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.