A nightmare of what might happen gives way to a final contemplation of the reality of this impending election and the choices Americans are now making over who will govern their fissured nation.
A prelude
It had been one of those dark and stormy nights, reminiscent of the infamous introduction in Edward Bulwer-Lytton’s novel, Paul Clifford. When I rose from my nightlong tossing and turning, washed and grabbed a quick breakfast, I looked out the window from the kitchen to see that the weather for 20 January, the day of the presidential inauguration in Washington, DC was overcast, promised to be cold and with intermittent rain and snow. This would not be auspicious weather for a day I would spend outdoors.
Right after breakfast, I pulled on a thick wool jersey, thick socks, a muffler and hat, and my warmest but well-worn down jacket. I slipped all of my media ID cards and credentials – clipped securely to a rugged steel chain – around my neck. I had packed my backpack with some iron rations like energy bars, several bottles of water, some back issues of magazines I had not read to tide me over during boring moments, an energy bank for my phone, a plastic poncho, two packs of Fisherman’s Friend throat lozenges, and a full day’s worth of my chronic meds. All of this was just in case things went sour and I could not get home in the evening easily.
I then headed to the nearest subway entrance and, rather than trying to use one of the stops closer to the Capitol Building to get to the National Mall where it was clear there would be large, unruly crowds, I got off at Metro Center instead. Once I reached the surface I began walking the 10 blocks in between to get as close as I could to the Capitol so I could witness the extraordinary proceedings that would take place.
Even though it was still before 10 o’clock in the morning, the streets, sidewalks and that expansive green space leading away from the Capitol Building were already filling up. In the crowds there were knots of men dressed in eclectic variations of military and hunting camouflage gear.
Many of those men were carrying signs, banners and flags (including Confederate battle flags, swastika flags, those Revolutionary War “Don’t tread on me” flags). Despite frequently broadcast police alerts on radio, television and the internet not to bring such items to the inauguration zone, some of those men were carrying mock assault rifles and shotguns. They looked excited and energised, but in the paradoxically grim-faced way men on a military mission can seem to be.
All along the streets fronting onto and leading away from the National Mall there were detachments of National Guard forces drawn from units based in the District of Columbia and the neighbouring states of Maryland and Virginia, as well as police units from all of the jurisdictions active in Washington – and still more of them on loan from nearby cities, counties and states.
The personnel in those units were equipped as if they were ready for pretty much any action they would be called upon to carry out, save that of dealing with open warfare or an actual invasion. A clear lesson had been taken on board by security professionals in the wake of the infamous 6 January 2021 incident and then those scattered acts of violence that had occurred when results of the 2024 election were being tabulated and announced.
A range of military utility vehicles were parked discreetly on the nearby side streets, although they were still visible from the Mall. Every few minutes drone craft hovered overhead and there were spotter helicopters from the police flying precise patterns in the air as well.
Of course some rather daunting metal grills enveloped the Capitol Building, the Supreme Court and, further down Pennsylvania Avenue, around Lafayette Square and the White House as well. It was a city in which at least some people were ready to rumble.
The VIP seats on the Mall but close to the balcony where the new president would take the oath of office, as well as the special VIP seating up near the actual swearing-in, were also ringed by metal grills. Entry to that seating required passing through metal detectors, monitored by personnel ready to do more intensive searches as well – checking for whatever might set off one of the metal detectors. Collectively, all of this seemed different from the inaugural events of prior years, but the times were different now.
Soon enough, at the stroke of noon, the new president rose to take the oath of office, the military band struck up the president’s anthem, Hail to the Chief, a quartet of military jets flew overhead, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court stepped forward, holding a family bible. The band played Ruffles and Flourishes and the words that had been used since George Washington’s time rang out, first by the chief justice, then by the new president: “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”
Immediately after the new president had added “So help me God”, scuffles broke out in the crowd on the Mall. The police launched into action, arresting anyone involved in the disruptions; and then carrying out forays in force deep into the crowd, apprehending anyone seen throwing a rock, a bottle or any other objects. Sirens wailed in the distance as the tyres of police and emergency vehicles were heard screeching, and drone craft could be seen vectoring towards multiple locations in the big crowd. The whoop whoop of the police helicopters added still more to the noise…
… I woke up and checked my phone’s alarm clock after it started to buzz on the nightstand. That scene had been so real it seemed it had been real. But today was 4 November, it was 6.30am, and election day, let alone the presidential inauguration, was still in the future.
The here and now
And so, here we are. What people really want to know is who is going to win this astonishingly unpredictable, increasingly chaotic and unique electoral process in America.
After all the televised presidential and vice-presidential debates, hundreds of speeches and raucous campaign events, there was a seasoned candidate, Joe Biden’s sudden withdrawal of his candidacy to be replaced by his vice-president, Kamala Harris, as their party’s nominee. There was also an assassination attempt on Republican nominee Donald Trump, and much more. But now, the election is finally hours away.
For weeks, the media has been selling a narrative that the two candidates, Harris and Trump, have been slugging away at each other and that they are, as it is said, “neck and neck” per the polls, and in, among others, seven swing states – Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona and Nevada.
The analysts have been left to scrutinise transient, perhaps insignificant, perhaps crucial shifts in candidate support in swing states, most especially the three “Blue Wall” states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. It remains true, however, that such shifts are within the statistical margins of error typical of opinion polls.
By this point it should go without saying the popular vote is effectively immaterial for the actual outcome. What matters is the electoral vote for each state, largely apportioned on their respective populations (a state’s electoral vote equals the number of a state’s House of Representatives delegation plus its two senators). There is a total of 538 electoral votes, thus by simple math, a candidate needs 270 electoral votes to win.
It is generally assumed both candidates each have about 220 or so electoral votes secured from the states that are strongly supportive of them. Thus, from basic arithmetic, about 100 or so electoral votes remain to be fought over – and may well be subject to modest but crucial movements in voter sentiment. However, polling is no longer much of a guide to the outcome.
Instead, two key factors now matter more. The first is the turnout of voters and whom actual voters actually vote for. It might seem reasonable that at this point there is no one left who hasn’t made up their mind. Nevertheless, in the closing days of the campaign, the two candidates are proceeding as if there are still pockets of people who do not yet know which way they will vote. And who knows, maybe there are still people who will even walk into polling stations undecided – in spite of all that has happened so far.
Closely tied to turnout is the exploding phenomenon of American voters making their choices via advance and mail-in voting. By the time election day arrives, perhaps close to 100 million votes will already have been cast. That could represent about half of all the votes in this election. Quite obviously, such voters are no longer amenable to last-minute appeals for support from either candidate.
Each state has slightly different rules for handling these votes – some only count these votes after all votes actually cast on election day are tabulated, while in other states they will be counted during election day, but with those results not released until that state’s polling stations have closed. As a result, people desperate to learn the final result need to make themselves really comfortable on their sofas and easy chairs for a long day and night of reporting, and just maybe a count stretching into the rest of the week before the final outcome is known.
It is also possible the country will face something like the uncertainty that ensued after the 2000 election, what with its multiple recounts in Florida and a result (and thus the final result) only settled in the Supreme Court. Or, more awkwardly, there will be a variation of what happened four years earlier. Still, the results could be sufficiently conclusive that even angry agitation for endless and fruitless recounts and court suits will be seen as unavailing and a waste of time and money, even by increasingly angry politicians and partisan voters.
The two candidates
And so, what is it about the two principal candidates? Is there anything that distinguishes the one from the other? As many observers have already noted, we know what kind of president Trump will be because we have already seen him in action.
America (and the world) has already lived through the chaos and confusion of that term of office. There was a constant stream of ad hoc, capricious decision-making based on illusions and delusions – more often designed for showmanship rather than statesmanship. There were those infamous love letters between him and North Korea’s Kim Jong-un, his panting obeisance towards dictators and authoritarians like Vladimir Putin, and those embarrassing efforts to lever the president of Ukraine into digging up (or creating) dirt on Trump’s intended rival in the 2020 election.
Simultaneously, during his term of office, he disparaged the country’s long-time allies via the language of a harshly transactional foreign policy. In the current campaign he has, offhandedly, promised massive tariffs on imported goods and announced he could put an end to several foreign conflicts by sheer force of his implacable will and personality – or magic, perhaps. His constant assertions of the grave dangers of immigration – including the repetition of wild and unsubstantiated rumours – have become a centrepiece of his campaign.
Then, too, there was the mind-boggling, science-free decision-making as Covid-19 began to engulf the country. There has been a progression of aides and supporters indicted and, in some cases, sent off to the pokey after their sentencing. Then there are his own indictments and convictions for business fiddles or sexual misconduct, as well as impending trials over purloined top-secret US government documents stored in a gold-plated bathroom and shower stall at Trump’s personal property, Mar-a-Lago.
Read more: Kamala Harris cleans Donald Trump’s clock in American presidential candidates debate — no debate about it
Read more: Mr Slick versus Mr Earnest Nice Guy? Civilised US VP debate stuck to policy ideas, but won’t move dial for voters
There is a realisation that in his campaign to reclaim the presidency he continues to roll out new lows in public discourse, including blatant ethnic or racial insults, and misogynist, personal insults of his opponent. And so, on and on, and on, almost without end. But worst of all, there has simply been zero indication of a man who sees his job as governing for the entire country, as opposed to blessing his rich friends and supporters or preparing to carry out acts of personal aggrandisement against his opponents.
Four years after a previous term of office, there is no indication a new term would be better than his previous one, but there are growing indications it would be worse as his psychological and mental condition continues to deteriorate. As commentator and columnist Nick Kristof judged it: “If any of us had an ageing parent like Trump, we would gently remove the car keys. As a nation, we should keep him from the nuclear launch codes.”
And what of his opponent? Given Harris’s rapid, unanticipated ascent to be her party’s nominee, she has been running a full court press to consolidate support among her party’s loyal supporters as well as bring on board a growing roster of Republicans disgusted with their own party’s nominee. Harris has attempted to make women’s reproductive rights the cornerstone of her campaign, together with a need to engage in a defence of democratic principles and norms. In essence, she is portraying her candidacy as a return to basic norms – domestically and internationally – but with the addition of policy and government programme aid to a flailing middle class.
Centre-right publications like the Economist have weighed the respective candidacies, despite the inability of the Washington Post or the Los Angeles Times to do so, saying: “By making Mr Trump leader of the free world, Americans would be gambling with the economy, the rule of law and international peace. We cannot quantify the chance that something will go badly wrong: nobody can. But we believe voters who minimise it are deluding themselves.”
The paper agreed that Trump had “helped broker the Abraham Accords, which formalised relations between Israel and some of its neighbours – a peace that has so far survived a regional war. He prodded some of America’s allies to increase their defence spending. Even when Mr Trump behaved abominably by fomenting an attack on the Capitol to try to stop the transfer of power on January 6th 2021, America’s institutions held firm.”
But the paper went on to admit: “If the Economist failed to foresee so much in 2016, why heed our warning now? The answer is that today the risks are larger. And that is because Mr Trump’s policies are worse, the world is more perilous and many of the sober, responsible people who reined in his worst instincts during his first term have been replaced by true believers, toadies and chancers…
“Next to Mr Trump, Kamala Harris stands for stability. True, she is an underwhelming machine politician. She has struggled to tell voters what she wants to do with power. She seems indecisive and unsure. However, she has abandoned the Democrats’ most left-wing ideas and is campaigning near the centre, flanked by Liz Cheney and other Republican exiles… It is hard to imagine Ms Harris being a stellar president, though people can surprise you. But you cannot imagine her bringing about a catastrophe.”
How will it play out?
Thus, what must those desperate to know the outcome look for while awaiting the nation’s judgement? The swing states obviously are where we must focus unblinkingly. The most important is probably Pennsylvania, a state sharply divided between big cities with their suburban surrounds versus its swathe of small towns and rural spaces.
Reports of exit polls and actual vote totals from the suburban counties around Philadelphia and Pittsburgh such as Bucks, Montgomery and Chester, and the comparable suburban voting in the other swing states such as Maricopa County around Phoenix, Arizona or Dearborn, Michigan, will be predictors. The big cities are likely to be strong for Harris, but those suburban reaches and how solidly they move towards her will be the key.
In today’s demographics, the gender gap between the two candidates is enormous – with women going strongly towards Harris and men to Trump. Older voters are now leaning towards Harris, while young men seem to be shading towards Trump. Similar splits are seen in educational levels, with young white men with no college educations skewing towards Trump, while voters with more education seem to be hewing towards Harris.
How will it end?
If this writer is forced to predict the outcome, if the results in those key suburban counties go strongly for Harris, readers should be prepared for her to be America’s 47th president. But we will not know for certain until all the votes are counted – the essence of democracy. Crucially, given present circumstances, it is unlikely we will know the answer until days after the polls close. DM