Can We Trust The Polls?

Brandice Canes-Wrone, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Hoover Institution’s Center for Revitalizing American Institutions, provided a succinct overview of different forecasting models, touching on their limitations and recent adaptations. Historically, models like that of economist Ray Fair have centered their election predictions on fundamentals like the economy. These models face two main limitations. First, they do not incorporate opinion polls on the candidates themselves. Second, even if voters care about economic performance, increasing partisanship has skewed subjective perceptions of the economy. Some forecasting models have responded by weighing partisanship more in their calculations, though these poll-reliant frameworks present their own limitations as well. Currently, even the most accurate models suggest this uniquely tight race remains too close to call.

Shifting to the two candidates themselves, Canes-Wrone points out that campaign messaging from both sides aligns with the expectations of most analysts. Reacting to high inflation rates, Donald Trump has centered his campaign on economic promises while Kamala Harris tries to “turn the page” to distance herself from President Joe Biden. Both their campaign strategies echo a historic shift from persuading swing voters to mobilizing their bases. Trump has taken a rather unconventional approach to the ever-important ground game, largely outsourcing mobilization to Super PACs. As Canes-Wrone argues, however, the factors determining presidential outcomes have changed far less than the rest of US politics in the last 50 years.

Restoring Trust in Elections

Americans have shown declining levels of trust in elections. While many picture January 6th as the root of this distrust, Justin Grimmer — Morris M. Doyle Centennial Professor of Public Policy and Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution — argues this turning point occurred two months earlier when Trump falsely declared victory on election night. Since then, several Republican politicians have denounced electoral losses with a series of expansive voter fraud accusations. Some Democrats have also begun to mirror these undemocratic maneuvers under a different rhetoric.

Grimmer warns that if Trump were to win the election by a narrow margin, Democrats might argue that voter suppression caused them to lose. Yet, according to Grimmer, neither argument — voter fraud nor voter suppression — holds enough weight to justify overturning the election result. Studies show that election reforms provide no partisan benefit to either party. To restore Americans’ trust in their electoral institutions, both candidates must honestly accept the results of the November election, regardless of the outcome.

Ranked Choice Voting to Combat Polarization

Larry Diamond, Mosbacher Senior Fellow in Global Democracy at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI) and William L. Clayton Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution, echoed Canes-Wrone and Grimmer in emphasizing the apparent hyper-partisanship and institutional distrust endangering American democracy. Diamond argued that, despite centuries of center-leaning politics under the Electoral College, this system now serves to heighten the social, economic, and informational factors driving polarization. The two-party dominant system is in dire need of structural reforms.

Diamond advocated for the adoption of Ranked Choice Voting (RCV) to reduce polarization. RCV is hardly a panacea, but it offers alternatives to bipartisanism by making room for moderate candidates, incentivizing parties to form broad coalitions, and affording voters more choices on their ballots. This transition, Diamond noted, is easier said than done as the polarized electorates that would benefit most from RCV are likely also most opposed to it. Beyond state-level efforts, Diamond stressed the need for bottom-up mobilization and education initiatives to accompany the implementation of RCV. 

The upcoming elections present both familiar and unprecedented challenges to American democracy. Economic fundamentals and campaign strategies have thus far reflected predictable historical trends, but bipartisan polarization and institutional distrust are at all-time highs. From structural reforms to personal integrity, everyone — states, media outlets, candidates, and voters — is responsible for safeguarding democracy. 

Campaign Strategies in a Polarized America

William Robertson Coe Professor of Political Science and Communication Shanto Iyengar highlighted the impact of increasing polarization on campaign strategies. The deep-rooted partisan divide, he explained, has made persuading voters across the partisan line nearly impossible, pushing campaigns to focus instead on mobilizing their own base and targeting independent voters. Iyengar illustrated the impact of this polarization on everyday life, noting that political affiliation is now a significant factor in personal relationships and even in matters like dating and marriage.

Campaigns have responded to this changing environment by relying heavily on negative advertising, which tends to resonate with partisan voters. Negative ads, Iyengar explained, are effective in cementing party loyalty. Additionally, campaigns have focused on get-out-the-vote (GOTV) efforts, identifying likely supporters and encouraging them to vote. For independents, campaigns use positive messaging, as these voters are generally more receptive to constructive content about candidates rather than attacks. Despite the challenges, Iyengar suggested that well-timed, targeted outreach can still influence persuadable voters who may have limited media exposure.

The U.S. in a World of Democratic Backsliding

FSI Senior Fellow Beatriz Magaloni situated the U.S. election vis-à-vis a global trend of democratic backsliding. Magaloni, who is the Graham H. Stuart Professor of International Relations at Stanford’s Department of Political Science, explained that the election is occurring against the backdrop of democratic regressions worldwide. Many democracies, she indicated, are experiencing the weakening of political institutions, increasing centralization power, and erosion of civil liberties.

Although the U.S. remains a robust democracy, Magaloni explained, it is not immune to elements of backsliding. Instances of political violence, such as the January 6th Capitol attack and rising polarization, pose challenges to democratic norms. She also highlighted troubling signs, such as threats to civil liberties and political violence. At the same time, Magaloni stressed that the U.S. has institutional safeguards that protect against democratic backsliding. Among them is a system of checks and balances across federal and state levels.

The panelists emphasized the challenges posed by political polarization and declining trust in the integrity of democratic processes. They suggest that ensuring a smooth and trustworthy election will require continued vigilance from election officials, proactive problem-solving, and public reassurance. Campaigns, meanwhile, will likely double down on mobilization and targeted messaging as they navigate the complexities of an increasingly divided electorate. Finally, the broader global trend of democratic backsliding serves as a reminder that safeguarding democracy is just as relevant in the United States as it is in other parts of the world.

You can view a full recording of the event below and register for our upcoming events here: