Stanford Scholars Discuss What’s at Stake in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election
Stanford Scholars Discuss What’s at Stake in the 2024 U.S. Presidential Election
In a panel moderated by Didi Kuo, Bruce Cain, Hakeem Jefferson, and Brandice Canes-Wrone discussed the structural features of American democracy and addressed the issues, strategies, and stakes central to November’s race.
Last week, the Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law (CDDRL) hosted a panel discussion on the 2024 U.S. Presidential election as part of the programming for its Fisher Family Summer Fellows Program on Democracy and Development — a three-week program for mid-career practitioners from countries in political transition who are working to advance democratic practices and enact economic and legal reform to promote human development. Didi Kuo, a Center Fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), moderated the panel which consisted of Bruce Cain (Charles Louis Ducommun Professor in the School of Humanities & Sciences, Director of the Bill Lane Center for the American West, and CDDRL affiliated faculty), Hakeem Jefferson (Assistant Professor of Political Science and CDDRL affiliated faculty), and Brandice Canes-Wrone (Professor of Political Science and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution).
The panelists began their election analysis with a discussion of the structural features of American democracy and then addressed the issues, strategies, and stakes central to November’s race.
Cain began his remarks by highlighting a longstanding and escalating concern about the American democratic structure: tension between electability and governance. Rather, that the negative partisanship necessary during the election process has proven incompatible with the bipartisan negotiations required to govern. This, coupled with campaign finance — which, among other things, has complicated the incentive and power structures of political parties — has fueled inefficiency and political frustration.
Jefferson argued that a persistent feature of American democracy is the influence of race on political outcomes. While various identities may shape Americans' political attitudes and behaviors, race, he contended, is unparalleled in its impact. As one example, Black Americans have long been "steadfast Democrats," while no Democratic Party nominee has received a majority of the white vote since 1964.
Referring to comparative politics scholarship, Jefferson noted that, in some ways, the Republican Party functions as an "ethnic party." He pointed out that Trump’s success in generating and consolidating his base is directly tied to white identity politics. Trump has relied on grievance politics to gain power, speaking to white, middle-class American voters who feel left behind and resentful of what they believe is a changing racial order. Positioning himself as their spokesman and defender, Trump attempts to reassure these voters that, if he returns to power, he will defend their place in America's racial hierarchy.
While Cain and Jefferson touched on American democracy’s organizing features, Canes-Wrone brought the conversation back to the current election cycle, highlighting prediction models and key issues. The polls, Canes-Wrone believes, are accurate, yet with such slim confidence intervals, the election is still too close to call.
Contrary to popular portrayal in the media, historical evidence suggests that bounces from the convention and vice presidential picks are rarely pivotal, if impactful at all. However, qualifies Canes-Wrone, this cycle is unprecedented, leaving an opportunity for a break in the trend.
Moving to discuss the issues, Canes-Wrone underscores that the candidates are following traditional political strategy — placing emphasis on the issues that favor them and de-emphasis on those that don’t. The Harris campaign has focused its efforts on abortion rights and threats to democracy, whereas Trump remains fixated on immigration and the economy. Unfortunately for Harris, post-COVID inflation and immigration remain the top issues, and her position is further complicated by the inability to heavily criticize her own administration.
To conclude their remarks, the panelists turned to the issue of gender: is the United States really ready to have a woman in the presidency? Canes-Wrone remarked that while survey data indicates that gender bias on the issue has diminished, it is not yet zero. In other political offices, women now win at equal rates to men, but with one caveat — far more expertise is required. There also appears to be far more sexism attached to executive offices, a reality Trump is likely to exploit. Perhaps luckily for Harris, there is one traditional argument the Republican nominee may have difficulty leveraging against her: it's not so easy to argue that a former prosecutor isn't tough on crime.