INSTITUTE FOR POLICY RESEARCH

Presidential Election Insights

IPR experts analyze Trump's assassination attempts, Biden's exit, and Harris' campaign dynamics

Vice President Kamala Harris’s unexpected rise to become the Democratic presidential nominee—following President Joe Biden’s withdrawal—has transformed the 2024 presidential race into one of the most unpredictable in recent history. With Election Day drawing ever closer, polls show Harris and former President Donald Trump running neck-and-neck in key swing states.

As this unprecedented race nears its end, IPR researchers are shedding light on its unique dynamics—including the effects of polarization in the media, Trump’s motivated voter base, the impact of events on the campaign trail, leader competency, female and minority candidates, and social media’s influence on campaigns.

Reducing the Partisan Division | Moral Language | Party Divisions and Election Success | Voter Support | Assassination Attempts | Female Presidency | Race and Gender Attacks | Misinformation | Social Media

---

Want to learn more about the consequences of the 2024 election? Join us for our Nov. 11 panel where three IPR experts discuss the growing challenges to U.S. democracy. In person and virtual options available.

---

How Can We Reduce the Partisan Division?

As social media’s influence grows, more people are exposed to political animosity on platforms like X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, and Reddit. On these platforms, users can air opinions about politicians and the opposing party, which can make online discussions more toxic. But they don’t have to be. IPR social psychologist Eli Finkel and his colleagues explore how we can reduce partisan animosity online and off—and why doing so might shore up democracy itself.

The researchers describe partisan animosity as dislike for those in the other political party. This doesn’t mean, however, that people always feel warm and fuzzy about their own party. Finkel and his team point out that while dislike for the other party has clearly increased, it’s not as certain how much people like their own party.

To better combat partisan animosity, the researchers created a framework centered around thoughts, relationships, and institutions to reduce it. Using the framework can:

• Correct misconceptions by highlighting common ground and dismantling stereotypes between those on the other side to humanize them.
• Improve relationships by encouraging positive dialogue across the partisan divide to increase understanding and empathy between those in opposing parties.
• Strengthen democratic institutions when politicians engage in civil discourse across party lines and by mass media reduce animosity and misinformation. 

“Making progress on these fronts is challenging because many partisans believe that reducing partisan hatred is the wrong goal—that conquest is required,” Finkel said. “But without such progress, it’s hard to see how our evenly divided country can reverse the surge in illiberal threats to our Republic.”

What the Language of Right and Wrong Says About Politics

Political polarization often leads to the two parties branding each other as right and wrong. Democrats criticize Republicans for supporting gun rights after mass shootings—Republicans criticize Democrats for supporting abortion rights. American politics is morally charged, and so is the rhetoric that presidential candidates use, according to social psychologist and IPR associate William Brady.

In a study that analyzed more than 139,000 tweets from 39 presidential candidates who ran in 2016 and 2020, Brady and his colleagues find that what candidates highlight as right or wrong changes based on their party.

Democrats prioritize care and fairness while Republicans prioritize loyalty, authority, and sanctity. The study reveals that parties’ use of such moral language can lead to more polarization, and candidates like Trump who sits at the extreme of moral language use, can exploit it to drive further division. However, when candidates from either side use moral language highlighting shared themes between the two parties, the researchers show such rhetoric can help reduce polarization.  

How Political Party Divisions Shape Election Success 

Not all Democrats believed Biden to be fit to run for another term, leading to turmoil within their party. Likewise, not all Republicans take a hard anti-abortion stance, creating a divide in theirs. While many experts research divisions between the parties, IPR political scientist Laurel Harbridge-Yong's work highlights the effects that intra-party conflicts have on candidates’ success.

Harbridge-Yong and Alexandra Filindra from the University of Illinois at Chicago conducted a study during the Trump administration, finding that when those of the same party critique a party leader, the critics risk losing support from voters due to what the researchers call “leadership-driven motivated reasoning.”

They explain that this type of reasoning derives from favoring one's own group and the large role leaders play in representing their group.

Harbridge-Yong and Filindra suggest there is a limit to people’s deference to leaders. When leaders commit very serious wrongdoings, they risk losing support. But the bar is high. When the leader is central to the party’s image, even serious accusations against a political leader may harm the critic more than the leader, as we have seen with the Republican response to Liz Cheney, Adam Kinzinger, and Mitt Romney’s criticism of former President Trump.

“At the same time, President Biden withdrew from the 2024 race after facing skeptics within his own party,” Harbridge-Yong said. “While not an accusation of wrongdoing, it suggests that if intra-party dissent coincides with electoral interests of the party, it may be successful.”  

How Trump Maintains Voter Support

In the last few years, former President Donald Trump has experienced a wave of legal troubles, including four criminal cases against him. Yet none of these incidents seem to have diminished Trump’s support among his core supporters. Research by IPR political scientist Daniel Galvin suggests why this might be the case. By combining his personal domination of the party with a strategy of intensive base mobilization and organizational investment, Trump has turned the Republican Party into a formidable vehicle of support, Galvin argues.

Galvin explains that instead of building the party “horizontally”—building a coalition that includes a diverse range of demographic groups—Trump “drills down vertically,” focusing on expanding his base and mobilizing a greater number of like-minded voters. This base-centered strategy complements his demand for loyalty from all Republicans, Galvin argues, and is “mutually reinforcing” over time.  

One of the biggest risks to Trump’s approach is democratic backsliding. Galvin argues that the lack of opposition within the party to Trump's actions leaves his behavior largely unchecked. It allows him to advance his personal objectives and boost his power, posing a threat to democratic stability.

“The Republican Party has become essentially a cult-of-personality,” Galvin said. “The problem with this is that it lends his authoritarian tendencies the semblance of democratic legitimacy and makes it easier for the press and the public to write off potentially destabilizing, anti-democratic actions as just-more partisan conflict. Until the Republican Party calculates that it is better off playing by the rules of the game, our democracy is in trouble.”  

Do Assassination Attempts Affect National Institutions?

Since July, Trump has been the target of two assassination attempts while on the campaign trail. What might such events tell us about the impact on election results? Strategy professor and IPR associate Benjamin Jones’ research indicates that the influence of assassination attempts varies.

In a first-of-its-kind study, Jones and Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Benjamin Olken use data on assassination attempts on world leaders from 1875 to 2004 to examine how such attempts affect a country after the fact.

Their research shows that assassinations of democratic leaders usually have little impact on the nation’s institutions. In contrast, when an authoritarian leader is assassinated, it can lead to a boost in democratic movements. If the attempt against an autocrat fails, however, it often pushes a country further away from democracy.

“Democracies have traditionally proven robust to assassination events,” Jones said.  “In authoritarian regimes, where the individual leader is invested with greater power and is less constrained, assassination attempts appear to have substantial influence on the national political system.”

Will the U.S. Have Its First Female President in 2024?

In 2016, Hillary Clinton made history as the first female presidential candidate from a major U.S. political party. Now, many wonder if Harris will be able to break the ultimate "glass ceiling" that eluded Clinton. Or will the same dynamics Clinton faced continue to shape the path for women in politics?

IPR political scientist Mary McGrath and Sara (Saltzer) Joser of the University of California-Berkeley (2019) seek to answer this question in their research about how gender plays a role in elections and how the parties perceive female candidates differently. 

By running a primary election simulation with a female candidate and a male candidate, the researchers find that while neither party’s voters exhibit prejudice against women candidates overall, biases can emerge because voters use candidate gender to make inferences about a candidate’s policy positions and ideology. Promisingly, the study found that when voters are provided with information about the candidate’s politics, they rely on that information instead of gender stereotypes. 

“Harris is still relatively unknown to the voting public, and the less voters know about her, the more likely they are to key on her gender and presume her to be more liberal than she actually is,” McGrath said. “The good news is that our evidence showed voters using the information they were given, overriding gender stereotypes. The hard part is getting reliable information out to voters, especially on such a short timeline.” 

How Race and Gender Shape Voter Reactions to Political Attacks

If her bid for the presidency succeeds, Harris will be the first female, first Asian American, and the second Black president of the United States. While a historic position, it comes with heightened concerns over the attacks Harris may face based on her race and gender, attacks that she has already faced across her career. 

IPR political scientist Tabitha Bonilla examines how racially derogatory political messages shape voter perceptions. She and her colleagues surveyed more than 3,000 White and Black respondents online to examine their reactions to derogatory remarks made by White, Black, and Muslim politicians, particularly noting differences when the politician shared the respondent’s race. 

Bonilla finds that Whites rated White candidates who attack people of color lower than Black or Muslim candidates who did the same. She also shows that Black people hold poor views of any offensive candidates, including Black or Muslim candidates who were insulting toward people of color.  

“When Trump says something derogatory about Harris's identities, White voters are more likely to notice than if a person of color or woman said the same thing. That may partly be why Republican campaign spotlights Black Republicans in attacking Harris,” Bonilla said.  

Misinformation Fuels Voters’ Feelings About Candidates, Democracy

On July 21, President Biden tweeted that he was dropping out of the presidential race. As soon as he made his historic announcement, the misinformation mill started churning.

Lies about both presidential candidate Harris and Biden included doubts about her identity as a Black woman and rumors that Biden was the victim of a coup. As the election draws closer, the number of falsehoods is projected to increase, according to communication and policy scholar Erik Nisbet, an IPR associate.

Nisbet studies how political misinformation can impact voter behavior, and its presumed influence undermine satisfaction with the democratic process.

A study by Nisbet and his associates found that belief in fake news stories about Hillary Clinton was associated with Obama voters defecting to vote for Trump in the 2016 election.  Another study co-authored by Nisbet from the 2020 election showed that the more that people believe that political misinformation has a strong influence on others, the less satisfied with American democracy they feel.

“High volumes of misinformation—whether spread anonymously online or directly from the candidate’s mouth has become the norm for American elections,” Nisbet said. “The concerning question has become not whether it influences who voters chose, but whether it tarnishes their confidence in elections and undermines democracy itself.”

How Social Media Impacts Campaigns

Harris is using social media to tap into viral moments that connect with younger voters. For example, her playful comment about a coconut tree went viral when fans remixed it into popular song clips, boosting her online presence. Gen Z has noticed, though polling data remains mixed on whether it is helping her.

Will Harris’ social media appeal work in generating support in this demographic? Research by media scholar and IPR associate Stephanie Edgerly indicates that what young voters know about politics relies heavily on their social media use. 

In the study, the researchers document how social media provides a large volume of political events to its users in real time and continuously adapts, changing the ways that younger age groups receive their news. They also show that digital-only sources increased the political knowledge of Millennials, then 18-35 years old, overall.

“Social media provide young people with the opportunity to create and share election content that feels relevant and authentic. These spaces have power, not only in informing young voters, but in managing their emotions and keeping them engaged throughout the election.” Edgerly said.

Tabitha Bonilla is associate professor of human development. William Brady is assistant professor of management and organizations. Stephanie Edgerly is professor of journalism and Medill’s associate dean of research. Eli Finkel is professor of psychology and management and organizations and an IPR Morton O. Schapiro Faculty Fellow. Daniel Galvin is professor of political science and director of the Workplace Justice Lab@NU. Laurel Harbridge-Yong is professor of political science and IPR associate director. Benjamin Jones is the Gordon and Llura Gund Family professor of entrepreneurship, professor of strategy, and co-director of the Ryan Institute on Complexity. Mary McGrath is assistant professor of political science. Erik Nisbet is the Owen L. Coon Endowed Professor of Policy Analysis and Communication and directs the Center for Communication & Public Policy. All are IPR faculty.

Published: October 29, 2024.