SOUTH HADLEY — With 60 national elections taking place this year across the world, 2024 is considered the biggest election year in history, with many of the elections involving polarizing figures and topics.

The United States is no exception: Polling shows races for Congress and the president are too close to call, yet political and economic experts note the philosophies and leadership styles of presidential candidates Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump, along with their respective parties, sit at opposite ends of the spectrum. No matter who ends up in the Oval Office, the 2024 election will be historic.

“On the one hand, the first woman and woman of color, no less, may be elected to the highest office in the United States for the first time in U.S. history,” Mount Holyoke College Professor of Politics Adam Hilton said. “Or, it will be the second time that a defeated president has won reelection.”

With two weeks to go before the election, Mount Holyoke College gathered five experts in economics, politics, law and international relations on Tuesday o help paint a picture of the possible outcomes of the election. The panel, called “What to Expect in the 2024 US Elections,” offered the audience of college students and public a view through the looking glass into the state of democracy should particular candidates win.

Party in power

Besides the presidential race, Hilton noted that the fight for control over the House of Representatives plays a role in each presidential candidate successful carrying out their promised agendas. Democrats are widely predicted to lose control of the Senate, as seats in West Virginia and Montana will most likely flip Republican, but the House is still too close to call.

If Trump wins and the House flips Republican, Hilton said, then the GOP-controlled government can pass legislation with ease, including many of the agenda items in Project 2025, for example. Under Harris and a Republican House, however, Congress will likely attempt to investigate and impeach her.

The latter consequence could further impact the U.S. Supreme Court, Mount Holyoke President and legal scholar Danielle Holley said. Given the ages of the justices, Holley predicts the next president will appoint one to three justices and a slew of federal judges across district, appellate and superior courts. Harris, however, may have a hard time appointing anyone if she were to win office if the Republicans hold the Senate.

“It is extremely dangerous to have a situation in which we can’t appoint judges all, which may be what we’re headed for,” Holley said.

“A Senate that can’t agree at all on the appointment of judges with the president would mean we would start to see a declining number of federal judges, which makes time in federal courts longer and also increases fighting in democracy about the appointment and confirmation of judges.”

Holley also noted the Supreme Court’s July 1 decision spelling out “broad immunity to the president for any official acts” severely restricted the power of the courts to check the president.

“The concern is not so much what the candidates are saying, but the expansion of executive power that actually may allow some of these things to happen,” Holley said.

Economic andinternational leadership

While either Harris or Trump will have expanded power in general, the position of president doesn’t have as much economic power as voters often credit, or blame them, for. Economic health is the main indicator of who will win an election, Professor of Politics and International Relations Christopher Mitchell said, and most marcoeconomists praise President Joe Biden’s handling of the economy. Harris should have the upper hand on Trump, but voters, Mitchell said, believe otherwise.

“We see the health of the economy has become polarized,” he said. “We’ve seen when Republicans are in office, Republicans think the economy is doing better, and Democrats think the economy is doing worse. When Democrats are in office, it flips.”

While the president doesn’t have direct control over economic factors such as GDP, unemployment and inflation, the chief executive can guide the structure of the economy. Mitchell explained that the U.S. economy was firmly rooted in manufacturing from the 1950s until the 1980s, when it shifted toward a neo-liberal model based on services.

“One of the reasons why people are saying the economy is the most important issue, but I’m unhappy, is not about these five-year indicators that I’ve been looking at, but the 30-year trajectory of the U.S. economy and uncertainty about where we’re going from now,” Mitchell said.

Both candidates are promising different economic models: Trump wishes to return to the manufacturing model of the 1950s, and Harris looks to adopt Biden’s green transition by emphasizing green manufacturing and technology.

The U.S. economy continues to be “the envy of the world,” Mitchell said, and will remain a major international power. Asha Castleberry-Hernandez, visiting professor and senior adviser in the Biden administration’s State Department, noted that the next commander in chief will either dampen or strengthen this role through international policy and their leadership style.

Harris, Castleberry-Hernandez said, will most likely consider Biden’s attempts to maintain stronger global leadership, expanding the State Department and continuing strong support for the Defense Department. Trump, she noted, shrunk the State Department during his presidency, showed a more capricious leadership style, and will most likely “withdraw from certain agreements and institutions, also underscoring the fear of the international system.”

Castleberry-Hernandez also pointed to the candidates’ different approaches to Ukraine and Israel. While Harris will continue Biden’s policies, providing substantial aid to Ukraine and pushing for a two-state solution between Palestine and Israel, she said Trump will challenge Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, possibly limiting aid, and cut off any humanitarian aid and support for Palestinians and Palestine statehood.

Despite much of the focus on national elections and international consequences, state Sen. Jacob Oliveira narrowed his focus to state and local elections, as it’s often local town clerks and state governments that impact access to voting, education and, since Roe v. Wade was struck down, reproductive rights.

“You live in many of the Northeast states. Congratulations,” he said. “Your legislators, your governors, your elected officials are preserving your reproductive rights. However, if you live in a state that’s south of here, a state that’s west of here, you might not be so lucky, and that is extraordinarily important.”

Oliveira pointed out that even in the blue state of Massachusetts, it’s not uncommon for Republican or conservative approaches to challenge the commonly held Democratic values, like school board members pushing book bans in Ludlow.

Despite local positions such as school board members and state representatives impacting citizens’ everyday lives in a much more direct manner, local elections in Massachusetts have a voter turnout of 10% to 15% compared to a general election voter turnout of 70%.

“This election in two weeks, it’s all going to come down to turnout,” Oliveira said. “Get out the vote, exercise your right and run for office.”