesday’s results: affordability is a serious concern. I think that was a major reason voters chose Democrats.
People are tired of working harder while feeling they can afford less. Grocery bills keep rising, gas costs require careful calculation, and owning a home can seem out of reach. Young people, especially, often feel as if the economy is working against them. They’re sometimes called lazy or entitled for saying so. Occasionally that criticism may fit, but often it doesn’t.
Americans may have short memories about how severe inflation became during the Biden administration. But telling a family that things were worse before won’t help with the next grocery bill. People vote based on the life they’re facing now, not just the economic figures politicians want them to recall.
When people feel financially cornered, broad promises of government help can sound appealing. That is part of socialism’s appeal, particularly for generations who may not have been taught much about its record. Nothing is truly free, of course. The cost eventually shows up in taxes, debt or fewer economic opportunities.
Still, Republicans would be making a mistake if they dismissed everyone worried about affordability as ignorant or entitled. I understand the frustration. Republicans should, too.
My concern is that Democrats may interpret their wins as approval for a much wider agenda: more diversity, equity and inclusion requirements, gender-transition policies for minors, access to girls’ locker rooms for boys, higher taxes, looser immigration policies, and ideological priorities that may not address the everyday concerns of families.
Those are not the same thing as a mandate to tackle the cost of living. Winning an election doesn’t mean voters signed on to every part of a party’s platform, or that they’ve abandoned their common sense. The ballot measures should be a warning against assuming otherwise.
They should also give Republican lawmakers in competitive states some confidence. In Pennsylvania, for example, legislation to protect women’s sports has faced substantial political resistance. Some Republicans have treated the issue as too dangerous to touch. The results in Colorado and Washington challenge that assumption. If protections can win support in states that usually elect Democrats, what should Republicans in swing states be afraid of?
Of course, a ballot victory doesn’t settle the matter. Colorado’s incoming Democratic governor, Phil Weiser, has suggested that the state’s transgender-related ballot measures could require changes through the legislature. In Maine, Secretary of State Shanna Bellows has resisted efforts to limit male participation in girls’ sports.
More legal challenges and political efforts to weaken these protections seem likely. But that only underlines the point: when voters get a direct say, the progressive establishment may not like the result. A party that says it stands up for democracy should respect the outcome, even when it’s inconvenient.
Democrats now have two years to show voters what their priorities look like in practice. If recent history is any guide, they may remind people why the party’s national agenda lost support in 2024. For some reason, this remains an issue on which they seem willing to spend considerable political capital.
Republicans have their own work to do. They need credible plans on affordability and should stop assuming that winning a cultural argument guarantees victory at the polls. It doesn’t. Voters can agree with a party on cultural questions and still vote against it if they feel their financial problems are being ignored. Tuesday showed that both things can be true at once.
Even so, I don’t see one disappointing election night as proof of a sweeping cultural reversal. I’ve spoken with parents, students and female athletes around the country, and I’ve watched the discussion change. People who once raised concerns quietly are more willing to voice them in public. They seem less intimidated by accusations, less willing to accept contradictions, and less interested in being lectured by institutions that have lost their trust.
One election doesn’t erase that. Political power can change hands quickly; cultural convictions often take longer to shift.
Democrats won important races Tuesday, and Republicans should take the losses seriously, learn from them and adjust. But voters also made something clear: many still believe women and girls deserve athletic categories of their own, rather than having to compete against male athletes.
If progressives read Tuesday’s results as permission to revive every cultural fight voters have rejected in recent years, they may be in for an unpleasant surprise. Democrats won the election. That doesn’t mean they’ve won the culture.
