Experts weighed in on the issues most important to voters a month out from the presidential election.

At the Interchurch Center’s Sockman Lounge, political scholars participated in a discussion on domestic policy as part of a series of panels ahead of the 2024 election. Moderated by Professor Robert Y. Shapiro, the experts talked about the most important domestic policy issues facing voters and answered some audience questions. 

The panel featured Basil Smikle, Alexis Grenell, and Ester R. Fuchs. Smikle is Professor of Practice at the School of Professional Studies and lectures at SIPA and Teacher’s College. Grenell is the co-founder of Pythia, a public affairs firm, and also holds a Masters in Public Administration from SIPA in 2015. Fuchs is Professor of International and Public Affairs and Director of the Urban and Social Policy Program at SIPA. 

Shapiro began by asking each panelist what they thought the three most important domestic policy issues were to voters. Fuchs answered first, saying that it is difficult to determine based on polling because “asking people what they think about issues… does not mean in the end that they [will] actually vote on those issues.” She also emphasized the importance of swing states in determining the overall outcome of the election. Fuchs identified Pennsylvania as the most important swing state, citing the economy, the future of democracy, and immigration as among the most critical issues for likely voters. She said it comes down to one question: “Who do you feel more confident about in addressing these issues?” Nationwide, Fuchs said, the data shows that more voters are confident that Donald Trump can handle the issues of the economy and immigration, while they trust Kamala Harris more on abortion and race. 

Grenell approached the question differently, saying that “policy doesn’t matter a lot to voters… what we see mostly is… vibes.” She explained that Harris’ campaign was criticized for a lack of policy, but that charm may be more important in determining the outcome of the election. In an era of identitarian or “identity” politics, what the candidates represent to voters is crucial. While vibes matter at the national scale, Grenell said that policy can play a key role in local elections. Ultimately, she said, the outcome of the election is “about turnout, at this point.”

Smikle said that campaigns are not just a discussion about policy but also “social and political movements,” and that the job of the candidate is to “elevate” policy discussions to an emotional level that leads to higher turnout. Smikle said that the larger emotional context of the election is important, and that people vote based on emotion. Reproductive rights, the economy, immigration, and crime, he said, are among the issues that are causing the most mobilization. Although the economy, by most metrics, has done well under President Biden, Smikle said that many voters don’t believe it. The policy debates are “proxies for other issues,” like how many suburban Long Island voters appear to care about crime in New York City; these voters claim to care about rule of law, but are actually using it as a proxy for anti-immigration sentiment that does not necessarily affect their lives. Smikle also talked about how the democratic coalition is changing, with young Black men and Latinos becoming increasingly conservative. 

The panelists then discussed the discrepancies between their answers. Fuchs disagreed with Grenell that vibes determine vote choice, saying that “underneath one layer is generally something that does relate to issues.” For example, Fuchs cited the perception of Trump as a businessman, saying that this idea translates to more confidence in Trump to handle the economy.

Afterwards, the audience had a chance to ask a few questions. One woman asked about how Kamala Harris compares to Hillary Clinton, since she does not use gender or race as a central part of her campaign narrative. Grenell answered that whether or not women running for office talk about their gender, it’s an issue for many voters. Smikle added that “we’d like to think of America as a place where you can be the author of your own narrative, but that’s not really the case, because people are going to… assign one to you regardless.” Although Harris identifies as a Black woman, many of her detractors don’t refer to her that way.

Another audience member asked if the reelection of Trump will lead to the collapse of American democracy. Fuchs responded first, saying that the guardrails, like the people surrounding him who disagreed with him, that Trump had in place during his first term would not be there during his second term, which is concerning for the state of democracy. Grenell said that the US could already be considered a failed state and that presidential systems have been proven to be more fragile than parliamentary systems. She was concerned, in particular, about younger voters who may see the current state of the country as normal, and she added that corruption is accepted when it becomes routine. Smikle agreed, saying that many young people today believe that the country’s institutions are irrevocably flawed. He ended the event by saying that it is important to think about the kinds of protections that can be put into place for democracy regardless of the outcome of this election.

Image via Author