On Nov. 5, the existing political divides amongst Harvard’s student body spurred markedly different election night screenings across campus.
In Sanders Theatre, the Institute of Politics hosted what seemed to be a predominantly Democratic audience who watched with dismay as swing states leaned toward Donald Trump, dimming hopes for a Kamala Harris presidency.
Meanwhile, in the Queen’s Head Pub, an approximately 150-strong crowd at the Harvard Republican Club’s watch party started cautiously optimistic but burst into raucous celebration by the night’s end.
Beyond this partisan binary, a vocal minority rejected both parties outright, turning instead to third-party candidates.
The range of reactions from Harvard students over the 24 hours during and following the election mirrored the political fractures of the nation.
At Sanders Theatre, professors and students delivered speeches throughout the night, analyzing electoral implications and offering predictions. As vote counting trundled along, the room’s mood soured. “I think I speak for the vast majority of Harvard students right now…there’s definitely a tense atmosphere,” said Jack Tueting ’27. “People are worried about the election, the future of the country, and I think there’s a lot of uncertainty.”
Tueting shared his fears for the country if Republicans gained full control of the government. “As someone who’s really concerned for the future of this country, if Trump and Republicans win control of Congress and the White House, it is definitely worrying,” he said. He still held onto his visions for a Harris presidency, exclaiming, “I am optimistic that it’s possible Kamala Harris can still pull this out.”
Asked whether he agreed with those who believed the election’s outcome would bring little change, Tueting was adamant in his response. “No,” he replied. “I think if Trump wins, then we will see this greater normalization of really authoritarian rhetoric on the right and further erosion of basic rights like abortion rights, LGBTQ rights, and rights for minority groups in this country.” He expressed concern that “voting rights, I think, will be under a direct threat under a second Trump administration.”
For Tueting, the stakes of the election extended beyond individual policies to the very integrity of government itself. “What happens in this election matters, not just for the policy implications, but for the implications about the stakes of democracy,” he explained. He argued that the outcome would likely have a ripple effect beyond the U.S., adding, “It will look bad in the rest of the world, especially for newer democracies—democratizing countries—if the greatest democracy known to man fails in this election.”
Among this Democratic disappointment, Prince Williams ’25 stood out in the packed Sanders Theatre wearing his bold, pink, socialist shirt. Unlike most in the room—and most Americans—he had cast his ballot not for the Democratic or Republican ticket, but for a third-party candidate.
“I voted for the Vote Socialist campaign of Claudia de la Cruz and Karina Garcia on the ticket for the Party for Socialism and Liberation,” he explained. For Williams, the choice came from frustration with both major parties and what he saw as their shared support for policies harming vulnerable populations and the planet.
“The issue that I was thinking about in the election is the genocide in Palestine that both ruling class parties unapologetically support.”
Williams criticized the Biden-Harris administration, citing its decision to send “$17.9 billion mostly for the Israeli government to buy U.S.-manufactured weapons to drop on a civilian population of 2.3 million people in the Gaza Strip.” He argued that “Israel is currently bombing five countries under the direct financial and material support of the Democratic Party,” and added that “Donald Trump is trying to outflank them on the right when it comes to that issue.”
His critique went beyond U.S. foreign policy to include domestic issues affecting the masses. “How are our people going to have health care?” he asked. “There’s tens of millions of Americans who are uninsured. We just had a pandemic.” He cited “U.S. militarism and U.S. imperialism and its impact on the material life of working-class people here” as “at the front of my mind and why I cannot support either major party, because they continue to move us to climate catastrophe.”
For Williams, the solution lies in a new political movement. “Ultimately, for us to get out of these crises, we have to step out of the two-party system and actually build an independent working-class movement that serves us and is run by us,” he said. He questioned the common narrative that this election is “the most important of your lifetime,” adding, “I’m tired of hearing this because, ultimately, in the long run, things won’t change.”
Responding to those who consider third-party voting a wasted effort, he explained, “Voting for the two major parties feels like a waste of my vote, a waste of my time and energy in trying to plead with them for my rights.” He asserted that “while there are small differences between these factions of the ruling class, what feels like a wasted vote is to continue to invest in them.”
Despite the number of left-leaning Democratic and Socialist voters on campus, the night’s results cemented a decisive victory for Trump.
In Sever Hall the next afternoon, GOP students assembled for their post-election debrief in high spirits. Former Arkansas Governor Asa Hutchinson and Betsy Ankney, Nikki Haley’s chief campaign manager—both Fall 2024 Resident Fellows at the Institute of Politics—addressed the crowd, sketching out their vision for America under renewed Republican leadership.
Nathan Westbrook ’27 captured the room’s prevailing mood. “God bless America,” he proclaimed. “Trump’s gonna save us.” For Westbrook, Trump’s win was a critical turning point for the nation.
Edward Doan, an MBA student at the Harvard Business School, reflected on the outcome as a reminder of America’s ideological divides. “Being at Harvard, from an engineering field, college educated, [I] really thought everyone was [for] Kamala,” he said. “I was actually not optimistic going into the night. But, as the night progressed, it was clear that that wasn’t the case.”
Doan noted how the results echoed two contrasting visions of America. “I think it’s a real testament to how different the rest of the country is,” he explained. “You have cities, urban environments, college campuses, really seeing one reality of what the United States is. And the rest of the country, outside of that, sees a very different America.”
Even with these party divisions, Shira Hoffer ’25 found solace in messaging looking to bridge gaps between voters in Sanders Theatre the night prior by speakers. “One thing that I’ve really appreciated is how each of the speakers who has come up has given some kind of statement of unity,” she noted, adding that she valued their encouragement to “be curious about people who voted for someone that you didn’t, or really all being together in this tomorrow.”
Reflecting on the election’s emotional weight, Hoffer said, “I think there’s so much hype around election night, but we do have to remember that we’re not only part of the same Harvard community, but part of the same country.”
For Hoffer, how people would respond to the results mattered deeply. “What we do with the information of who wins is arguably even more important than who wins in the first place.”
Taybah Crorie ’25 (taybahcrorie@college.harvard.edu) had predicted a Trump win all along. She intentionally went to GOP and Democratic events—the Harvard bubble is of your own making.