Philippa Kaur

As the results of the US election began to arrive, political junkies tried their best to make sense of what was happening. But it soon became obvious that the only thing clear about the results was that they were ambiguous.
Ambiguity is a strategic resource leaders use to accomplish their [goals]. When the US president, Donald Trump, appeared in the early hours of Wednesday morning, he told the small crowd “we were getting ready to win the election”, adding “frankly we did win this election”. A few hours earlier, Biden had appeared on stage and told his supporters “to keep the faith guys, we’re gonna win this”. Neither knew the outcome of the election. But they knew they had to make the most political capital out of the situation’s ambiguity.
The lack of a clear, immediate outcome meant partisan supporters were temporarily off the hook from questioning their own inflexible mindsets. Trump supporters could focus on his victory in Florida and complain about supposed attempts by Democrats to “steal the election”. Biden supporters could focus on victories in the rust-belt states, and potentially even on eventual victory. As ever, these different interpretations were aided and abetted by the division along political lines of the US news media.
We might expect politicians to exploit ambiguity, while still hoping that financial markets prefer precision and certainty. But some investors seem to be fine with ambiguity as well. There were few wild swings in the financial markets, with VIX – the so-called investor “fear index” of volatility – falling about 20% following the election results, and the two main American stock markets rose. One investment strategist told the Financial Times that he was glad of a return to the “status quo”, while another expressed his relief that there had been no major outbreaks of violence.
The current situation may have helped politicians, partisans and investors in the short term, but such ambiguity could prove much more dangerous in the medium to longer term. Here, ambiguity can create a kind of cognitive cushion for leaders. It means they never have to update their assumptions, clinging to ideas that are increasingly out of touch with reality. A consequence is that leaders may commit to actions that are unwise, or downright dangerous. For a current example, Trump’s demand for all counting of votes to stop is a course of action that would, given that he is trailing, lose him the election.
Compounding economic and political uncertainty
Continued ambiguity can also be harmful for a politican’s followers. If partisan political tribes are faced with information that does not fit with their belief, they become disoriented and even angry. For example, those that believe their preferred candidate has won an election only to later discover that this is not the case, who might decide to explain this away with claims of victory being “stolen” from them. Believing they have had a justified outcome removed from them illegally, they may be more likely to rely on equally extra-institutional or illegal measures to express their displeasure and right what they perceive to be a wrong.
Officials head into their third day of counting ballots in the US elections which will, eventually, put an end to the uncertainty. Erik S. Lesser/EPA
Lasting ambiguity can also have a negative impact on the economy. In the 2000 US presidential election, which led to a month of uncertainty as to the winner, stock markets dropped significantly. Political uncertainty tends to hit some companies harder than others: firms closely connected to politicians are likely to see their share prices fall.
This economic impact can be increased if political ambiguity leads rival supporters to settle their differences on the streets. One study in Egypt found that public protests lead to share price falls for firms connected to government figures. Continued political uncertainty can change the way firms behave. Firms are less likely to conduct initial public offerings during politically uncertain periods, for instance. Firms are also much less likely to invest in innovation.
Uncertainty created by political ambiguity becomes a drag on economic growth . Conversely as political uncertainty declines, share prices tend to rise, banks become more willing to lend, businesses employ more people, and those employees are able to consume more.
So an ambiguous electoral result might provide a space free of firm facts in which we can believe that reality matches our beliefs. But political ambiguity can bring with it dangerous consequences, fostering unrealistic beliefs, stoking conflict, and leading to economic stagnation.
In the US, we know that one candidate will be eventually confirmed as president. But the danger is that the political ambiguity created by this election – and deliberately fostered in some quarters – will leave a long shadow. More

As the results of the US election began to arrive, political junkies tried their best to make sense of what was happening. But it soon became obvious that the only thing clear about the results was that they were ambiguous.
Ambiguity is a strategic resource leaders use to accomplish their [goals]. When the US president, Donald Trump, appeared in the early hours of Wednesday morning, he told the small crowd “we were getting ready to win the election”, adding “frankly we did win this election”. A few hours earlier, Biden had appeared on stage and told his supporters “to keep the faith guys, we’re gonna win this”. Neither knew the outcome of the election. But they knew they had to make the most political capital out of the situation’s ambiguity.
The lack of a clear, immediate outcome meant partisan supporters were temporarily off the hook from questioning their own inflexible mindsets. Trump supporters could focus on his victory in Florida and complain about supposed attempts by Democrats to “steal the election”. Biden supporters could focus on victories in the rust-belt states, and potentially even on eventual victory. As ever, these different interpretations were aided and abetted by the division along political lines of the US news media.
We might expect politicians to exploit ambiguity, while still hoping that financial markets prefer precision and certainty. But some investors seem to be fine with ambiguity as well. There were few wild swings in the financial markets, with VIX – the so-called investor “fear index” of volatility – falling about 20% following the election results, and the two main American stock markets rose. One investment strategist told the Financial Times that he was glad of a return to the “status quo”, while another expressed his relief that there had been no major outbreaks of violence.
The current situation may have helped politicians, partisans and investors in the short term, but such ambiguity could prove much more dangerous in the medium to longer term. Here, ambiguity can create a kind of cognitive cushion for leaders. It means they never have to update their assumptions, clinging to ideas that are increasingly out of touch with reality. A consequence is that leaders may commit to actions that are unwise, or downright dangerous. For a current example, Trump’s demand for all counting of votes to stop is a course of action that would, given that he is trailing, lose him the election.
Compounding economic and political uncertainty
Continued ambiguity can also be harmful for a politican’s followers. If partisan political tribes are faced with information that does not fit with their belief, they become disoriented and even angry. For example, those that believe their preferred candidate has won an election only to later discover that this is not the case, who might decide to explain this away with claims of victory being “stolen” from them. Believing they have had a justified outcome removed from them illegally, they may be more likely to rely on equally extra-institutional or illegal measures to express their displeasure and right what they perceive to be a wrong.
Officials head into their third day of counting ballots in the US elections which will, eventually, put an end to the uncertainty. Erik S. Lesser/EPA
Lasting ambiguity can also have a negative impact on the economy. In the 2000 US presidential election, which led to a month of uncertainty as to the winner, stock markets dropped significantly. Political uncertainty tends to hit some companies harder than others: firms closely connected to politicians are likely to see their share prices fall.
This economic impact can be increased if political ambiguity leads rival supporters to settle their differences on the streets. One study in Egypt found that public protests lead to share price falls for firms connected to government figures. Continued political uncertainty can change the way firms behave. Firms are less likely to conduct initial public offerings during politically uncertain periods, for instance. Firms are also much less likely to invest in innovation.
Uncertainty created by political ambiguity becomes a drag on economic growth . Conversely as political uncertainty declines, share prices tend to rise, banks become more willing to lend, businesses employ more people, and those employees are able to consume more.
So an ambiguous electoral result might provide a space free of firm facts in which we can believe that reality matches our beliefs. But political ambiguity can bring with it dangerous consequences, fostering unrealistic beliefs, stoking conflict, and leading to economic stagnation.
In the US, we know that one candidate will be eventually confirmed as president. But the danger is that the political ambiguity created by this election – and deliberately fostered in some quarters – will leave a long shadow. More

As vote counting continued in key battleground states in the US election, Joe Biden edged closer to the White House while Donald Trump launched multiple law suits. Whatever the final result, Democrats have not secured the resounding landslide against Republicans many of them had hoped for. Thomas Gift, associate professor and director of the Centre on US Politics at UCL, looked at what the close margin of the race means for both parties.
Q: Whatever the final vote count, what does the closeness of the race mean to the dynamics within the Democratic Party and the authority of Biden’s leadership of it?
When it comes to governing, mandates matter. Even if Biden ekes out a win, he will enter the White House knowing that nearly half of all American voters supported another candidate. That surely weakens Biden’s bargaining position with Republicans on Capitol Hill. Less appreciated, however, is that it could also reduce Biden’s strength within his own party.
If there’s one take-away from the primary season, it’s that the Democratic Party is riven by major policy divisions between moderates and progressives. Although some of those divides were suppressed in the lead-up to election day, they haven’t disappeared.
If Biden’s win is seen as less than decisive, progressive Democrats could try to exploit that result to undermine Biden’s efforts to govern from the centre. Biden says that he will stand up against the far left flank of his party. But pressure to make concessions may be greater than if he’d had won in a landslide.

Q: What does the closeness of the race mean for Trump’s ongoing position within the Republican party?
Even if Trump can’t pull out a win, the closeness of the election points to a clear take-away: support for Trump within the Republican Party remains strong. That makes it hard for critics to write off Trump’s success in 2016 as a fluke. It also means that, regardless of the Republican Party’s future, it’s likely to maintain some non-trivial “Trumpian” elements.
Many conservative “never-Trumpers” hoped that a resounding Trump loss would force the party to rethink its current trajectory. That resounding loss didn’t happen. So, while it’s possible the Republican Party could snap back to its former self and ask “Trump who?” as soon the president leaves the Oval Office, that prospect looks less likely now.
Trump’s appeal, and particularly his acumen for exciting the Republican base, can’t be ignored by Republicans – including many members of Congress who just got re-elected by running on pro-Trump platforms.
Trump: not going away. Cristobal Herrera-Ulashkevich/EPA
Q: Voter turnout has broken records in the 2020 election. But what does the popular vote margin for both candidates reveal about how divided America still is?
America is divided. That much is clear. It’s not just divided on issues – about how to tackle climate change, what marginal tax rates should be, and what stance the government should take on US-China trade. It’s divided about the meaning of America itself.
The record high turnout that we witnessed is likely to be evidence of both sides subscribing to the view of 2020 being the most consequential election of our lifetime. On the left, voters saw Trump not just as wrong about policies, but as an existential threat to the nation’s institutions. On the right, voters saw Biden not just as misguided on issues, but as emblematic of a drift toward socialism.
One silver lining of 2020 is that it has alerted more Americans to the value of civic engagement. But it’s hard not to think that – at least on some level – record high turnout is symptomatic of many citizens simply sensing there’s something ailing American democracy.
Read more: US election: why democratic legitimacy remains at stake
Q: It’s looking likely that whoever is elected may not control both the House and the Senate. How difficult will it be for him to govern?
Divided government always implies gridlock. Yet it doesn’t mean the gears of policymaking in Washington totally grind to a halt. Presidents are generally less constrained by Congress in foreign policy compared to domestic policy. If elected, for example, Biden could re-engage the US with the Paris Climate Agreement, rejoin the Iran nuclear deal, or roll back the trade war with China.
Increasingly, presidents have also turned to executive orders to push through their agendas in the face of Congressional resistance. During his term, Trump signed a number of executive orders to enact reforms over homeland security, healthcare, the environment, and other issues.
Although executive orders are more easily overturned, their effects can be significant. Biden, for example, has said that he would use an executive order to implement a national mask mandate amid COVID-19. More

As vote counting continued in key battleground states in the US election, Joe Biden edged closer to the White House while Donald Trump launched multiple law suits. Whatever the final result, Democrats have not secured the resounding landslide against Republicans many of them had hoped for. Thomas Gift, associate professor and director of the Centre on US Politics at UCL, looked at what the close margin of the race means for both parties.
Q: Whatever the final vote count, what does the closeness of the race mean to the dynamics within the Democratic Party and the authority of Biden’s leadership of it?
When it comes to governing, mandates matter. Even if Biden ekes out a win, he will enter the White House knowing that nearly half of all American voters supported another candidate. That surely weakens Biden’s bargaining position with Republicans on Capitol Hill. Less appreciated, however, is that it could also reduce Biden’s strength within his own party.
If there’s one take-away from the primary season, it’s that the Democratic Party is riven by major policy divisions between moderates and progressives. Although some of those divides were suppressed in the lead-up to election day, they haven’t disappeared.
If Biden’s win is seen as less than decisive, progressive Democrats could try to exploit that result to undermine Biden’s efforts to govern from the centre. Biden says that he will stand up against the far left flank of his party. But pressure to make concessions may be greater than if he’d had won in a landslide.

Q: What does the closeness of the race mean for Trump’s ongoing position within the Republican party?
Even if Trump can’t pull out a win, the closeness of the election points to a clear take-away: support for Trump within the Republican Party remains strong. That makes it hard for critics to write off Trump’s success in 2016 as a fluke. It also means that, regardless of the Republican Party’s future, it’s likely to maintain some non-trivial “Trumpian” elements.
Many conservative “never-Trumpers” hoped that a resounding Trump loss would force the party to rethink its current trajectory. That resounding loss didn’t happen. So, while it’s possible the Republican Party could snap back to its former self and ask “Trump who?” as soon the president leaves the Oval Office, that prospect looks less likely now.
Trump’s appeal, and particularly his acumen for exciting the Republican base, can’t be ignored by Republicans – including many members of Congress who just got re-elected by running on pro-Trump platforms.
Trump: not going away. Cristobal Herrera-Ulashkevich/EPA
Q: Voter turnout has broken records in the 2020 election. But what does the popular vote margin for both candidates reveal about how divided America still is?
America is divided. That much is clear. It’s not just divided on issues – about how to tackle climate change, what marginal tax rates should be, and what stance the government should take on US-China trade. It’s divided about the meaning of America itself.
The record high turnout that we witnessed is likely to be evidence of both sides subscribing to the view of 2020 being the most consequential election of our lifetime. On the left, voters saw Trump not just as wrong about policies, but as an existential threat to the nation’s institutions. On the right, voters saw Biden not just as misguided on issues, but as emblematic of a drift toward socialism.
One silver lining of 2020 is that it has alerted more Americans to the value of civic engagement. But it’s hard not to think that – at least on some level – record high turnout is symptomatic of many citizens simply sensing there’s something ailing American democracy.
Read more: US election: why democratic legitimacy remains at stake
Q: It’s looking likely that whoever is elected may not control both the House and the Senate. How difficult will it be for him to govern?
Divided government always implies gridlock. Yet it doesn’t mean the gears of policymaking in Washington totally grind to a halt. Presidents are generally less constrained by Congress in foreign policy compared to domestic policy. If elected, for example, Biden could re-engage the US with the Paris Climate Agreement, rejoin the Iran nuclear deal, or roll back the trade war with China.
Increasingly, presidents have also turned to executive orders to push through their agendas in the face of Congressional resistance. During his term, Trump signed a number of executive orders to enact reforms over homeland security, healthcare, the environment, and other issues.
Although executive orders are more easily overturned, their effects can be significant. Biden, for example, has said that he would use an executive order to implement a national mask mandate amid COVID-19. More

The past few election cycles have seen notable geographical shifts in voting. Rural voters – already a bedrock of GOP support – have supported the party by wider margins. The 2018 midterms, meanwhile, showed the suburbs increasingly turning blue.
Going into this year’s general election, political observers wanted to know: Would these trends persist in 2020? And how would they influence the battle for the Senate?
Three scholars from three battleground states – South Carolina, Iowa and Arizona – weighed in on the 2020 results.
Harrison coalition falls short
Todd Shaw, University of South Carolina
In a decisive victory, incumbent Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina won his race against Democratic challenger Jaime Harrison.
Based on 96% of the reported vote, Graham netted 55% to Harrison’s 44%. This is nearly the exact same percentage of the South Carolina vote Donald Trump commanded over Joe Biden in the presidential race.
Not only does this suggest there was little split-ticket voting down ballot, but Graham also outperformed many of the polls, which had indicated a much closer contest. At one point, the Cook Political Report had even deemed the race a toss-up.
Harrison, who is African American, raised $57 million dollars in a final quarter prior to the election – setting an all-time quarterly record for a Senate race.
And yet this mass infusion of funds wasn’t enough to unseat the three-term incumbent.
South Carolina has long been a Republican stronghold. Democratic statewide candidates can usually rely on the vast majority of Black voters, who make up around 30% of the total electorate, and tend to try to pad that with some percentage of remaining votes. Rarely is this enough to put a Democratic statewide candidate over the top; they’ll usually get somewhere between 43% of the vote, with a ceiling of 47%.

With 44%, Harrison was on the low side of that range.
Why?
Graham’s strategy, in which he took pains to demonstrate his loyalty to Trump and his agenda, clearly paid off. And as the chairman of the powerful Senate Judiciary Committee, he recently presided over the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett as the sixth conservative justice on the Supreme Court. It’s possible his platform during the October hearings helped him rally the support of South Carolina’s conservative voters.
Yet it seems as though Harrison ultimately failed to pad his base of Black support.
According to exit polls, majorities of the non-Black constituencies who might typically have voted for Harrison in higher numbers – young people, middle-income earners, white college-educated women – reported voting for Trump over Biden.
With strong Republican turnout and little split-ticket voting, this partly explains why Harrison – like so many Democrats across the nation – faced a much steeper uphill climb than the polls predicted.
A ‘farm girl’ fails to woo Iowa’s rural vote
Paul Lasley, Iowa State University
In Iowa, there were rumblings that the unpopularity of some of Trump’s policies with farmers would drag down incumbent Republican Sen. Joni Ernst, a reliable ally of the president.
Instead, Ernst maintained her strong support among evangelical Christians, who make up about 28% of Iowa’s population, and farm families. It was enough to fend off a challenge from Democratic businesswoman Theresa Greenfield. Trump also outperformed preelection polls and defeated Joe Biden in the state.
Rural voters in Iowa make up 36% of the population. They’re a significant voting bloc and an important part of Iowa’s Republican base. Any Democratic candidate who wants to win needs to appeal to these voters.
Greenfield showed signs of making inroads; during her campaign, she stressed her background as a “feisty farm girl” with deep roots in rural Iowa. She also was able to hammer the Trump administration’s tepid support for renewable fuels and its bashing of wind energy, two important industries in the state.
Trump’s trade war was another issue. China’s retaliatory tariffs have cost Iowa farmers over US$500 million. Yet thanks to the ethanol fuel waivers granted to small refineries, farmers have largely remained loyal to Trump. And it certainly didn’t hurt that the Trump administration funneled millions of dollars into Iowa to shore up the state’s flagging farm economy.
On social issues, rural Iowans are deeply conservative. Many are staunch pro-lifers, and Ernst has cultivated a strong alliance with the Family Leader, a socially conservative political organization, to help secure the votes of the state’s religious voters.
[embedded content] Sen. Joni Ernst speaks at the 2019 Family Leadership Summit.
Greenfield did make the race competitive. She enjoyed strong support among urban voters in cities such as Des Moines and Cedar Rapids and performed better than Ernst’s 2014 opponent, U.S. Rep. Bruce Braley.
But, like Biden, she ultimately failed to cut into the incumbent’s traditional rural base.
A battle for ‘soft’ Republican women in Arizona
Gina Woodall, Arizona State University
Two years ago, Republican Martha McSally lost to Democrat Kyrsten Sinema in a close contest to replace retiring Sen. Jeff Flake. This was a big deal for Arizona Democrats: The last time a Democratic Senate candidate had won an open seat in the state was in 1976.
After Republican Sen. John McCain died in August 2018, Gov. Doug Ducey appointed McSally to McCain’s seat. In the 2020 cycle, she found herself facing Democrat Mark Kelly, a former astronaut.
McSally is now 0 for 2.
Kelly proved a formidable opponent. Throughout the course of the campaign, he retained a lead in the vast majority of polls, while outraising McSally.
In the last few weeks of the campaign, it appeared that both Kelly and McSally were jockeying for the suburban independent and “soft” – or persuadable – Republican female vote.
This strategy played out in the campaigns’ dueling ads. McSally focused on Kelly’s role as a brand ambassador for the watch company Breitling, which has come under fire for using sexist ads. McSally also highlighted her biography as both a combat pilot and sexual assault survivor.
Kelly, in his own ads, noted how his mother became the first female police officer of his town. He’s also focused on the women in his family – his two grown daughters and his wife, former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords.

It seems as though McSally’s attempt to win over this bloc of soft Republican female voters fell flat.
It’s certainly possible increased voter turnout among Democrats – together with a female suburban revolt against Trump – ultimately dragged down the sitting senator.
And now traditionally “red” Arizona is set to have two Democrats simultaneously serving in the United States Senate – something that hasn’t happened since 1952.
[Expertise in your inbox. Sign up for The Conversation’s newsletter and get expert takes on today’s news, every day.] More