Election Analysis

I am sure many blog readers are puzzled (and worried) about the outcome of the recent election. Even the forecast, pre-election, that the election would be very close proved to be incorrect. Although some commentators seem now to portray the result as a landslide for Trump, that would be a mischaracterization. (An example of a landslide would be, say, Reagan vs. Mondale in 1984). Nonetheless, the 2024 election was decisive. Below is a chart from the Financial Times indicating that a general shift toward Trump occurred among almost all groups, 2020 to 2024:

Here (below) is a 5-minute video of two experts the day before the election. One says - based on polls - that the election will be very close. The other says if it isn't close, the odds are it will tilt toward Harris:

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MB9yeDqqgjU. 

So, we learn (once again) that relying on polling is perilous.

The chart at the very top of this post shows that if you look at real wages and ask the question - Are you better off than you were four years ago? - the answer for much of the electorate is "no." We can debate the causes of that answer, but not the fact. Below is another video (one hour) which makes the point that generally the electorate punishes the incumbent party when the answer is "no":

Or direct to https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6LNjtTiSUo.

In short, the electorate behaved normally even though you could well argue that Trump was not a normal candidate. So, the question now becomes how the Republicans were able to get a normal result with an abnormal candidate - apart from just pushing the issue of high prices. If you look at the ads the circulated and the internet campaigning, the message was that it was the Democrats who were abnormal (boys in the girls bathroom, allowing open borders, crime in cities, etc.). And, yes, universities didn't help themselves over the past year - and are now particularly vulnerable - especially the research universities which receive a lot of federal funding. (Here's looking at you, UC.) In addition to direct receipt of federal funding, universities have endowments and pensions that are subject to federal tax and other regulations.* 

It will be interesting to see if the Regents say anything this week about these developments. One suspects, however, that whatever they say will likely occur behind closed doors.

The governor has called a special session of the legisture somehow to insulate California from the feds. But UC is not easy to insulate.

The most immediate concern for UC would be protection of DACA and other undocumented students, given the Trump promise of a mass deportation campaign. (However, the idea of UC hiriing undocumented students and testing the federal government thereby is now unlikely to go anywhere, given the election outcome.) Beyond providing protection, I suggest everyone take a deep breath, see what develops, and avoid goading the lion. The one thing we know from the first Trump term is that he is mercurial and that people who seem to speak for him are often fired thereafter. We don't really know what is coming.

===

*On Columbia University, see https://www.thefp.com/p/trump-presidency-may-cost-columbia.