{"id":137058,"date":"2020-11-06T10:52:07","date_gmt":"2020-11-06T15:52:07","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.bates.edu\/news\/?p=137058"},"modified":"2021-11-16T10:38:11","modified_gmt":"2021-11-16T15:38:11","slug":"a-status-quo-election-say-bates-professors-with-surprises-and-lessons","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.bates.edu\/news\/2020\/11\/06\/a-status-quo-election-say-bates-professors-with-surprises-and-lessons\/","title":{"rendered":"A \u2018status quo election,\u2019 say Bates professors \u2014 with disappointments, surprises, lessons"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

Before their duel in The Princess Bride<\/em>, the Man in Black says to Inigo Montoya, \u201cGet used to disappointment.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It would\u2019ve been an apt forewarning to Democrats on election night.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Though many pundits predicted a blue-wave election for Democrats \u2014 gaining the presidency, more seats in the House, and perhaps a Senate majority \u2014 that turned out to be wishcasting. “It was a status quo election,\u201d says Associate Professor of Politics John Baughman. \u201cIn a strange way, this actually looks a lot like 2016: Very little has really changed.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
A person waves an American flag during a “Rally for Democracy” on Nov. 4, 2020, in Eugene, Ore., at the Wayne Lyman Morse Federal Courthouse. (This photo is copyright (c) 2020 by David Geitgey Sierralupe and made available under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 license<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In fact, he adds, \u201cI think 2020 has revealed who we are as a country. It was not a dramatic, widespread repudiation of Trumpism. And if voters did shift away from Trump, it was not against the Republican Party but against Trump personally as president.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

If Biden wins the presidency \u2014 and, of course, depending on the outcome of the Georgia run-off elections \u2014 \u201che will likely have to govern with a Republican-controlled Senate,\u201d Baughman added. \u201cWe\u2019re going to have at least two years, and possibly four years or even more, of divided government. And it means that the optimistic goals of Democrats on the public policy front will have to be scaled way back.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Wednesday, Baughman offered insights into the election along with politics department colleagues Stephen Engel, Alyssa Maraj Grahame, Clarisa P\u00e9rez-Armend\u00e1riz as well as Stephanie Kelley-Romano of rhetoric, film, and screen studies. Their Zoom presentation was attended by well over 100 viewers.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"
To understand someone’s vote, one must consider the voter’s worldview, says Alyssa Maraj Grahame.<\/figcaption><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n
It\u2019s time to accept that voter behavior is not monolythic<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Once again, the two major parties, especially Democrats, need to be reminded not to take for granted the voting habits of any group, said Grahame, a visiting professor of politics who made her point by sharing a conversation she had with a childhood friend on Election Day.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Her friend\u2019s parents, Chinese immigrants, had voted for Obama and Clinton in prior presidential elections. This time, they and other Chinese American friends voted for Trump. \u201cAs immigrants, they would be targets of Trump’s particular brand of xenophobia,\u201d said Grahame.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

It\u2019s the job of social scientists, she says, to ask questions like, \u201cUnder what conditions would it make sense for my friend’s parents to vote for Trump? From their perspective, how does Trump fit into their worldview?\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Turns out, her friend\u2019s parents liked what they perceived as Trump’s tough-on-China attitude, feeling that Obama had allowed China to walk all over the U.S. \u201cThere are a lot of parallels between my friend\u2019s struggles to understand her parents\u2019 choice, and our collective struggle to make sense of the election.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The message: \u201cWe shouldn’t be surprised to find out that voter demographics aren’t monoliths,\u201d said Grahame. \u201cThere’s no voter demographic for whom either candidate enjoys exclusive support \u2014 and that would actually be troubling for democracy if that were the case.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Phil
A voter in Des Moines, Iowa, fills out a ballot at Roosevelt High School. (This photo is copyright (c) 2020 by Phil Roeder and made available under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 license<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Pay attention to what the news is saying<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

As rhetoric from both campaigns ramps up in the post-election days, \u201cit’s really important to pay attention to what the news outlets are saying, as opposed to what the spokespeople for the campaign’s are saying,\u201d says Kelley-Romano, an associate professor of rhetoric, film, screen studies.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cStick with the information that we have, because there\u2019s going to be a lot of noise out there. I think the media is doing a good job at keeping that noise to a minimum.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Pay attention to the difference between fanciful narratives and the rule of law<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

As we follow Trump\u2019s legal challenges to the election<\/a>, it\u2019s important to distinguish between partisan narratives (not to mention baseless conspiracy theories) and the rule of law.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thus far, Trump\u2019s attempt to say that some mail-in ballots are illegal or invalid \u201cis a narrative framing,\u201d says Engel. \u201cThere is literally no constitutional evidence for that claim, so I am skeptical of the lawsuits that are being brought thus far.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

At this point, Baughman believes Trump\u2019s lawsuits declaring voter fraud are \u201cunlikely to find success.\u201d One reason is that the courts don\u2019t want to toss the baby out with the bath water.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cIn trying to possibly throw out bad ballots, they don’t want to throw out a lot of good ballots with the bad,\u201d he says.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThere has to be some way for them to distinguish between the ballots that followed a correct process and those few that didn\u2019t. In most cases that’s going to be impossible to do. They’ll be reluctant to throw everything out because that essentially throws out the integrity of the election.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Election
A person carries a “Count All Votes” poster on election night at Black Lives Matter Plaza in Washington, D.C. (This photo is copyright (c) 2020 by Victoria Pickering and made available under a Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.0 license<\/a>)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Election conspiracy theory may not gain traction (but will that matter?)<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Though conspiracy theories abound, often pushed out by Trump himself, Kelley-Romano says the fact that Democrats didn\u2019t do all that well in congressional elections might prevent conspiracy theory from gaining traction.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Indeed, says Baughman, in order for other Republican leaders to take on Trump’s call about election fraud means that those leaders would be undermining results in their own states, in some cases undermining elections they themselves ran.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

So, says Kelley-Romano, \u201cthere are contradictions that will do a disservice to conspiracy theorists \u2014 but I never underestimate them. Trump will make a lot of noise \u2014 but already on Twitter, and even Fox News, there is a distancing from his rhetoric.”<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Still, adds Engel, Trump\u2019s baseless conspiracy attempts could affect a Biden presidency through \u201cthe political and rhetorical process of de-legitimizing. It is analogous but importantly distinct from Trump’s birtherism during the Obama presidency: Cast a cloud over Biden from the start in order to keep the Republican base aggrieved and motivated for 2022 and 2024.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"Members
So far, Republicans are distancing themselves from Trump’s conspiracy rhetoric, says Stephanie Kelley-Romano, seen watching Trump’s televised inauguration in 2017. (Phyllis Graber Jensen\/Bates College)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n
Our elected leaders should heed our own State Department<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Hours after Trump falsely declared victory, the U.S. State Department issued a statement about the recent election in C\u00f4te d’Ivoire. It said, in part, \u201cthe U.S. calls on C\u00f4te d’Ivoire leaders to show commitment to the democratic process and the rule of law.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cSo there you go,\u201d said Baughman. \u201cOur own state department.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

We want clarity. Be prepared to be disappointed<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Among Democrats, \u201cthere was great desire for this election to be an unambiguous repudiation of Trump’s America,\u201d said Grahame. \u201cBut it’s almost definitely not going to be that. Our desire for clarity is its own critical failure. We all have to grapple with the fact that over 40 percent of American voters have said \u2018yes\u2019 to Trump’s America.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cThe dominant discourse about Trump \u2014 his racism and his authoritarianism \u2014 leaves us flummoxed about his apparent increased support, including among some non-white voters in certain areas. And we bemoan the extent of division in the United States.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Rather than trying to dismiss or explain away the contradictions \u2014 by blaming low-information voters, wondering about swing voters, or saying that some voters can\u2019t see what\u2019s truly in their best interest \u2014 we should \u201cinstead confront the underlying systemic causes of such immense polarization.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

There are interesting outcomes everywhere.<\/h5>\n\n\n\n

Engel, a professor of politics, said much can be learned by looking at results outside the spotlight races. \u201cThere are some interesting outcomes, even if it’s a status quo election, even if there’s a lot of ambiguities.\u201d<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"2018<\/a>
Stephen Engel, seen in 2018, points out that each election offer interesting outcomes beyond the spotlight contests. (Phyllis Graber Jensen\/Bates College)<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

In Oregon, possessing small amounts of heroin or cocaine is now legal. Oregon also joined the District of Columbia in decriminalizing psychedelic mushrooms. And in New Jersey, Arizona, South Dakota, and Montana recreational marijuana use is now legal. Nearly a third of states have eased the criminal consequences for marijuana use<\/a>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Engel said that \u201cthose are interesting outcomes from the perspective of legal nullification\u201d \u2014 the legal theory that a state has the right to invalidate federal laws \u2014 \u201cwhereby the states are just ignoring federal criminal law with regard to drug possession and drug use.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Also, in Colorado, a proposed measure that would eliminate abortion access after 22 weeks failed.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In terms of descriptive representation among newly elected officials, the election saw:<\/p>\n\n\n\n