Donald Trump was elected the 47th president of the United States on Nov. 5, marking four years since he disputed his previous election loss in 2020. The victory represents a remarkable return for the former president, who has faced 34 felony convictions, two assassination attempts, two impeachments, and wide criticism for inciting violence during the Capitol insurrection.
In Princeton town, voters showed strong support for Harris, with an exit poll by The Daily Princetonian revealing that 90 percent cast their ballots in her favor. In interviews on election night, several University professors anticipated a victory for the vice president. Ultimately, Harris officially conceded the race in a speech Wednesday afternoon.
The day after the election, the ‘Prince’ interviewed Princeton professors who analyzed Trump’s victory and discussed what may come next.
Professors pointed to errors in polling that failed to forecast a red wave, the difficulties Harris faced in shedding the incumbent label, strategies to realign the Democratic Party, and what a Trump presidency might look like this time around.
“Once again, there was systematic polling error that understated the Trump vote,” Professor of Politics and Public Affairs Frances E. Lee wrote to the ‘Prince.’ “We saw that happen in 2016 and 2020, and it reappeared again here in 2024,” she continued, explaining that Trump voters “seem to be harder for pollsters to reach.”
Visiting Lecturer for Politics Darren Geist ’05 highlighted the “disconnect” between “the sentiment in elite and academic institutions” and “much of America.”
“This is both in who elites and academics support and their ability to predict or capture in polls the feelings elsewhere,” Geist wrote.
Many professors noted that the election was ultimately cast as a referendum on the widely unpopular Biden administration, with Harris struggling to effectively separate herself from Biden.
“The Democratic Party has shown a remarkable lack of strategy by missing the chance to replace Biden with a new refreshing candidate, instead choosing to put forward Biden’s Vice President Harris,” Public and International Affairs Lecturer Sam van Noort wrote to the ‘Prince.’
Van Noort also observed that the Trump campaign’s linking of key issues such as the immigration crisis to Harris worked to the Democrats’ disadvantage. “Putting forward ‘border czar’ Harris — who was easily framed as responsible for the illegal immigration issue — proved to be a remarkably naïve decision,” he explained.
A more effective strategy, Associate Professor of Politics and Public Affairs Hye Young You said, would have been a party convention. “The Democratic Party could have benefited a lot by actually having a primary,” she said. “If there had been an opportunity to build momentum and refine policy through this primary, I think the Democrats might have anticipated a better result than they achieved yesterday.”
Democrats, according to professors, also failed to broaden their coalition of voters beyond traditionally blue blocs such as highly-educated liberals and minority voters. Professors saw the Trump victory as indicative of general discontent towards “elites.”
“I think that the election results tell us that a lot of voters have dissatisfaction with elites,” You said.
“A party based almost exclusively on college-educated liberals is a permanent minority party and cannot reliably win the White House and Senate,” Professor of Politics and Public Affairs Charles Cameron ’88 added. “The Democrats must find a way to get some blue-collar men and rural voters back into the party.”
Democrats also lost support among suburban voters, an area that Harris heavily focused on during her campaign. “This kind of suburban mobilization and success that the Democrats have had in suburban America declined a little bit — and that was clearly a major problem,” Professor of Politics and Public Affairs Nolan McCarty said.
Not only did Democrats lose support, but professors say that the party failed to expand their base of voters, particularly in crucial swing states.
For You, the Democratic Party “failed to broaden” support among diverse groups, while Trump expanded his coalition among Latino and Black voters. “For example, in the Bronx, Trump got 15 percent of the vote in 2020, but this time, he got 27 percent,” You added.
“Latino areas shifted pretty dramatically toward Trump, and that was obviously a factor in Arizona and Nevada,” McCarty noted. Trump won Arizona by a 3.5 percent margin and Nevada by five points — both key battleground states.
All eyes are now on how Trump may navigate his second and final term.
You predicted that the lack of reelection incentives could make him more erratic and extreme. “Political science research shows that [because of] electoral incentives, candidates and politicians actually move toward what the general public wants,” she explained. “Given that Trump doesn’t have any re-election incentives, he might actually implement more extreme policies that the public does not want.”
McCarty pointed to Project 2025, a 900-page set of policy priorities published by the Heritage Foundation that recommends defunding the Department of Education and using federal law enforcement to crack down on journalists and protestors. On the campaign trail, Trump has disavowed Project 2025, even as over 100 former Trump staffers contributed to the agenda.
Despite Trump denouncing Project 2025, McCarty believes that it will “still be a pretty good roadmap” as to the sorts of policies Trump will implement. “I expect that to be kind of a laundry list of things he will do unilaterally during the first part of the administration,” he continued.
On matters of foreign policy, Cameron and his students discussed that Ukraine may be “finished” and “possibly NATO too.”
A set of post-election predictions generated by Cameron and his students reads: “Taiwan’s days are likely numbered. The right-wing in Israel has carte blanche. Iran will move expeditiously to acquire nukes.”
Other professors dismissed some of the promises made by the Trump campaign and believe that checks on the presidency will restrict his policy moves.
“Trump said that he will bring down inflation by increasing fossil fuel production, even though the U.S. is currently producing the most fossil fuel it has ever done and does not have the possibility to meaningfully expand production in the near term,” van Noort wrote. On day one of his administration, Trump has promised to “drill, baby, drill” and “unleash” the domestic oil sector.
“There are still many checks on the presidency, such as the free press [and] the Supreme Court, which has not always ruled in his favor,” Geist wrote. “American institutions are much more durable than many people believe.”
Sena Chang is a News contributor for the ‘Prince.’
Please send any corrections to corrections[at]dailyprincetonian.com.
Read More
First Professor of Indigenous Studies steps into role, charts new initiatives
Luke GrippoJ. Kēhaulani Kauanui assumed her role as the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Professor of Indigenous Studies in Anthropology this past July. She spoke to the ‘Prince’ about her goals, which include improving the Native experience on campus and creating a minor in Native American and Indigenous Studies.
J. Kēhaulani Kauanui assumed her role as the Eric and Wendy Schmidt Professor of Indigenous Studies in Anthropology this past July. She spoke to the ‘Prince’ about her goals, which include improving the Native experience on campus and creating a minor in Native American and Indigenous Studies.
The organization at the center of faculty free speech debates
Olivia Sanchez and Achilleas KoukasA group of faculty formed the Princeton Council on Academic Freedom last April, following the establishment of the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment.” The ‘Prince’ spoke to its leaders and members to learn more about the organization, its goals, and its origins.
A group of faculty formed the Princeton Council on Academic Freedom last April, following the establishment of the “Gaza Solidarity Encampment.” The ‘Prince’ spoke to its leaders and members to learn more about the organization, its goals, and its origins.
Men’s ice hockey sweeps No. 12 Ohio State
Hayk Yengibaryan and Ava SeigelThe weekend marks the first time in program history the Tigers have bested the Buckeyes, breaking a six-game losing streak aging back to 1971.
The weekend marks the first time in program history the Tigers have bested the Buckeyes, breaking a six-game losing streak aging back to 1971.
