Presidential debate: ‘Both candidates will portray the future of American democracy as hinging on this election’’

Monica Prasad

Professor of sociology and Weinberg College of Arts and Sciences Board of Visitors Professor

Prasad's research interests include economic sociology, comparative historical sociology, and political sociology.

• m-prasad@northwestern.edu

"Trump's argument is that he doesn't pay taxes because he's clever, and that appeals to many in his base, but they're already voting for him.  Biden's argument is that the rich, like Trump, get away with paying nothing, while everyone else ends up paying more.  Anyone who could be convinced by an argument like that is already voting for Biden.

Jaime Dominguez

Associate professor of political science and Latino/a studies

Dominguez's research interests include race and ethnicity, coalition politics and urban and minority politics.

• j-dominguez@northwestern.edu

“COVID-19 will be front and center at the debate as will the replacement of Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s successor on the Supreme Court. Biden’s best strength will be to hammer President Trump on the poor government response to the public health crisis, but he will also have to offer concrete policy solutions to remedying the crisis.

“How will his administration respond to the growing deaths? What is his proposal to making testing readily available? How will he work with governors in the implementation of these solutions? President Trump is going to have to defend his administration’s actions, and there is no doubt he will talk up the economy with the hope that this will distract from the virus. The Affordable Care Act will also come up as it is tied to both the current public health crisis and the Supreme Court vacancy. For Biden, he will push the notion that a newly configured, more conservative Supreme Court puts the ACA in peril and jeopardizes existing health care coverage for 20 million Americans.”  

Georgy Egorov

Professor of managerial economics and decision sciences at Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management

Egorov's previous research tackled voting dynamics, political campaigns and political economy.

• molly@lynchgrouponline.com

“Both campaigns – Trump rushing the (Supreme Court) nomination and Biden not releasing a list of potential nominees under a quite superficial excuse – have made mistakes from the campaigning standpoint. There likely are high-level considerations that can override campaigning. But it’s easier to think of such considerations for Trump, including having an extra justice in case of a Bush v. Gore-type development, or delivering on a campaign promise.

“For Biden, it just looks like a strategic mistake. Before the passing of Justice Ginsburg, not releasing the list made sense – there was no need to divert attention from other issues, and it would be tricky to satisfy a diverse coalition. Now that the Supreme Court becomes the major issue, it would have been wise to treat all other issues as resolved – like look, we already established that Trump botched the COVID-19 response – and then pivot 100 percent to the Supreme Court. Right now, I see a mixed message – we want to talk about the Supreme Court, but also don’t want to talk about it. I can only wonder how the Biden campaign will navigate it.

“How big is this mistake? Slightly exaggerating, it may be a Clinton not campaigning in Wisconsin level. Most likely it will not matter, but if the map in 2020 looks identical to 2016, it will be clear to everyone how this happened.”

Martin Redish

Louis and Harriet Ancel Professor of Law and Public Policy at Northwestern Law

Redish teaches and writes on the subjects of federal jurisdiction, civil procedure, freedom of expression and constitutional law.

• m-redish@law.northwestern.edu

Redish can discuss how the Supreme Court vacancy could affect election politics as well as possible SCOTUS nominees. 

Juliet Sorensen

Clinical professor of law and executive director of Injustice Watch

From 2003-2010, Sorensen was an assistant U.S. attorney in the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Chicago, focusing on fraud and public corruption.

Alvin B. Tillery Jr.

Associate professor of political science

Tillery's research and teaching interests are in the fields of American politics and political theory. His research focuses on American political development, racial and ethnic politics and media and politics.

• alvin.tillery@northwestern.edu

“Mr. Trump is likely the most vulnerable incumbent in the history of modern polling. In short, Mr. Trump needs to do something that will change the narrative of the horse race. The problem is that living inside the bubble that is the modern presidency often leaves incumbents unprepared for the types of challenges that they face on the debate stage. Most presidents try to get out of this bubble by anticipating and practicing the kinds of attacks that will be forthcoming from their opponent. As we have seen over the course of his first term, Mr. Trump is not a traditional president. He is typically unprepared and lacks discipline in even the most rudimentary encounters with the press and the public. My expectation is that he will launch into the same kind of sloganeering and ad hominin attacks that characterized his behavior during his debates with Secretary Clinton in 2016. The problem for Mr. Trump is that Mr. Biden has much higher poll ratings that Mrs. Clinton did in 2016. Moreover, he is an incredibly skilled debater with more than 40 years in public life. When you add to these facts that Mr. Biden is very successful at projecting empathy to the American people, it will leave Mr. Trump in an incredibly vulnerable position on that debate stage.

“I also think that Mr. Biden will take the opportunity to channel President Reagan’s powerful line from his debate with President Carter in 1980 by directly asking the American people: ‘Are you better off today than you were four years ago?’”

Geraldo Cadava

Associate professor of history and director of the Latina/o Studies Program

Cadava is affiliated with the Center for Native American and Indigenous Research.

• g-cadava@northwestern.edu

“It’ll be the first time during their campaigns that they’ll both (Biden and Trump) be on stage together. So far, both candidates have been able to present their own truths and untruths about why Latinas and Latinos should vote for them — In a kind of friction-free spin zone. Presumably, this means that the debates will be an opportunity for both candidates to actually engage one another. 

“Trump has been able to talk about how well the economy was working for the Latino community before the coronavirus, without having to address the fact that, during his administration, families were separated from their children, migrants were placed in detention centers with poor conditions, and many Latino business owners requesting federal loan support from the Small Business Administration were ignored. If he’s prepared, he’ll have answers to these questions, but he will have to answer them — or at least Biden and moderators will make him try. 

“Biden, meanwhile, in many ways has underperformed with Latinas and Latinos because he got a late start and hasn’t demonstrated much cultural competency. He has also only railed against Trump’s immigration and border policies and has noted how devastating the coronavirus has been for Latino communities. But he hasn’t addressed the substance of Trump’s support for charter schools, religious freedom, financial deregulations or other issues that a significant percentage of Latinos favor.”

Cadava is the author of “The Hispanic Republican: The Shaping of American Political Identity, from Nixon to Trump.”

Laurel Harbridge-Yong

Associate professor of political science; faculty fellow in Northwestern’s Institute for Policy Research (IPR)

Professor and Associate Chair, Department of Political Science
Faculty Fellow and Associate Director, Institute for Policy Research

• l-harbridge@northwestern.edu

“Going into the first debates, both candidates will seek to persuade undecided voters and mobilize their base. Given the rhetoric on both sides this election season, I expect that more so than past debates, both candidates will portray the future of American democracy as hinging on this election. This may mean that the candidates veer away from discussing substantive policy differences and raise core differences in governing styles, trust in science and their views on the democratic voting process.”

Harbridge-Yong's most recent book is “Rejecting Compromise: Legislators’ Fear of Primary Voters.”

Olga Kamenchuk

Associate research professor in IPR; senior lecturer in the School of Communication

Kamenchuck is an expert in opinion polling and Russian-American relations and security.

• olga.kamenchuk@northwestern.edu

“Donald Trump is consistent in avoiding any rhetoric that could upset Vladimir Putin and diverting criticisms from Russia to China, as he recently did when he suggested that China may have poisoned Russian opposition leader Akexey Navalny. If asked about virtually anything related to Russia, Donald Trump will be careful to avoid wording that could upset Vladimir Putin.  

“Conversely, Democratic candidate Joe Biden was clear in his acceptance speech at the DNC that he will not tolerate interference into U.S. elections by Russia. It is highly likely that Russia will continue its support of Donald Trump’s re-election efforts because Vladimir Putin knows stricter sanctions are likely under a President Biden.  

“Recent opinion polls on Russia-U.S. relations that I have conducted demonstrate that this is a highly partisan question. While GOP-leaning respondents support ideas of compromise and cooperation with Russia, Democratic-leaning voters oppose it. So, both candidates would be going in line with their electorate if they keep their previous rhetoric regarding Russia.”

Kamenchuck is coauthor of the study “Don’t Call It a Cold War: Findings from the Russian-American Relations Survey 2019” and co-principal investigator on the Comparative National Elections Project for Russian, Ukrainian, and Serbian electoral studies. 

Erik C. Nisbet

Owen L. Coon Endowed Professor of Policy Analysis and Communication; director of the Center for Communication and Public Policy in Northwestern’s School of Communication

Nisbet's esearch lies at the intersection of communication, public opinion and public policy in the areas of science, technology and environmental policy. Nisbet also studies governance and elections, and international security.

• erik.nisbet@northwestern.edu

“If Trump wins, his administration will continue to emasculate U.S. environmental regulation for another four years with long-term negative impacts on America’s ability to address the consequences of climate change – consequences we are experiencing now during record-breaking hurricane and forest fire seasons. While a Biden victory will allow the Democrats to undo much of the administrative and regulatory changes to climate and environmental policy enacted by the Trump administration, it is unlikely to create any major legislative action on climate change, especially amid the COVID-19 pandemic.”