W&L Faculty Discuss the 2024 Presidential Election

W&L Faculty Discuss the 2024 Presidential Election

A faculty panel shared election predictions before offering their takeaways two weeks later.

(The panelists from left to right: Emeritus Professor Bob Strong, Associate Professor Kevin Finch, Professor of Law Maureen Edobor, and Professor Lucas Morel. | SOURCE: Daniel Straub ‘28)

“I used to think that I lived in the United States, but now I think I live in the margin of error,” remarked Emeritus Professor of Politics Robert Strong at the pre-presidential election panel held in the Stackhouse Theater on October 28, 2024.

The discussion began by examining the extremely close polling margin between Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. The polls indicated that either candidate could win any of the swing states given the tight margins. The polls showed both candidates neck-to-neck in several battleground states, which indicated that this year’s presidential election had a possibility of being one of the closest in American history.

Even though now-President-elect Trump swept the swing states, his relatively close victory in most swing states remained within the margin of error. 

Professor Strong continued by emphasizing three ways to view the election: issues, character, and the survival of American democracy. He predicted how voters will consider which candidate has better policies on primary issues like the economy, healthcare, and foreign policy. He also stressed that character would be an integral part of the election, with people questioning Vice President Harris’ background and qualifications and President Trump’s controversial rhetoric.

He then criticized the former President for allegedly inciting the January 6, 2021 capitol riots, describing the former President as demonstrating “that he could be a threat to the future of the American republic,” a threat Strong suggested “must be stopped.”

Professor Kevin Finch added that the election was also a “gender election,” since the pre-election polls showed that women tended to favor Vice President Harris while men tended to favor former President Trump. 

Professor Lucas Morel told the audience that the election was about “two things: faith in the Constitution and faith in the American people.” He stressed the importance of abiding by the Constitution no matter the election’s outcome and argued that political parties should represent the concerns of the American people, rather than undermining the trust that Americans should have in one another.

The panelists then explored the reasons that many voters are loyal to then-candidate Trump before discussing the future of the Republican party and MAGA movement. They raised serious concerns about what would happen after the election results, given the tension regarding this election. “I am less worried about who the public will vote for, what choice they will make, and more worried about that really difficult period when the outcome is uncertain,” Morel said. 

* * * * *

Fortunately, voters were spared the hand wringing of a protracted wait: news outlets called the election for Donald Trump in the early hours of November 6.

To break down the results and discuss the election’s takeaways, professors Strong, Finch, and Morel — now joined by law professor Maureen Edobor — gathered again on November 12.

They started the discussion by acknowledging how the election results were different from what the polling data had indicated. Strong believed the election “was a clear result” despite “the expectation … that the vote would be very close and perhaps even contested.”

He added that the result was not particularly surprising because of President Biden’s low approval ratings, paired with many Americans’ belief that the country was headed in the wrong direction. He claimed that these two factors taken together would inevitably cause the current party in power to lose, which occurred with the Democratic party in this election.

Finch added that a major takeaway was how the Republican Party won the popular vote, which had not happened for 20 years. He then went on to address the key demographic groups that shifted away from VP Harris and towards President Trump, specifically referencing the Latino men and women, African-American men, and Arab-Americans who voted for President Trump. 

Professor Edobor advised the audience to discover something outside of politics to find meaning and take joy in if the politics became overwhelming. She also expressed how interesting it was that certain progressive state ballot measures passed in states which had large voting margins for President Trump. She specifically cited how Missouri passed a ballot measure to protect abortion and Alaska expanded protections for minimum wage and sick leave. 

She also expressed “fear about the Constitution,” specifically questioning whether the Constitution would survive the next four years. Finally, she underscored potential concerns for the country because the Republican Party has control of multiple state legislatures, Congress, and the Presidency. 

Professor Morel focused his comments on the problems with the Democratic Party’s campaigning, specifically drawing comparisons to President Trump’s 2016 victory. He referenced how their campaign involved talking down to certain voter groups, arguing that shaming as a campaign strategy was not helpful.

He then discussed Columbia Professor Mark Lilla’s views on how “tacking to the extreme left is not a viable approach for the Democratic Party,” which Professor Morel stated, “is not an effective strategy for people who want to actually persuade people to vote for them.” 

He continued to discuss VP Harris’ political situation throughout the campaign, which he described as being “between two stools.” The first stool was tied to President Biden’s record, which made her a “de facto incumbent,” while the second was her efforts to bring about a “new generation of leadership.” He claimed that these two situations she was caught in were not exclusive to one another, which harmed her election prospects. Essentially, trying to distance herself from the unpopular President Biden whilst trying to establish herself as part of a new political generation did not turn out favorably for VP Harris.

The panelists then answered a variety of audience questions pertaining to topics such as the presidential incumbency advantage, split-ticket voting in certain states, polling differences, and forecasting the Trump presidency.

Edobor referenced the Republican dissociation from Project 2025, and how that rending “speaks to the fact that many of the policies that are written into the project are wildly unpopular.” She also predicted that “the size of the federal government will be reduced,” to which Morel commented how he thinks President Trump will try to “wreck the Department of Education.” 

In conclusion, the rhetoric difference between the two panels is a clear representation of the change since the election: the pre-election panel emphasized the closeness of the election and how uncertain the outcome would be, whereas the post-election panel reflected the surprise of a decisive GOP victory.