Panel considers the meaning of the election, future of democracy

faculty and a prominent Republican pollster reflected on the 2024 election, addressing questions about the extent and significance of shifts in the vote and assuring students and the public about the health of the American electoral system.
The Nov. 12 panel, “What’s next? Postelection community debrief,” featured Associate Professor of Political Science and Research Director at the Center for Election Innovation and Research Christopher Mann and Patrick Lanne, a Republican pollster and partner at Public Opinion Strategies. It was moderated Associate Professor of Political Science Robert Turner.
Despite media rhetoric suggesting a runaway election for Republicans and President-elect Donald Trump, both Mann and Lanne emphasized the Nov. 5 election as extremely close, with voting trends broadly similar to other recent elections. They dismissed the idea that the election amounted to an essential political realignment in the country and pointed to fundamentals of the election — broader political and economic trends — that shaped the result.
Lanne opened the evening by sharing three numbers that fundamentally handicapped the campaigns of President Joe Biden and later Vice President Kamala Harris: A strong majority of Americans indicated that the country was on the wrong track; the incumbent’s (Biden’s) job approval rating was low; and a plurality of Americans indicated that they were worse off today than four years ago.
“The polls told us it was a close election, and it was a close election,” Lanne said, noting inflation as a particular challenge for both Biden and Harris. He stressed that both Trump and Harris ran disciplined campaigns but, in the end, the fundamentals were too much for the Harris campaign to overcome as many voters sought change.
Mann, who has worked in Democratic campaigns in the past, largely agreed with Lanne’s analysis. He noted that significant voting trends remained consistent with previous results. With the exception of Latinos, whose votes according to county-level exit polls were in the 9–10-point range, other groups exhibited more modest shifts in their votes for president, Mann said.
“Every other demographic group – white, college-educated, noncollege-educated, men, women, old, young – slice it any which way you will – the difference was between 2 points and 5 points,” Mann said. “There was one candidate running uphill and another running downhill. Harris made it farther uphill than the fundamentals would predict, but it was a long way to climb.”
Mann is on leave from as he directs research at the , a nonpartisan group working to build confidence in elections. He noted that with few exceptions the elections ran smoothly across the country and pointed to increasing access to registration and early voting in many states.

From left, Associate Professor of Political Science, Republican pollster and Partner at Public Opinion Strategies Patrick Lanne, and Associate Professor of Political Science and Research Director at the Center for Election Innovation and Research Christopher Mann.
“This was a resounding success for democracy. Make no mistake, even if you don’t like who won, the election was a massive success,” he said, calling election officials and poll workers from both parties “civic heroes.”
In response to a question about the future of democracy in the country, Mann pointed to provocative rhetoric by Trump concerning election integrity and attacking election officials that extended back to 2016. But he also stressed that elections are run by local and state officials, and that federal authorities have limited ability to sway the results.
“There is reason for people in both parties to stand up for those elections,” Mann said.&