On Aug. 8, 2023, the town of , in West Maui, Hawaii, was consumed by one of the in U.S. history. The result: more than 2,000 acres burned, 12,000 residents displaced and 102 people killed. Despite the devastation and ongoing community grief, Hawaii’s governor West Maui to tourists just two months later.

That decision sparked significant controversy and spurred thousands of residents and Native Hawaiians to political action. They wanted fire victims to have more time to grieve their loved ones, secure new housing and heal as a community.

For Sophia Hiatt, a senior in the , the disaster was the catalyst for a year of scholarly inquiry and the subject of her political science distinction thesis. As a multiracial person of Native Hawaiian heritage, Hiatt has long been interested in Hawaiian politics and perspectives—an interest solidified through a Tufts University summer high school program to develop leadership skills for social change. She focused on the Native Hawaiian community and , she says.

“This [thesis] project was far more than simply another academic requirement. It was a meaningful and introspective experience that allowed me to reconnect with the history, culture and people who mean so much to me. Local and Native voices are too often absent from public discourse, and I felt a responsibility to ensure that the voices of community members are recognized and credited for their work,” Hiatt says.

Her research included analyzing the grassroots organization ’s Instagram posts, critically comparing its strategies to two other Hawaiian land-based movements, determining how it amassed 21,000 followers and assessing how it conducted voter education and registration drives. She examined how the group helped pass land-use regulation bills that opened housing for displaced fire victims, aiding community members to maintain island residency. She also interviewed group founder Jordan Ruidas.

SOURCE Support

Supported by the (SOURCE), Hiatt took her research further. She traveled to Maui to gauge the destruction and witness the organization’s impact firsthand, and attended the , a community holiday market held at the site of a Buddhist temple destroyed by the fires.

The opportunity to conduct on-the-ground inquiry in Maui and to see the impact of the fires was transformative, Hiatt says. “Being present at the market—the actual site of so much loss and resilience—gave the research a depth and texture that no amount of reading could provide.”

Mentors and Guides

Hiatt says she approached the project “with deep humility, mindful of the lives lost and the real people who are not only living with the consequences of this disaster but are also using this moment to reshape the political and social dynamics of their community.”

She credits thesis advisor , professor of political science; , assistant professor of political science; and , who leads the school’s Political Science Distinction Thesis Seminar with helping her hone analytical and critical thinking skills, build confidence in academic spaces and develop stronger scholarly writing practices. “Their mentorship has been invaluable,” Hiatt says. “It has pushed me to approach complex questions with more rigor and more care.”

Hiatt would like to see her research published in an undergraduate research journal in hopes of inspiring other students to learn of ����󲹾�����’s post-fire political landscape and perhaps continue the research.

She also believes the lessons she’s learned this past year will carry forward into her career. After Commencement, she plans to work full time in compliance at Fidelity Investments before applying to law school in the future. “My commitment to institutional accountability and transparency ultimately connects both my thesis research and my future professional goals,” she says.

Reporters looking for an expert to discuss the situation in Venezuela and the arrest of the former president and first lady, ������ professor of history is available.

McCormick,�� the Jay and Debe Moskowitz Endowed Chair in Mexico-U.S. Relations in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, studies the political and economic history of Latin America and the Caribbean with a focus on the corruption, drug trafficking and political violence.

In regards to the recent news, McCormick shared these thoughts:

• “The inconsistent rationale for capturing Maduro has been jarring. On Saturday morning, Senator Mike Lee said that Marco Rubio told him there would be no follow-up action in Venezuela past the capture of Maduro and his wife, which implies that the State Department will not claim that this was regime change,” says McCormick. “This action lined up with the justification that this was merely an arrest given Maduro’s indictment in the U.S. court system. At the subsequent press conference, President Trump announced that the U.S. government was taking over Venezuela, which Rubio walked back on Sunday. While the military and intelligence parts of the operation were a success, the follow-through has been sloppy and inconsistent.”
• “While the news of Maduro’s capture was shocking, it should not come entirely as a surprise. The Trump administration’s bombings of boats in the southern Caribbean could not go on much longer without generating political backlash in the U.S. and across the region,” says McCormick.
• “Three reasons help us understand why the Trump administration was running out of time. First, the U.S. has dramatically increased its military presence in the region and it could not risk pulling back on it without some form of victory to justify the build-up. Second, the growing toll of bodies washing up on shores from the bombings of boats along with calls from the international community that these actions were illegal increased pressure. Third, the Trump administration could not risk having ‘boots on the ground’ by the U.S. military beyond a Delta Force extrication. These reasons combined to push the U.S. government into a corner,” McCormick says.
• “Removing Maduro does not guarantee there will be a peaceful or democratic outcome because the existing institutions that supported Hugo Chávez and subsequently Maduro have been around for decades and remain intact,” says McCormick. “These include military beholden to Maduro and deep patronage networks tied to illicit economies and organized crime. The absence of a clear post-Maduro transition plan means there will likely be a power vacuum and enormous uncertainty in Venezuela’s near future. For the moment, Maduro’s vice-president, Delcy Rodriguez, is in control. It is unclear how long she will remain in place or how she will negotiate with the U.S. given her public posturing backing Maduro.”
• “There is a real possibility that this power vacuum will lead to strife among warring factions of organized criminal groups. No matter what the configuration, this level of uncertainty is highly worrisome for what comes next for Venezuela,” says McCormick.

To arrange an interview, contact Ellen James Mbuqe, executive director of media relations, at ejmbuqe@syr.edu.

Standing before the at , surrounded by his peers in the 10th annual class of , Ray Toenniessen ’06 felt clarity, focused by the stillness and weight of sacrifice around them.

In that moment, three of his classmates and the program’s retiring co-director Mike Hemphill—all fellow veterans—laid a wreath at the tomb. Watching them, the deputy executive director of the felt the lessons of everything he’d learned, questioned and wrestled with throughout the program—and through lectures and meetings with two former presidents—coalesce into one realization. Leadership is about responsibility.

“It’s hard to put into words, but it was a very deep moment of connection and reflection amongst the class,” he says.

The�� cemetery visit was made during the six-month program’s final module. During a block of free time, Toenniessen and the handful of other veterans in the cohort arranged to lay a wreath at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

But the entire class ended up joining the group.

With the evidence of the ultimate sacrifice made in service around them, following months of lessons on leadership, Toenniessen says everyone was overcome with emotion.

“We had all formed deep connections, deep relationships by this point,” he says. “Arlington and the tomb, to many of us who served, holds a very personal meaning. And so seeing the class gathered around the tomb was really powerful.”

What It Was Like Participating

Over the course of program, Toenniessen and his 57 classmates gathered for six modules, starting in Philadelphia and ending in the nation’s Capitol, visiting the participating presidential centers in-between: the , the , the and then the .

During each module, the class went through the lessons and learnings from the presidents.

“We did a lot of reading around that specific president, key legislation, oftentimes key speeches, looking at their actions,” Toenniessen says. “Then when you were on site, you were really looking at, ‘Well, what led them to those decisions? Why did LBJ need to be so persuasive? Why was it important to President Bush to build coalitions and partnerships? How is President Clinton such an effective communicator?”

In College Station, , who served as George H.W. Bush’s secretary of transportation and later as George W. Bush’s chief of staff, gave a firsthand account of 9/11, telling the scholars about the moment he about the attacks.

In Dallas, the scholars heard Bush speak, then they heard from both President Bill Clinton and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, in Little Rock. The talks were followed by dinners, closed to the press, where participants could talk candidly with the former presidents.

“That part of the program is just hands-down one of those experiences that you’ll probably never get again,” Toenniessen says.

Learning also happened outside the focus on the former presidents, Toenniessen says.

The class was composed of people from all walks of life, different industries and backgrounds, and outside the lectures and program events, the scholars took the opportunity to get to know one another and learn from each other’s experiences.

“We clicked as a cohort very early,” Toenniessen says. “You’re able to lean on folks, not just for things going on in the program, but things that might be happening in your work or professional life.”

The Lessons on Leadership

Toenniessen says one of his biggest takeaways from the program is that with humility and intention—through listening, compromise, courage—it is possible to bridge divides to serve your community.

“In an environment that seems so politically hostile, how do you bring people together with differing views, differing backgrounds and get them to a place where it’s OK to disagree,” Toenniessen says. “But how do we do it from a place of respect and civil discourse and still even be able to maintain friendships and relationships through it.”

Humility was also touched upon by General Peter Pace, a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

“He spoke a lot about starting with humility and not going in guns blazing, but really taking this stance of humility as you’re speaking truth to power,” Toenniessen says.

It’s a lesson from the program that made clear to Toenniessen that real leadership is about showing up, quietly and consistently in service to something greater than oneself.

In a Linkedin post, Toenniessen reflected on his experience in the program, saying it deepened his understanding of leadership.

“​​It reshaped how I want to lead,” he wrote. “With humility. With intention. And with a commitment to showing up when it matters.”

Americans increasingly see the country as more divided than at any time since the Civil War. a sharp rise in partisan hostility: in 2022, 72% of Republicans and 63% of Democrats viewed the opposing party as more immoral than other Americans—up dramatically from 47% and 35% in 2016.

, research director at the University’s and professor of political science at the ,��studies this divide and its threat to democracy. Her research, supported by a 2024 Carnegie Fellowship, provides insights into how America reached this point and what recent government dysfunction reveals about our country’s political health.

Dunaway points out several key factors, starting with a fundamental misperception problem, for why America has become so politically divided. ��

“Much of the polarization that escalated in recent decades was largely driven by misperceptions people have about ordinary partisans on the other side—the everyday people in your neighborhood or office who happen to support the other party. The political leaders who receive the most media attention are usually the more extreme members of their party, left or right. As a result, people tend to assume ordinary partisans hold the same views as their party’s leaders. This is rarely the case except among the most extreme voters.”

Most Americans still fall closer to the center, she says. “Yet when people are asked to evaluate the opposing party, they often feel considerable animosity based on what they hear from that party’s elite and governing members. They tend to assume members of the opposing party are more extreme than they are, which creates the perception of greater policy differences between Democrats and Republicans in the public than truly exist.”

The division also results from genuine frustrations with government, the economy, and inequalities of wealth and opportunity, according to Dunaway.

“Government often seems out of touch or unresponsive, which is one reason trust in government and institutions has reached historical lows. When you combine these conditions with politically motivated leaders, charged rhetoric and a difficult-to-parse digital information environment, it becomes easy for people to blame everything they’re experiencing on the other side,” she says.

Some members of the press, political pundits and researchers have voiced the belief that politically polarized media are exacerbating the opinion divide, according to IDJC research.

Dunaway says her interpretations of the research on this issue “is that media effects exist, but they don’t work the way people often assume—with media doing all the persuading. Media in all forms respond to audience preferences and behaviors as much as the other way around. Unfortunately, the patterns of information we end up being exposed to still exacerbate divisions.”

She says the blame is tied to the economic model of today’s media landscape. “Underlying media emphasis on the extreme and outrageous is that most digital media relies on attention metrics like clicks and because competition for the public’s attention is so intense. Media outlets face strong economic incentives to publish and promote the most attention-grabbing content,” she says.

Many believe the government shutdown is evidence of partisanship beyond typical political disagreement—to the point of mutual delegitimization.

“Yes and no,” Dunaway says. “I don’t think it marks the arrival of that kind of shift. Instead, the shutdown is a symptom of the fact that we’ve already experienced that shift—from political disagreement and polarization to more serious issues like mutual delegitimization. We are, and have been for quite some time, at the point where the two opposing entities are systematically and intentionally undermining each other’s legitimacy.”

Dunaway thinks calmer voices may eventually tamp down political rancor and return more civility to public discourse.

“I think it will depend on if we can get back to the notion of all politics being local. ��and research��shows that the negative effects of polarization are less evident among local public officials and local communities. Local governments are in a unique position to cooperate and compromise across party lines.

She observes: “Both local news and local politics are less polarizing than their national counterparts. Our [IDJC] research on polarized voting behavior [PDF]��and affective polarization [PDF]��shows local news is less politically polarizing [and] more trusted relative to national news. Because local news is more focused on local issues of more immediate daily concern rather than national politics, it contains fewer partisan cues, which tend to activate partisan sentiment.

Also encouraging, Dunaway says, is a broadening research and investment initiative to help bolster how media outlets operate and cover political news.

“The other reason for optimism is that there is broadening philanthropic interest in funding efforts to shore up local news. And in many states, there are policy efforts to address the challenges facing local news. My colleague ’s work with our new ��is a perfect example of the kind of work philanthropists are helping to fund as we test different ways of restoring and supporting local news.”

The IDJC is a joint initiative of the and the Maxwell School. It conducts nonpartisan research, teaching and public dialogue aimed at strengthening trust in news media, governance and society.

If you need an expert to discuss the newly elected first female prime minister of Japan, , associate professor of political science in the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, is available for interviews. Her expertise is in Japan, politics and gender. She shared her thoughts below. If you’d like to schedule an interview, please reach out to Vanessa Marquette, media relations specialist, at vrmarque@syr.edu.

Professor Estévez-Abe writes: “Japan’s first female prime minister likes to talk about Margaret Thatcher. But Sanae Takaichi is no Iron Lady. She is no Giorgia Meloni either. Thatcher and Meloni came to power riding on their winning parties. Both broke the glass ceiling. Takaichi’s rise to power reflects the desperation of her party.

“The LDP [Liberal Democratic Party] has been losing electoral support and no longer has the majority in neither of the Houses in the Diet. The LDP has had numerous scandals and its policies have made most Japanese citizens worse off. Yet, the LDP has no grand vision for the future and faces multiple formidable rival conservative parties.

“Takaichi was chosen as a knee-jerk reaction to the huge electoral win by the right-wing populist party in July. Her platform is xenophobia and delusional nationalism. Precisely for this reason, Takaichi has never enjoyed significant support of her colleagues. A prime minister who hates foreigners—whether tourists or her Asian trading partners—is bound to be disastrous. She’s no feminist and the two women she has chosen for her cabinet aren’t either.”

A turning point in Pete Buttigieg’s public service career came with unrelenting rainfall while he was mayor of South Bend, Indiana. The city of roughly 100,000 experienced flooding that washed out roadways, damaged properties and endangered lives.

Buttigieg activated the city’s emergency operations center and hit the streets to assess the damage. At the urging of a councilmember, he knocked on the door of a woman who needed assistance.

Inside, he saw her family’s possessions floating in the flood water.

“And that was the moment that my mental image of climate change stopped being polar bears and ice shelves,” he said. “I think of political rhetoric around climate change. Not that I don’t care about what happens in the Arctic, but this was happening on the west side of South Bend, Indiana.”

Capacity Crowd at Syracuse

Buttigieg reflected on the flood’s aftermath during a conversation-style event in the National Veterans Resource Center at the Daniel and Gayle D’Aniello Building on Friday, Oct. 3. Part of the Pontarelli Speaker Series—named for its sponsors, alumnus and University Trustee Kenneth A. Pontarelli ’92 and his wife, Tracey—the talk was co-hosted by the and the .

Buttigieg shared the stage with , Pontarelli Professor of Environmental Sustainability and Finance and director of the ������ . Their conversation encompassed environmental issues, leadership, American democracy and more.

In his opening remarks, Maxwell Dean said he was heartened to see so many students in the audience—all tickets for the event were claimed less than 20 minutes after it was announced. “These individuals are passionate about the issues we’re going to discuss today, and they are our future leaders,” said Van Slyke.

Before welcoming Buttigieg to the stage, Whitman’s interim dean, , shared some of his accomplishments. Buttigieg became mayor of South Bend in 2012 at age 29. He was elected for two terms and departed for a 2014 deployment to Afghanistan as a Naval reservist. In 2020, he sought the Democratic nomination for president, winning the Iowa caucuses. As U.S. secretary of transportation from 2021-25, Buttigieg implemented the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act which funded over 70,000 projects.

The Syracuse event occurred three days into a shutdown of the U.S. government. Golden’s first question presented an opportunity for a general assessment: “Where are we today as a nation?”

Facing Unprecedented Challenges

“I don’t think it’s an exaggeration to say that not since the Civil War has our country faced this level of challenges—certainly not since World War II,” replied Buttigieg. “And so much of it is actually happening not because of an external threat.”

Social media, with its misinformation and algorithms, has distorted perspectives and relationships, he said. At the same time, Buttigieg said, the U.S. is witnessing an unprecedented level of government assertion of control over not only its own branches but also entities that have long remained independent such as academia and even late-night television.

“That makes this an extremely challenging time, but also a particularly important time for universities, because universities exist for the purpose of finding the truth, for the purpose of fostering dialogue and healthy difference and for charting where we are supposed to go next in ways that maybe won’t fully resemble the status quo that we inherited,” said Buttigieg, who later said universities need to fiercely guard their independence.

Several of Golden’s questions focused on the environment. For instance, he wondered what the current administration is trying to accomplish by repealing and diminishing protections. Buttigieg shared his view that much of the transitions have served to benefit certain friends and allies.

“Part of the tragedy of this is there is a healthy conservative critique to be made of environmental policies that are either self-defeating or unreasonable,” added Buttigieg. “And I say that as a strong believer in environmental protection.”

Several students posed questions, some related to climate change and the recent downsizing and dismantling federal departments like USAID.

Donough Lawlor, who is pursuing a master of science in sustainable organizations and policy, asked Buttigieg to comment on the impact of doing away with USAID and the worldview of U.S. leadership.

While he expressed deep concern, Buttigieg pointed out that many entities were formed in the 1940s and 50s “based on the way the world was.”

“Sooner or later, it’s going to be somebody’s job to figure out what to put in there next,” he said. “And that’s actually a huge opportunity to set up development aid in a way that is more responsive to the needs of the people it’s supposed to serve.”

He added, “my main impulse is not despondency, even though it can be depressing to watch, but actually propulsion.”

Looking Forward, Not Back

In South Bend, he said, prior generations often reflected about the economic boomtime prior to the 1963 closure of a main employer, the Studebaker auto plant. His community had a breakthrough in part, he said, because his generation was the first that didn’t experience its automaking heyday. As mayor, he said, all he could consider is “what do we do next?”

A parting message seemed directed toward students.

“If you’re considering participating in civic processes, which I hope you will, don’t underestimate the moral authority that you carry as a young person saying, ‘This decision you’re about to make affects me,’” he said. “The longer you are planning to be here, the more you have at stake, and I think, the more you have to say.”

Many observers have grimly predicted that a divorce between red and blue America could well happen. Professor Ryan Griffiths answered a few questions about how likely is this possibility, and would it really produce a beneficial outcome?

Reporters looking for experts to offer insight on the impending government shut down, political science professor is available to speak with reporters.

In response to the impending shutdown, he offered this response:

• “I made a friendly bet several weeks ago with the lead strategist of a notable bi-partisan advocacy group. He took shutdown and I took no shutdown. That was my hunch then, but it’s looking like I’ll be owing him a beer,” said Reeher.
• “In the past, Democrats often complained about Republicans trying to add other issues into continuing resolutions and debt ceiling adjustments. Now the shoe is on the other foot,” said Reeher. “Democratic leadership in Congress has been getting a lot of pressure from younger members and activists and their base to be more aggressive and combative with the Republicans, so those Congressional Democrats have inserted a demand to relitigate some of the aspects of the One Big Beautiful Bill, in particular regarding health care. They want some of the new regulations that will result in less funding for health care programs rolled back.”
• “Republicans, and in particular President Trump, regard this as a non-starter. I don’t see a lot of wiggle room on this, unless there’s a partial restoration, allowing perhaps some funding to continue as before. But no one’s really talking about that as a serious option,” said Reeher.
• “This is a moment similar to the Clinton-Gingrich showdown, where each calculated that a shutdown would be blamed more on the other party. Someone will be wrong,” said Reeher.
• “Who is actually to blame for this? There’s no right answer, but logic would suggest that reopening legislation that was just passed, and making that the basis for a government shutdown, would probably lead to the Democrats being held more accountable. That might help them with their base, and keep Senator Schumer safer in a primary for example, but nationally it could backfire on the party.�� History suggests that presidents often get the best of these standoffs,” said Reeher.
• “Will it matter for the midterms?�� It totally depends on what happens between now and then.�� Political memories are short and November 2026 is still a ways away,” said Reeher.

To schedule an interview�� with Professor Reeher, please contact Ellen James Mbuqe, executive director of media relations, at ejmbuqe@syr.edu.

Three graduate students��in the����have been awarded grants by the����(APSA) in support and recognition of their work.

Research grants were awarded to Ph.D. candidates Jingding Wang and Hannah Radner, and a third candidate, Nicholas D’Amico, received an award for his dissertation proposal.

Doctoral dissertation research improvement grants support dissertation research that aims to advance knowledge and understanding of citizenship, government and politics.

Wang is examining how access to central bank digital currencies—digital versions of government-issued money—creates new forms of power, affecting the global financial landscape. The grant will fund fieldwork abroad, enabling Wang to study cross-border payment networks that link different types of currencies.

Radner’s research examines the ways political parties adjust their campaigns based on the scope of their elections and seeks to determine if parties deliberately change their messaging to better connect with local voters in subnational elections. She will use the grant to support a trip to the United Kingdom to study campaign strategies in the upcoming Scottish and Welsh parliamentary elections.

D’Amico was honored with the organization’s Kenneth Sherrill Prize for the best dissertation proposal for an empirical study of lesbian, gay, bisexual or transgender (LGBT) topics in political science.

His proposal, titled “Rainbow Participation? Assessing the Forces Motivating LGBTQ Participation and Political Identity in the United States,” seeks to explain why LGBTQ Americans tend to be more politically active and consistent in their views. He will conduct interviews and surveys while analyzing pre-existing research to test his idea that shared experiences—and the way those experiences shape a sense of community—play a key role in LGBTQ political identity and behavior. D’Amico is one of nine 2025 APSA Dissertation Award recipients.

Story by Catherine Scott

After the sweeping tariffs were unveiled on April 2 on nearly all United States trading partners, the impact on the stock market was felt immediately, but how would this impact the political parties in the coming elections? Political Science Professor Grant Reeher offers a few thoughts. He is available to speak to reporters on all aspects of American politics.

• “Here’s the way all this is likely to go down politically:�� All things being equal and according to Hoyle, the Republicans were likely to lose the House in 2026.�� Now that’s a lock.�� In the next few months, there will be more pressure to pass a tax cut bill, in the hopes that it can stem some of the bleeding, and so that is likely to get through.�� But after that, Republicans will be banished into the political wilderness, perhaps for generations—if the Democrats can change course from 2024 and pivot to an emphasis on real economic issues that appeal to all social groups.�� As opposed 2008 and 2020, when a fundamentally ill-structured mortgage securities market and a pandemic produced worldwide economic downturns, this one was produced by one person, acting unilaterally, ignoring expert consensus, and without a clear goal.�� Democrats will be able to run against the current moment in the same way that Republicans were able to ‘wave the bloody shirt’ for years after the Civil War, Democrats ran against ‘Hoovervilles,’ and Republicans ran against Carter’s ‘malaise,’” said Reeher.

To arrange an interview, please contact media relations executive director Ellen James Mbuqe at ejmbuqe@syr.edu.

Is China really considering Elon Musk to acquire TikTok? If so, one ������ professor shared what he thought this could mean for U.S.-China relations. is an associate professor of political science at ������’s Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs and director of Chinese studies at ������, where he teaches courses on Chinese politics, comparative autocracy, research methods and foreign policy. I have shared his commentary below with his thoughts on the Musk and TikTok story. If you’d like to schedule an interview with him, please reach out to Vanessa Marquette, media relations specialist, at vrmarque@syr.edu.

Professor Geuorguiev writes: “While this rumored proposal remains entirely speculative, the possibility should not be dismissed outright. President-elect Trump has indicated a desire for a political resolution to the TikTok dispute, and Elon Musk is uniquely positioned to facilitate such an outcome. His significant financial resources, established business ties in China through Tesla, and prominence in the social media industry via X make him a potential candidate for brokering a deal acceptable to multiple stakeholders. Additionally, Musk’s recognition and favorability in China could render the arrangement more appealing to Beijing. However, such a move would inevitably raise serious concerns among the American public and the U.S. national security establishment. Musk’s growing web of business and political influence, especially as he gains prominence in the incoming Trump administration, could create significant conflicts of interest that warrant close scrutiny.”

• “I think that there are high levels of anxiety about this election because the stakes of the election are very high. Anxiety comes from the sense of uncertainty about the future and here that anxiety is what is the nature of the US government and society going forward,” said Gadarian.

• “Harris and Trump have very different visions for who has power and who benefits from government in the future. Trump’s vision is of a future where the federal government deports immigrants, takes revenge on enemies foreign and domestic, and keeps ‘America for Americans’. This is a vision that appeals to a part of the electorate who feels left behind, but it is not one that is widely shared even among people who may ultimately support Trump at the ballot box.

• “Harris’s vision is more about using the federal government to broaden who shares in power and who benefits from programs like Medicare. The uncertainty and anxiety that she is focusing on is about Trump’s unique threat to the democratic institutions of government and that the future might bring a diminished democracy or no real democracy under a second Trump term with fewer guardrails than in the first term,” said Gadarian. “Anxiety alone is not a motivator for action, in fact, it can lead to avoidance in very high levels.”

• “But pairing anxiety with a solution and telling people how to resolve it can allow people to feel efficacious. Importantly, the best antidote for anxiety at this point is the same no matter which candidate’s vision you subscribe to and it’s to vote,” said Gadarian.

1. “Focus on what you can control – the antidote to helplessness is taking action. Channel your energy into constructive activities that can provide a sense of accomplishment.
2. Practice self-care – adequate sleep, regular physical activity and healthy eating habits are important for all of us, yet especially important during stressful times.
3. Obtain adequate social support offline – online discussions can become flame wars and unproductive. Meaningfully connect with others offline daily. Set boundaries around news consumption and social media use.
4. Stay grounded and keep your perspective – try to not allow dark feelings and events to take up all your mental space. Make room to see the good and experiences that give you hope and purpose.”

• “In every state where abortion has been on the ballot since the end of Roe v. Wade, abortion access has won with significant majorities even in conservative states. This means that there are voters in places like Kansas, Ohio, and Kentucky who normally support Republican candidates who turned out in off-year elections to support abortion access as a single issue,” said Gadarian.

• “As in other states, I would anticipate that there are a lot of conservative voters in Florida who ultimately support more access to abortion than the 6-week ban that is going to go into effect and abortion access is a popular issue. Two things make this ballot measure more challenging for abortion access than the previous ballot measures:
  • “1. the threshold for victory for this constitutional amendment that would enshrine access is 60% which is more than the threshold that Ohio’s constitutional amendment won by (57%), and
  • 2. being during a presidential election cycle means that you will see higher turnout generally which will include more Republicans voters who may be more skeptical of a constitutional amendment,” said Gadarian.

• “That doesn’t mean that it will lose – this constitutional amendment will likely drive more Democrats to the polls, but in my mind, the election timing does make it more challenging. What you are likely to see is that there will be cross-over conservative voters who vote for abortion access and Trump for president so I wouldn’t anticipate that even this salient issue is enough to swing Florida toward Biden even if people support a policy that is more aligned with Democrats,” said Gadarian.

• USA,��
• BBC,��
• Christian Science Monitor��
• NBC News,��
• Agence France-Presse,��
• Newsweek,��
• WBUR’s On Point,��
• Axios,��
• US News and World Report,��