As someone who has spent over two decades helping leaders and students learn to navigate complexity and envision multiple futures, I've seen firsthand how the right tools can transform anxiety about the unknown into constructive action. Through my work with organizations ranging from Fortune 500 companies to emerging democracy reform nonprofits I've found that scenario planning offers something uniquely valuable: a way to engage with uncertainty that neither minimizes its significance nor leaves us paralyzed by it.
Scenario planning used to be a process reserved for military planners and elite organizations. Over the last decade, and magnified by the pandemic, it has evolved into a more accessible approach for organizations, communities and individuals seeking to build resilience in uncertain times. The power isn't in predicting the future — an impossible task, even for "expert" pollsters. Instead, scenario planning invites us to explore multiple possible futures to assess our preparedness and inform robust decisions that can strengthen us regardless of what unfolds. This process helps rewire our instinctive defensive response to uncertainty, creating neural pathways that lead to more strategic and proactive thinking.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Many organizations are putting these principles into practice in compelling ways. The Bridgespan Group, a global consultancy, developed an open Election Year Resource for Nonprofit Leaders to help social-sector organizations think systematically about potential risks and opportunities. Its framework explores four potential electoral outcomes: "A Democratic Trifecta," "A Republican Trifecta" and two variations of "A Divided Government." Using a robust strategic diagnostic, leaders, boards and funders can assess their organizational strength across strategy, operations and funding –= identifying actions that make sense regardless of the election outcome.
The WithIn Collaborative takes a different but complementary approach, focusing on building internal capacity and resilience. Its Election Prep Guide begins with a crucial foundation: understanding our present-day resources and strengths. It asks powerful questions like "Who are the loved ones, ancestors, colleagues and allies who are with me in times of celebration, and in times of change and uncertainty?" and "When I am up against something unexpected, what are the practices that help steady me?" This centering on the present moment — and things that are in our control — strengthens our awareness of available options, even when the world feels filled with ambiguity.
The WithIn scenario framework is elegantly simple yet profound, exploring three potential outcomes: a Democratic victory, a Republican victory or an inconclusive election. While these vignettes may not capture every detail of what might unfold, they offer productive portals for engaging with highly probable outcomes, allowing us to rehearse our responses in advance.
The power of scenario planning is that it works at multiple scales, starting with your own stance towards the future. Ask yourself: Where will you be during and after the election? Who will you be with? What support systems do you want to have in place? What information sources will you trust? How will you manage your emotional well-being? These aren't just practical questions — they're anchors that can help ground us when uncertainty peaks. By thinking through these scenarios now, we create mental and emotional scaffolding that can support us through whatever unfolds.
Robust actions — those that make sense across multiple scenarios — might include strengthening community connections, diversifying information sources, building emergency savings or developing new skills. While these moves won't predict the future, they'll make us more resilient to whatever future arrives.
While we can't control everything that happens, we're not powerless. By systematically exploring different possibilities while identifying concrete actions we can take now, we maintain our ability to act meaningfully in the present moment. That's not just good planning — it's a vital form of civic engagement and collective and personal resilience building.
I encourage you to start having these conversations in your own communities and organizations. The future may be uncertain, but by preparing together, we can face it with greater confidence and capacity.
This survey is the eighth Swing Six Issue Survey, a series being conducted in the run-up to the November election in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin, and nationally, on major policy issues by the Program for Public Consultation at the University of Maryland.
Unlike standard polls, respondents in a public consultation survey go through an online “policymaking simulation” in which they are provided briefings and arguments for and against each policy. Content is reviewed by experts on different sides to ensure accuracy and balance. All Americans are invited to go through the samepolicymaking simulation as the survey sample.
While Americans do support the tariff increases targeted at China, bipartisan majorities oppose a tariff increase on imports from all countries. Large bipartisan majorities support the U.S. continuing to be part of the international agreements for low tariffs within a rules-based system.
Sign up for The Fulcrum newsletter
Respondents were informed that, since World War II, the United States has been actively working to promote international trade through a system in which countries negotiate to lower their tariffs on a mutual basis, provided each country abides by agreed-upon rules. The U.S. has such trade arrangements with almost all countries — through free trade agreements and the General Agreement on Trade and Tariffs. As a result, average tariffs globally have decreased from about 22 percent in the 1940’s to about 2 percent today.
Bipartisan majorities in all swing states (80 percent to 85 percent) approve of the U.S. working with other countries to continue this system, including majorities of Republicans (73 percent to 78 percent) and Democrats (86 percent to 93 percent). Nationally, 81 percent approve (Republicans 74 percent, Democrats 88 percent).
Respondents evaluated a proposal to impose tariffs of 10 percent to 20 percent on imports from all countries, including arguments that these higher tariffs would generate substantial government revenue and thus allow for reductions in taxes, as well as stimulate U.S. manufacturing and lead to better-paying jobs. They also evaluated arguments against, that raising all tariffs would violate U.S. trade agreements and likely cause the country’s biggest trading partners to retaliate with tariff increases, as well as raise consumer prices for everyone. Arguments on both sides were found convincing by bipartisan majorities.
Finally, asked which policy they prefer, less than half in all six swing states (28 percent to 35 percent) support the U.S. raising tariffs on imports from all countries to 10 percent to 20 percent, including just 34 percent to 42 percent of Republicans and 20 percent to 34 percent of Democrats. Instead, large majorities prefer the U.S. continuing to have low tariffs on a mutual basis with other countries, provided they abide by agreed-upon rules (64 percent to 71 percent), including majorities of Republicans (57 percent to 65 percent) and Democrats (66 percent to 77 percent). Nationally, 68 percent prefer continuing the current policy of low tariffs (Republicans 60 percent, Democrats 77 percent).
Respondents were informed that starting in 2018, in response to alleged violations of international trade rules by China, the United States increased tariffs on Chinese products to an average of about 20 percent, and that China retaliated with similarly high tariffs on the U.S. Bipartisan majorities in every swing state favor the U.S. continuing to impose such tariffs on Chinese imports (69 percent to 78 percent), including majorities of Republicans (75 percent to 78 percent) and Democrats (67 percent to 82 percent). Nationally, 71 percent are in favor, with no difference between Republicans (73 percent) and Democrats (72 percent).
The United States in its trade deal negotiations has been increasingly pushing for the inclusion of enforceable labor and environmental standards. Respondents evaluated arguments that such standards ensure that trade partners cannot get a competitive advantage by having significantly lower standards than the U.S. They also evaluated arguments against, including that the United States imposing standards on other countries and including too many provisions in trade deals will slow down international trade, which would hurt everyone.
Asked whether the U.S. should actively work to make agreements that include enforceable labor standards — including a prohibition on child labor and the right of workers to collectively bargain — bipartisan majorities are in favor in the swing states (81 percent to 87 percent) including Republicans (79 percent to 85 percent) and Democrats (89 percent to 93 percent). Nationally, 82 percent are in favor (Republicans 77 percent, Democrats 90 percent).
Asked whether the United States should actively work to make agreements that include enforceable environmental standards — which require countries to abide by environmental agreements they have signed, and not lower their standards to get a competitive edge — bipartisan majorities in the swing states are in favor (76 percent to 82 percent), including Republicans (70 percent to 76 percent) and Democrats (83 percent to 89 percent). Nationally, 78 percent are in favor (Republicans 72 percent, Democrats 86 percent).
