Their opinions, FWIW, on what will happen
Brown University
With Election Day approaching in early November, the race is
shaping up to be incredibly close as voters consider a range of major issues,
from reproductive health care and America’s role in quelling global conflict to
the economy and other topics at the forefront of election-related
discourse.
As voters ready to head to the polls — or engage in early
voting in many states — a selection of Brown University experts in political
science, environmental sciences, economics, artificial intelligence, and health
and medicine shared a variety of opinions on what Americans might expect on
this Election Day and beyond.
The panel of faculty experts
Mark Blyth, Director, Rhodes Center for International Economics and Finance, Professor of International Economics and International and Public Affairs
Kim Cobb, Director, Institute at Brown for Environment and Society, Professor of Environment and Society and Earth, Environmental and Planetary
Sciences
Christopher Rea, Assistant Professor of Sociology and International and Public Affairs
Wendy Schiller, Interim Director, Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs
Professor of Political Science
Katherine Tate, Professor of Political Science
Liz Tobin-Tyler, Associate Professor of Health Services, Policy and Practice, and of Family
Medicine
Suresh Venkatasubramanian, Interim Director, Data Science Institute, Professor of Data Science and Computer Science, and of Humanities
Marques Zarate, Assistant Professor of Political Science
On who will win the presidential election
Schiller: The election is a toss-up, but an uncertain election usually tends towards the “out” party. Even though Donald Trump has been elected president before, Kamala Harris is part of the incumbent administration, and so for that reason, I give a slight edge to Trump.
Tate: The election is too close to call. The country is really divided. Some feel that they still don’t know Vice President Harris that well. Trump is well known to voters, in contrast.
Blyth: I think it’s too close to say. By some
estimates, it’s going to be settled by the preferences of 150,000 very
different people in five states, or about 0.1% of the voting population, and no
one really knows what they want. Add to that the other unknown variable of
turnout, and we simply cannot know until it’s over. And once it’s over it will
not be over, as it will be contested until the last possible moment either
way.
On polling
Schiller: The polling in this election seems to
be capturing the extremely even division we have across the two major
parties. Pollsters have tried to make adjustments to their estimate of
likely voters, and we will find out whether these corrections worked or
not.
On how the outcome may affect access to reproductive health
care
Tobin-Tyler: The outcome of this election will
have profound consequences for women’s access to reproductive health care. The
differences between the candidates’ policies are vast. Harris would likely use
executive authority to expand access to reproductive health care. As vice
president, she was responsible for several initiatives related to reproductive
and maternal health, including improving access to health care and resources
for pregnant and postpartum women and addressing the maternal health crisis,
especially for Black women.
Having appointed three strongly anti-abortion justices to
the Supreme Court, former President Trump is responsible for having set in
motion the court’s overturning of Roe v. Wade, delegating authority
to the states to determine access to abortion. The consequences for women’s
access to life and health-saving reproductive health care have been stark, as
demonstrated by recent deaths of women in Georgia who were unable to access appropriate
care. Harris has been clear that restoring reproductive freedom, to the extent
possible through executive branch authority and in partnership with Congress,
will be a major priority if she is elected.
A Trump administration is unlikely to use federal authority
to challenge any state abortion law, as Trump has made it clear he believes
abortion laws are the purview of states. While Trump has suggested that he is
not in favor of a federal ban on abortion, his running mate J.D. Vance has
suggested that he favors a “national standard,” which would likely ban or
impose significant restrictions on access nationwide. Harris, on the other
hand, says she favors a federal law protecting abortion access based on the
framework set out in Roe v. Wade.
On the historical significance of the 2024 election
Schiller: If elected, it is highly likely
that Trump will govern in a more authoritarian fashion than any president in
modern times, and he will try to disregard the rule of law, especially given
that the current Supreme Court has given presidents immunity for actions taken
while president. We will have to see how Americans react to the changes
that would come in every corner of our democracy.
Tobin-Tyler: This election could not be more
important for the future of women’s rights. The differences in the visions for
the future of the country, and interpretation of the past, of the two campaigns
are stark. The ideology represented by the Trump-Vance campaign envisions a
return to a time when women’s roles were more circumscribed and they were
expected to sacrifice their freedoms and economic independence to fulfill their
role as mothers. Parts of the religious right are attacking not only access to
abortion, but also access to contraception as a way to reign in what some see
as too much sexual freedom for women. This vision has been reinforced by the
conservative majority of the Supreme Court, which insists that the Constitution
should be interpreted through the lens of “history and tradition” and the
original public meaning at the time of the country’s founding, a time when
women essentially had no rights. In recent cases, it has also signaled its
willingness to privilege religious rights over the rights of women and gender
minorities.
Reflective of this “take the country back” vision is an
unwillingness to acknowledge the very real challenges faced by women in 2024:
No federally mandated paid family leave, unaffordable and often low-quality
childcare, a stubborn pay gap, and a growing maternal health crisis,
exacerbated by inaccessible reproductive health care for many women, especially
low-income women and women of color.
The Harris campaign represents a completely different vision
of women’s roles and rights. If she wins, as the first woman president she will
exemplify what it means for women to have equal access to power. Her record as
vice president and her choice of Tim Walz, who as governor of Minnesota
successfully passed paid leave and childcare legislation, also demonstrates her
vision of what policies she believes can help to provide an even playing field
for women.
On how the economy will affect voters’ decisions
Blyth: If we are talking about the broad mass of
voters whose votes will absolutely not determine the election — say
Democratic voters in Massachusetts or Republican voters in Montana — then
the cost of living, especially the cost of housing, is a key issue.
Unfortunately, there is very little either candidate can do about these factors
in the short to medium run (build many more houses, break up concentrated
markets) and one of them seems to have little interest in either solution,
focusing instead on China and immigration as key themes. In terms of the less
than 1% of the population that will decide the election? That’s anyone’s guess.
Housing or immigration? Take your pick. And if the Middle East turmoil worsens
and that affects gas prices, that adds more uncertainty into the mix.
On the role of race
Tate: Trump has made race an issue in this
campaign. He accused Harris of only recently claiming to be Black. He has
falsely accused Haitian immigrants of eating family pets. He said he would
change Fort Liberty’s name back to its former Confederate name, Fort Bragg. He
has pledged to end DEI programs in the military and in federal offices. He has
also attacked Harris’ gender, calling her dumb. Harris has reacted by avoiding
any discussion of her race and gender. She generally has not commented on the historic
nature of this election, and the fact that she could become the nation’s first
Black South Asian female president. When asked directly about Trump’s comment
about her racial identity, she refused to answer, saying “next question.”
By injecting race into the campaign, Trump is appealing to
his base of racially conservative white voters. Political scientists have found
that whites who believe that Blacks don’t try hard enough and want special
favors (about 40% of the white population) greatly preferred Trump over Clinton
in 2016, and that whites who believe the same things about Latinos (i.e., they
don’t work hard) also preferred Trump. Trump has campaigned hard on stressing
that Latino immigrants bring crime and are violent. Some Blacks and Latinos
also believe that members of their community don’t work hard. These voters will
strongly back Trump. If Trump wins, it will be because of his exploitation of
America’s racial divisions.
Zarate: I expect that race will play a
significant role in voter behavior and affect the outcome of this election.
Research has found that white racial identity and white racial animus are
powerful predictors of support for Trump. Much of the Trump coalition is
predicated on stoking white racial animus, and this hasn’t changed during his
third campaign for president. If anything, with a woman of color as his
opponent, now this strategy becomes even stronger.
Although Harris’ status as a woman of color risks hurting
her electoral chances among racial conservatives, there is reason to believe it
will help her significantly among Democrats. Prior to Harris becoming the
Democratic nominee, there was a lack of enthusiasm surrounding the election.
This is no longer the case as evidenced by the Harris team’s fundraising
numbers. Although there are likely several factors contributing to this, we
have every reason to believe that Harris being a Black woman is part of it.
This will be important come time to count the votes. The 2020 election
underscored the importance of African American voters to Democrats, especially
when thinking about the surprising presidential and senatorial victories in
traditionally Republican Georgia.
On Black voter polling
Tate: Harris has won back most of the Black vote
that had eroded under Biden’s candidacy. Still, there are reportedly more
Blacks supporting Trump in 2024 than in 2020. I am not sure Trump in the end
will get a bump in Black support. I think Black dissatisfaction is there with
both Harris and Trump. Although Harris replaced Biden, the choice in 2024 seems
identical to the one in 2020 to dissatisfied Black voters. I think the turnout
among Blacks might be low. The Democratic Party has to work harder on securing
the support of young Black males.
On the role of gender
Tate: There are voters who won’t vote for Harris
because of her gender. Trump has tried to make her gender an issue, expressing
the opinion that world leaders won’t take Harris seriously as a president.
Harris has responded by avoiding talk about how her election can make history.
At the same time, the gender gap in 2024 is especially large. Trump has
alienated female voters by his abrasive language and aggression. The women’s
vote will be decisive this election. If Harris wins, it will because women elected
her.
On how artificial intelligence is affecting the election
Venkatasubramanian: The most significant way in
which AI is affecting the election is through the use of deepfakes and
misinformation. We’ve seen examples of this with robocalls during the New
Hampshire presidential primary encouraging people to stay home, and AI used to
generate fake images of immigrants for political ads. As the time for voting
draws nearer, it’s likely that there will be a slew of AI-generated
misinformation regarding where and how to vote, and I’m definitely concerned
that post-election arguments about the validity of the counts might be
contaminated by fake information generated with the help of AI tools.
On AI policy
Venkatasubramanian: Neither candidate has made
AI policy a strong part of their stump speeches. However, both candidates have
taken positions on AI policy broadly. The Republican National Committee, in
their election platform, has promised to repeal the Biden administration’s
executive order on AI — their argument is that they want to keep
business innovation uninhibited by regulation. Vice President Harris has in the
past come out firmly in favor of protecting people’s civil rights in the
context of AI deployment, but as a candidate she hasn’t made AI policy a focus
of her speeches and policy initiatives.
AI policy is going to be a very critical element of any
administration’s broader policy objectives, since it cuts across so many
sectors: the economy, international cooperation, trade, employment and so
on.
On the vice-presidential nominees’ role in the outcome
Schiller: To the extent that J.D. Vance was
considered a liability for Trump for his stated views on women and immigrants,
his strong performance in the vice-presidential debate reduced that liability,
so I do not see either one making a big difference in the outcome. This
appears to be a strong top-of-the-ticket contest.
On the role of climate in election-related discourse
Rae: There has been a shockingly low level of
discourse about climate in this election cycle. That is interesting relative to
the size of the problem and the level of challenges we face. The question is,
why? I think there are two parallel things that we need to think about
carefully to try to understand that phenomenon and the implications of those
patterns. The first is, on the Republican side, there’s a soft denialism or
just outright misinformation. On the Democratic side, there’s minimal engagement.
Not misinformation or disinformation, but a skirting of the issue. It comes up
occasionally, but it’s certainly not a central campaign plank that the
Harris-Walz campaign, or the Biden campaign before that, are trying to use to
win the election. I can only understand that as a strategic calculus that they
think will help them win. The question becomes, what will happen if either
candidate wins given the pattern of discourse that we’ve seen?
Cobb: In the campaigns, I’m seeing a lack of
leaning into climate resilience as an important aspect of climate action,
climate readiness and policymaking. Historically, there’s been a hyperfocus on
decarbonization as the climate problem and the climate solution, but these
recent hurricanes are reminding us very clearly that the resilience narrative
and the work of resilience needs to be centered in the discourse around climate
at every level, including at the national political level. To the extent that
that might depolarize, who knows? But it certainly can’t hurt to think about
that as an opportunity for bipartisan engagement and for surfacing more
opportunities to talk about climate policy.
On what voters should keep in mind about climate policy
Rae: The U.S. has been a laggard in climate
action and climate belief, and skepticism has remained strong in many places.
But that has changed tremendously over time. The denialism debate has sort of
lost ground, and the rhetoric has shifted to soft denialism in the form of
“solutions don’t work, they’re not appropriate” and so forth, which is very
different than “climate change is not a thing.” That is, on some level,
important progress. The ratio of Americans in the public who are concerned and
believe in climate change versus those who do not is five to one. That’s really
important for making political progress and building coalitions to push policy
solutions forward.
But because of the ways that votes are filtered through the
Electoral College, the distribution of those beliefs across states and
political jurisdictions and among constituencies that do or don’t have
political power is what matters for translating beliefs into action on a
national scale. We need to think not just about aggregate numbers but how those
numbers map onto the political terrain that we inhabit.
Cobb: The Inflation Reduction Act is a historic
piece of legislation that was passed several years ago by the Biden
administration and a bipartisan coalition in Congress and part of what I think
is important to keep in mind right now. I think it’s equally important to
remember that the investments that were made in the Inflation Reduction Act are
10-year investments that have only just begun, and in many cases, some of the
talking points that you’re very likely to hear over the next couple of weeks
are somewhat outdated. Whatever data we do have, which is scant and early in
terms of the outcomes from the Inflation Reduction Act, are pretty
overwhelmingly positive with regard to the private sector leaning in and taking
advantage of government subsidies and incentives to invest in our clean energy
economy. The return on investment is so far quite positive in terms of
stimulating growth in the solar battery and electric vehicle sectors. Other
investments take much longer to come to fruition. I think voters should keep in
mind that these were historic investments, not just in clean energy but in
resilience, and they should stay grounded in the most recent data.
On the potential for a contested election and political
unrest
Blyth: A contested election is absolutely
possible. Neither candidate will have a clear majority, and I think it will be
contested well past Dec. 17, when electors in each state meet to cast and
certify the electoral votes, and Dec. 25, the deadline for the votes to be
received.
Schiller: There is a recent history of both legal challenges and violence after the election was decided, so we should all be prepared for both scenarios.
Tate: If Trump loses, there will be lawsuits
over the balloting. Georgia issued a rule to hand-count their ballots, and this
new rule will cause delays in determining who won in Georgia. The Democratic
Party is suing to rescind the rule. Partisans, particularly Republicans, are
determined to fight if their party loses. A majority of Americans are concerned
about the integrity of the election process.
Final thoughts
Blyth: So much hinges on this election.
Everything from America’s commitment to decarbonization, NATO and Ukraine, to
the nature and functioning of the civil service and democracy itself. And yet
so few people will effectively decide its outcome. This is not what the
founders or anyone else intended.
Tate: This election is unlike 2008 when the U.S.
elected its first Black president. The partisan divide was less. Partisans will
be very unhappy if their party loses. There won’t be much of a honeymoon for
the candidate who wins.