UB experts weigh in on presidential election

UB political science and law experts appeared before the news media Wednesday morning, providing insights about former President Donald Trump’s victory over Vice President Kamala Harris.

The faculty members — Manoj Mate, Jacob Neiheisel and Harvey Palmer — spoke at length about the presidential campaign, which included Trump surviving an assassin’s bullet and Harris being suddenly thrust into the campaign after President Joe Biden ended his re-election bid following a widely criticized summer debate performance.

“One of the things I study is campaigns. The physical infrastructure of the campaign. What campaigns do. Do they matter? And I think that one of the big storylines for me that’s jumping out is, are campaigns effective,” said Neiheisel, associate professor of political science. “And what is the role of campaigns … after a race like this, whereby all outward indications Harris did everything right, everything that a political scientist would tell her campaign to do. And at the same time, she ends up short. Not just somewhat short, but short looking like a bit of a statement.”

Commenting on how many election forecasts predicted a tight race, he added that “there might be something” that pollsters “are missing in terms of things that the Trump campaign may have done that didn’t get a lot of attention,” which in turn could prompt changes in future campaign strategies.

Palmer, associate professor of political science, studies elections, voting behavior and public opinion from American and comparative perspectives.

“The thing that wasn’t a surprise was, if you look at the exit polls and what people said mattered to them, traditionally the economy is the most important issue and it was the most important issue again,” he said. “And traditionally, those who say the economy is poor … they vote against the incumbent.”

The outsized role that economic anxiety, including inflation, played appears to have negated the projected gender divide that many polls predicted would result in a tight race due, in part, to women turning out at the polls to support Harris, he said.

Mate, a professor of law who studies constitutional law and has a PhD in political science, said messaging from the Harris campaign failed to persuade swing state voters.

“I think the economy, immigration and cultural issues were at front and center for many voters, and abortion wasn’t,” he said.

While Trump’s victory is clear, Mate cautioned that not all votes have been tallied and that the popular vote may indicate a closer race. He also called into question the electoral system which, he argued, can disenfranchise voters, especially Democratic voters, who live in states where the outcome of national elections like the presidency is a foregone conclusion.

“I think we need to take a hard look at our electoral system to think about how voter suppression impacts closer elections,” he said.

The professors also addressed a reporter’s question about what to expect once Trump takes office, noting that he has repeatedly expressed a desire to expand the powers of the presidency.

“It comes down to how far Republicans are willing to favor institutional changes that kind of go against a lot of our fundamental principles in America — freedom and liberty, right,” Palmer said. “I mean, if you start using the government to punish citizens, that sort of goes directly against that fundamental principle that, in the past, Republicans have claimed they were the champions of.”

Ultimately, Trump will need support from the Senate and House, which Republicans will likely control next year, and the Supreme Court, which has a conservative majority, Palmer said.

“The conditions could not be better for institutional change in line with what the president wants,” he added.