To a foreign observer with little or no skin in the game, the events that are unfolding during the countdown to the US presidential elections can seem absurd, surreal, or apocalyptic, depending on an individual’s sensitivities and perception. Those responses mainly have to do with the dramatis personae in the upcoming fray. Rarely has a political event of such significance–for the US as well as the world–have had politicians of the kind of calibre demonstrated by Donald Trump and his running mate, J.D. Vance (the Republican nominees for President and Vice-President) and Kamala Harris and Tim Walz (the Democratic nominees).
Let’s take Trump first, mainly because he is a more known entity than the others and he was the 45th President of the US who served from 2017 to 2021. A real estate agent and reality TV celebrity, Trump’s tenure was marked by controversy and his presidency was sharply polarising.
Yet, he achieved much. He cut taxes for corporations and individuals; he reformed the US criminal justice system, including prisons and sentencing laws; he brokered normalisation agreements between Israel and several Arab states; and he presided over low unemployment rates, low inflation, and pre-pandemic stock market gains.
These were sullied by the negatives, though. Trump faced criticism for downplaying the pandemic’s severity and mixed messaging on public health measures; his measures to counter immigration, such as the travel ban and family separation policy at the southern border, significantly reduced both legal and illegal immigration but critics said it was unnecessarily harsh and damaged America’s image as a welcoming nation.
On other issues such as climate change, Trump withdrew from the Paris Agreement and rolled back environmental regulations. The US’ foreign relationships with traditional allies and international organisations such as NATO got strained as Trump’s policies were more domestic-focused.
Trump was also the first president to be impeached twice by the House of Representatives, and he was criticised for his role in the events leading up to the Capitol riots on January 6, 2021, the day Congress was set to certify Joe Biden’s victory in the 2020 presidential election. Trump, who was the President then, had been claiming, without evidence, that the election was “stolen” due to widespread fraud, and he held a rally near the White House where he encouraged supporters to march to the Capitol.
As Trump campaigns for the presidency, he faces several court cases, including charges of making hush money payments to an adult film actress; for retaining classified documents at his residence; for interfering in the 2020 elections; and for inciting the Capitol riots.
If that sort of a track record and baggage of legal problems makes Trump look like a particularly bad actor in the dramatis personae in the presidential election fray, let’s take a look at Harris.
Surprisingly, Trump, actually, might look better in comparison to his main rival, Vice-President Harris, the presidential candidate for the Democrats
Harris, who is expected to be confirmed as candidate at her party’s national convention in Chicago (August 19-22), is a late entrant to the race. She was endorsed by incumbent President Joe Biden on July 21 after he withdrew from the race. Biden, 81, was showing distinct signs of cognitive disabilities, most likely related to his advanced age, and his late-stage withdrawal from the contest was prompted by his party’s leaders. The spectacle of his pathetic performance at a televised debate with Trump was the final blow to his ambition of winning a second term.
Harris has a few things going for her. She will be 60 in October and, therefore, is much younger than Trump, who is 78 and, although visibly less infirm than Biden, he shows definite signs that betray age-related debilities. Being a woman of mixed ethnicity (she is of half-Indian and half-Jamaican ancestry), Harris enjoys a cachet of support from some voter groups, particularly Black women.
A lawyer who has been a former California attorney general, and a senator from that state, Harris, who was picked by Biden as his running mate in 2020, also has liberal credentials and is known for her progressive political stances. She is pro-abortion, and an upholder of women’s rights and gender equality; also, she is a big votary of civil rights and equality for all.
However, Harris is an unproven entity. A US Vice-President’s role is of little consequence. Of course, the VP is first in line of succession to the presidency and in the Senate, the upper house of Congress, has the power to cast a tie-breaking vote. Yet, while the President might delegate some responsibilities to his VP, in effect, the role is more symbolic than of consequence.
In public meetings since she was endorsed by Biden, Harris’ speeches and statements seem to be more form than substance. In contrast to Trump who, at rallies, bangs on about how America is doomed on a path to destruction and only he can save the country, Harris is bubbly and effusive with an infectious laughter and a folksy, “I’m one of you” spirit.
American mainstream media is notoriously biased and anti-Trump. In fact, in a practice that might seem quite strange in other countries, leading newspapers and magazines openly endorse a candidate before the elections. For example, since it was founded in 1851, the New York Times has endorsed a candidate for President of the US in every election held during its history. In 2012, it endorsed Barack Obama who won, in 2016, it endorsed Hillary Clinton who lost; in 2020, it endorsed Joe Biden who won; and in 2024, once Harris is officially nominated, it will likely endorse her.
It is not surprising, therefore, that America’s media are exulting over Harris. When Biden showed signs of debility (even before the disastrous debate), few in the media called him out for that. Now, even when Harris backtracks on the views she held in the past, it rarely raises an eyebrow. A green energy champion, Harris has for long been against fracking to extract oil and gas. Recently, however, after Trump pledged that as President he was all for oil drilling to boost the economy, she backtracked on her stance and said she wouldn’t ban fracking. When Trump announced at his rallies that he would abolish tax on tips, a major source of income in the low-salary service industry, Harris soon picked up the cue and began saying the same thing. The media didn’t blink an eye.
Recently, when a well-known media personality, Alex Wagner, who hosts her own show on the MSNBC network, appeared on the Late Show with Stephen Colbert, a popular late night talk fixture, and was asked about Harris’ main strength, she said it was the “joy” that Harris embraced. Others in the media have counted among Harris’ strengths her loud and infectious laughter and her ability to dance well! Few have pointed out that her speeches are largely absent of any references to economic or foreign policy.
Her past stance on subjects such as immigration (she supports a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and opposes aggressive deportation policies), gun control (she wants tougher laws), and taxation (she wants progressive taxation) are totally at odds with what Trump promises–he wants to deport illegal aliens; favours existing gun laws; and promises to cut taxes.
In fact, Harris and her running mate Walz, a former football coach, appear, at least to an outsiders such as a foreigner, as homebodies more suited to smalltime local politics, as in a city’s mayoral contest, rather than in a race for the presidency of the world’s most powerful nation whose head of state is a position that affects not only the US but the entire globe.
That is why to many the race for America’s presidency could seem bizarrely surreal. There is Trump who is acutely divisive and stands for an America that wants to look inwards, deport millions of immigrants, and pursue a policy that pays little heed to issues such as climate change. On the other side, there is Harris whose lack of experience and down-home jokiness is almost akin to naivete.
There are less than 80 days remaining before the elections and the process is not a simple one. There are two components to the US Presidential elections. First, there is the popular vote.
This is the total number of votes cast by individual citizens across the country. Second, there is the electoral college. Each of the USA’s 50 states has a number of electors based on its population. In most states, the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state receives all of its electoral votes.
To win the presidency, a candidate needs to secure a majority of electoral votes (at least 270 out of 538), not necessarily the national popular vote. This means it’s possible to win the presidency while losing the national popular vote. In 2020, Biden won the election with 306 electoral votes and 51.3% of the national popular vote, compared to Trump’s 232 electoral votes and 46.9% of the popular vote. But, in 2016 Trump won with 304 of the 538 electoral votes, although the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton, won the popular vote by a margin of 2.1%.
In the latest polls, Harris is leading Trump by a couple of percentage points–this is significant because when Biden was still in the race, he trailed Trump in the polls. Yet, as everywhere in the world, the US elections can be dashedly difficult things to predict. No one knows what will eventually happen in November. One thing, though: For those looking at the race from outside, it’s like an American sitcom on Netflix, probably with a much darker touch of comedy.
For more details visit us: https://lokmarg.com/
