Image
Loading...
Like many Americans, the standing-room-only crowd at the Rubenstein Library Holsti-Anderson Family Assembly Room, was looking for clarity on Tuesday’s election results. A historic campaign season, that included an outsized spotlight on North Carolina, has ended in Donald Trump’s second election to America’s highest office.
Faculty members Frank Bruni, Sunshine Hillygus, and Peter Feaver, under the moderation of Polis: Center for Politics Director Abdullah Antepli, tackled not only campaign strategies and voter trends but also the importance of civil discourse and a renewed focus on bridging divides.
The event’s overarching theme was clear: this moment calls for both introspection and active listening to one another. Here’s a look at the panelists' key insights.
Radical Honesty in a Time of Division
Image
Bruni opened with a straightforward message for those disillusioned by the election results, urging everyone to resist easy explanations or blaming others. He championed what he called “radical honesty”—a willingness to scrutinize both personal beliefs and larger strategies for achieving common ground.
“This is a moment that calls for radical honesty, for very, very honest self-reflection,” Bruni said, stressing the need to question assumptions. “If you’re disappointed by these results, it’s time to ask why so many voters felt differently.”
Bruni cautioned against reducing complex outcomes to simple narratives, reminding the audience that, for meaningful progress, we must engage earnestly and avoid casting others in monolithic terms. His call was not only for self-awareness but for actively listening to the perspectives of those who voted differently.
“This is a moment that calls for radical honesty, for very, very honest self-reflection. If you’re disappointed by these results, it’s time to ask why so many voters felt differently.”
Frank Bruni, Eugene C. Patterson Professor of the Practice of Journalism and Public Policy
“Demography is Not Destiny” with political Identity
Image
Sunshine Hillygus offered a nuanced analysis of demographic trends, pushing back against the assumption that certain groups will reliably support particular agendas. She cautioned against viewing voters solely as members of demographic blocks and emphasized that people’s concerns are often rooted in their immediate economic realities, not just party lines.
“Demography is not destiny,” Hillygus stated firmly. “We need to remember that elections are won not by assuming loyalties but by persuading and speaking directly to people’s lived experiences.”
She highlighted that key independent voters in swing states often prioritize economic issues over partisan divisions, underscoring the importance of outreach that moves beyond labels. Hillygus’ message was clear: to foster constructive dialogue, we must meet people where they are and understand that individual motivations are often more nuanced than assumed.
“Demography is not destiny. We need to remember that elections are won not by assuming loyalties but by persuading and speaking directly to people’s lived experiences.”
Sunshine Hillygus, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Duke Initiative on Survey Methodology.
Trump 1.0 vs. Trump 2.0: What Could Be Different
Image
Addressing the potential implications of a second Trump administration, Feaver contrasted the first Trump term, which he called “Trump 1.0,” with what he expects from “Trump 2.0.” Feaver suggested that the lessons Trump has taken from his first term could lead to even bolder decisions on both domestic and international fronts.
“The composition of his staff will be different, the congressional support is more solidly aligned with Trump, and the world itself is more dangerous now,” Feaver remarked. He emphasized that this combination of factors could mean a more assertive stance on key issues, with fewer traditional constraints in place to temper Trump’s decisions.
Feaver’s analysis underscored the potentially high stakes for foreign and domestic policy, reminding the audience that the next administration—whatever its makeup—will face a different global and political landscape.
Ukraine, Foreign Policy, and Global Repercussions
Feaver turned the discussion toward the global implications of the election results, focusing on Ukraine and the importance of diplomatic stability. He warned that U.S. support for Ukraine could waver, potentially shifting the balance of power in the ongoing conflict with Russia. Feaver encouraged awareness of how interconnected global and domestic policies are.
Referencing Biden’s final months as commander-in-chief, Feaver pondered a final push for U.S. support to Ukraine. “The stronger Ukraine is by inauguration day, the better for whatever negotiations come next,” Feaver observed. He stressed that the international community is watching, and the U.S. has a role to play in upholding stability.
Feaver’s remarks served as a reminder that civil discourse extends beyond borders. Decisions made in Washington or Kyiv have profound implications across the globe, and he urged the audience to recognize how interconnected the modern political landscape has become.
“The composition of his (Trump's) staff will be different, the congressional support is more solidly aligned with Trump, and the world itself is more dangerous now."
Peter Feaver, Professor of Political Science and Director of the Duke Program in American Grand Strategy
It’s Not All on Harris: A Call for Perspective
While discussing the election’s outcome, Bruni pointed out that it’s shortsighted to place the blame solely on Vice President Kamala Harris. He recognized that Harris faced unique challenges, including a difficult political landscape and the nearly impossible task of reshaping her public image within a compressed timeframe.
“I don’t think this result is about her (Harris),” Bruni remarked. He acknowledged that while Harris may have made some strategic errors, it’s essential to remember the constraints she faced and not to overly simplify the narrative. “I can't imagine how someone could have put more energy into it. It is not an easy thing to do. It isn’t pleasant thing to do the way in which your life and everything you see is raked over the coals. I think she handled it with much more grace and much more grit and then people have ever given her credit for.”
Bruni’s comments underscored his broader point: outcomes in politics rarely hinge on one person or campaign alone. Instead, they reflect a broader web of influences and dynamics that are often beyond any individual’s control.
Independent Voters and the Hope for Ticket-Splitting
Reflecting on the mixed results in local elections, Bruni pointed to the phenomenon of ticket-splitting as a hopeful sign of voter independence. He noted that the election in North Carolina saw voters split between candidates from different parties, a sign that people are evaluating issues and individuals more than simply voting along party lines.
"This ticket-splitting tells us that voters aren’t locked into one party, and that’s a hopeful sign,” Bruni said. “It shows that many Americans are willing to consider a broader perspective.”
Hillygus agreed, adding, “It’s a reminder that voters are making decisions based on individual candidates and issues, not just party loyalty.”
Both viewed ticket-splitting as an encouraging development in an otherwise polarized landscape. It suggests that the electorate is still open to balance and compromise—values essential for bipartisanship and governance.
Audience Questions: Navigating Political Differences with Civility
During the Q&A, a student posed a question about how to maintain friendships with those who hold opposing political beliefs, especially in a climate where many fear the potential repercussions of specific policy decisions.
Bruni addressed this directly, acknowledging the challenge while underscoring the importance of seeing people as more than their political choices.
“People are bigger than their political decisions,” Bruni said. “I come from a family with voters on both sides, and these are people who, in many dimensions of their lives, are as generous as you can imagine.”
He advised the audience to avoid vilifying those with differing views, encouraging a mindset of tolerance and respect. This approach, he argued, is vital not just for friendships but for the fabric of civil society.
Feaver added that engaging with those who might work in an administration they don’t fully agree with can still be valuable, encouraging competent people to serve wherever they’re needed. He shared his view that it’s possible to work within a system to effect positive change.
Final Words: Resilience Through Civil Discourse
In their closing remarks, each panelist offered advice for navigating political tensions. Hillygus stressed the importance of voter education and a focus on making the political process accessible to all.
“We can’t wait until the last minute to bring people into the system,” she said. “We need laws and education that prepare people to be active, informed citizens.”
Feaver urged the audience to maintain perspective by looking to history, highlighting that previous generations faced deep divisions yet found ways to move forward. He encouraged the audience to cultivate resilience by understanding the nation’s complex past.
Bruni concluded with words of admiration for the commitment and resilience of those who dedicate themselves to public service, reminding everyone that the democratic process is both demanding and deeply meaningful.
Although the results and impacts of Tuesday’s election are still cloudy, the panel’s message was clear: In a time of division, radical honesty, mutual respect, and respectful conversations are critical. Each speaker reinforced the need to see beyond the current moment, to listen carefully to differing viewpoints, and to work together toward a more inclusive and resilient democracy.