Editor’s Note: See the News section recap covering this event as well
The University of Connecticut’s political science department held a debrief on the 2024 elections on Wednesday, Nov. 13, in Susan V. Herbst Hall. There was a roundtable discussion by several professors in the department covering energy policies, the courts, voting and more, with some light refreshments and pizza to lighten the mood.
First to speak was Lyle Scruggs, a UConn professor who covered the campaigns leading up to the election and why Kamala Harris lost the election. First off, he said her loss was too big for it to be blamed on one factor. One factor may be voters engaging in “blind retrospection,” where they blame incumbents for crises out of their control, like floods, draughts or shark attacks. Another was Joe Biden’s historic levels of disapproval at the end of his presidency and during his ensuing reelection campaign. A poll correctly predicted how all 50 states would go in the election using two variables: Biden’s favorability levels and economic fundamentals. The Democratic Party’s loss also continues a trend of incumbent governments in developed countries losing their reelection bids in 2024. In the United Kingdom, France, Netherlands and Japan, the incumbent governments were replaced, something that hasn’t happened in 100 years.
Inflation was a major issue that Harris’ campaign didn’t deal with. Scruggs said voters paid little attention to politics. If they saw that the economy was strong, they would vote for Harris; if not, they would vote for Donald Trump. Another poll asked voters if the country was in a recession the day before the election. Fifty-one percent of voters said yes, even though there are indications that’s not true. The Harris campaign also dealt with the fact that they couldn’t hold Trump accountable for the events on Jan. 6, 2021, as voters cared more about the economy, and as I learned later, had some differing opinions on that day than others.
Despite being largely unpopular during his first term, Trump remained popular among ardent supporters and has arguably gained a larger following since. Voters may have nostalgia over how cheap items were under Trump’s term than Biden’s. Scruggs emphasized that Trump is more popular than his policies. Researchers showed blind policies to voters, asking them if they would support it. Half of Trump’s policies didn’t have majority support, compared to just two of Harris’. This is also evident in senate races where people voted split ticket, backing Trump for president but voting for Democratic candidates in Senate races.
In some closing statements, Scruggs did say the Democrats could still regain seats in 2026, as by then, people may be reminded of why they dislike Trump. To quote Scruggs, “opinion tends to be thermostatic.”
Next to speak was department head Oksan Bayulgen, who discussed future energy policy under Trump. She said the election would be a blow to climate activism. Trump frequently refers to oil and gas as “liquid gold.” According to one of his aides, “we’ll look at what Biden did and put a NOT in front of it.” With Trump’s election, the U.S. is likely to withdraw from the Paris Accords, which is the main topic at COP29 (which is currently being held in Azerbaijan). Trump may also make it easier to drill on federal lands and water, while also ending Biden’s pause on building natural gas terminals. Trump will also try to gut the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Trump hopes to “reshape the agency” by appointing a new EPA head, former congressman Lee Zeldin, who has little environmental credentials, and move their headquarters away from Washington, D.C. In addition, Trump may scrap the environmental justice agenda, which ensures underserved communities get at least 40 percent of clean energy development and revoke the waiver which allows states to enact tighter environmental regulations than the federal government.
In response to Trump’s election, the Biden Administration is “Trump-proofing” their environmental legislation, according to Bayulgen. They’re awarding any remaining grant money they have, rushing environmental legislation and the EPA announced a methane fee. They are also expected to announce pollution restrictions. It may be in vain, as any legislation can be revoked 60 days after it is enacted. In his first term, Trump dismantled major environmental policies enacted by Barack Obama, opened 10 million acres of land for drilling and stripped protection for endangered species.
Bayulgen said she is worried about future energy policy because we don’t have any more time. She emphasized the need to reduce emissions to 50 percent of 2005 levels (Biden was on track for 40 percent with his policies). But Trump’s future policies could put four billion tons of greenhouse gases back up into the atmosphere.
Bayulgen said, “the green revolution is now blue and red,” which can make it harder for Trump to gut the EPA, as fellow Republicans may not want to lose funding. Bayulgen also told us the Paris Accords are bigger than any individual country, and on the international level, many people are invested in fighting climate change.
Professor Emeritus Ronald Schurin asked if there are enough establishment Republicans to oppose Trump, as the party has gained majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives, and the party has become dominated by Trump loyalists in recent years. According to Schurin, these next four years will be a big test of whether or not our political institutions can withstand Trump again.
Denise Merrill, who formerly served as Connecticut Secretary of the State, talked about elections in general. Leading up to the election, Merrill predicted that violence may arise at polling stations around the nation because of what people have seen on social media and Jan. 6, yet no major stories about violence at polling stations arose after the election, possibly because the candidate who advocated for this violence won out in the end.
Merrill showed poll data that showed democracy was the main concern among voters, but these voters had a different opinion of democracy. Take the events of Jan. 6, 2021. Some voters thought it was scary such an insurrection could happen. Others are happy that people are able to protest alleged voter fraud. For these people, democracy means the ability to stand up for their beliefs.
The belief in illegitimate elections is at the center of all this. Merril concluded by expressing her concerns about state legislature against a Trump presidency, as programs like Medicaid and Social Security are poised to receive cuts. It’s up to the state to make up the windfall.
Kimberly Bergendahl next discussed the effects this would have on the court system. She first states that the United States Supreme Court is unlikely to change since there is already a 6-3 conservative majority. Sonia Sotomayor, who is 70 years old and one of the three judges on the court’s liberal bloc, has been asked not to step down as to not give Trump another nomination into a court that already has three of his appointees.
There is also the question of whether Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas could step down, as they are 74 and 76 years old, respectively. Bergendahl drew similarities between Trump’s presidency and that of Franklin D. Roosevelt, because of the potential Trump has to pack the Supreme Court with judges, much like Roosevelt did in the inter-war period.
Bergendahl emphasized the importance of the lower courts as well, as they may carry more influence because most cases end at their levels due to the selectivity of the Supreme Court. She talked about the limited success Biden had in getting his appointees’ approval to serve in these courts. Of his 47 district and appellate judge nominations, 17 were approved, while the other 30 are being held up. She said one method Biden could use is a “blue slip,” where home-state senators give approval on a judge nominee to get them the job. It was a method Biden used when he was the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee back in the 1980s and 1990s; although, the future chair of the judiciary may want to end this practice.
Bergendahl also mentioned some possible names for future Supreme Court judges if Alito, Thomas, Sotomayor or someone else steps down. They could be Matthew Kacsmaryk, a district judge in Texas who favors Republican policies, or Kathryn Mizelle, a district judge in Florida who had struck down a mask mandate in 2022. Both were appointed by Trump during his first term.
Beth Ginsberg, an associate professor at UConn Stamford, shared her thoughts on voting as well. She shared breakdowns of all the voting categories and who voted for whom. The main takeaway was that Harris’ voting results were like those of Hillary Clinton in 2016, as both women lagged behind the previous Democratic candidates’ voter shares. Apart from the LGBTQ+ vote, Harris trailed behind what Biden was able to get four years ago in all other voting categories. Ginsberg implored that the Democratic party should “play the long game” like the Republican Party has, instead of looking at the next midterms.
Scruggs got the mic back for closing statements, which were quite pessimistic. He talked about Trump’s planned policies to kickstart economic growth. He started by saying that although this year the economy looks good, there was low inflation, low unemployment and the Federal Reserve Board lowered interest rates for the first time in years. The high inflation and recession brought on by the pandemic made people distrustful of Biden. Because Trump says he will lower the inflation brought on by Biden, people engaged in a blind retrospective of Biden’s policies and voted for Trump instead.
Scruggs pointed out that due to lower inflation, Trump said he would raise tariffs on imports, but unbeknownst to most voters, importers will attach that cost to their products, meaning that American customers and companies will have to pay for these increased tariffs and inflation may rise. Scruggs explained how all of this is indicative of a dictator’s mentality, and how countries like Argentina, Türkiye and Hungary are facing financial crises. Scruggs tells us that to offset this, the government may have to cut expenses. They won’t cut the defense budget, but they will cut social security. Some bipartisanship support may prevent these policies from happening if a simple majority is needed for them, but it may be hard to do so if methods like the filibuster aren’t possible.