One of the most striking ironies in this year’s US presidential election is that the “Arab voice”—which, despite its reach across the Arab world and beyond, has consistently failed to shift American and Israeli positions in international forums to stop the war of extermination against civilians in Gaza and Lebanon—has found a crucial role at the heart of the battle for the presidency. 

The Arab vote in a key swing state, Michigan, has become a persistent challenge for Vice President Kamala Harris. The Arab electorate in Michigan has transformed their votes into a matter of political survival for the Democratic candidate, erasing her previous lead over Republican candidate Donald Trump. This shift has compelled Harris to make urgent appeals to the Arab-American community, which has redirected its discontent with US policies from the global stage to the domestic political arena at a pivotal moment.

Less than a week before the US presidential elections, the toss-up between Donald Trump and Kamala Harris in swing states is shaping the race, mainly in the “Blue Wall” states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. In 2016, Trump swept these traditionally Democratic state, securing his path to the White House. Today, he is aiming to win at least one of these three states, which would significantly bolster his chances of returning to power if he also succeeds in capturing the four southern swing states known as the “Sun Belt.”

The former president appears to be making steady progress in the crucial swing states at the expense of the current vice president, who has lost much of the momentum she initially gained after US President Joe Biden stepped aside. National polls suggest a razor-thin margin between the two candidates, often indicating a virtual tie. 

However, this is not the core problem for the Democrats. The real challenge Harris faces is that any tightening or loss in national polling translates into a setback among key demographics in the seven critical swing states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Nevada, Arizona, North Carolina, and Georgia. 

For the first time since August, Trump has surpassed Harris, with a recent UK Economist magazine poll giving him 53 per cent support, a notable seven-point jump within a single week. This surge has bolstered his position in the swing states. Speculation is mounting over early voting trends across all 50 states, particularly in the seven battleground states that will ultimately decide the presidential race. So far, there has been a notable surge in early voting among Democratic voters, while a substantial portion of Republican voters are reserving their efforts for Election Day on 5 November —a pattern that has become a hallmark of recent elections.

There is considerable enthusiasm for early voting, with turnout levels reminiscent of 2020, driven by the sharp political and ideological polarisation between the Democratic and Republican camps. Analysts generally agree that any drop in voter turnout compared to previous elections could work in favour of the Republican Party. In 2020, early voting accounted for 64 per cent of the total vote, compared to 42 per cent in 2016. Analysts also anticipate an extremely close presidential election, with the outcome potentially hinging on a margin of mere tens of thousands of votes in the seven battleground states.

One of the major concerns currently troubling Democrats is the Harris campaign’s apparent loss of direction in appealing to both its core supporters and undecided voters. The campaign has largely pivoted to focus on Donald Trump, portraying him as a threat to democracy, while sidelining crucial issues that resonate with the broader electorate—issues where the Republican candidate has a clear advantage. At the forefront of these are the economy, inflation, living conditions, taxes, and healthcare. Polls have revealed that economic matters and inflation top the list of voter concerns, while other issues have taken a back seat. 

Harris’ campaign is centering on portraying Trump as a “fascist” and a “dictator in the making” to appeal to moderate Republicans, attract undecided independents, and rally her base. This approach emphasises reminding voters of Trump’s conduct and the actions of his supporters during the 6 January 2021 Capitol riot.

Meanwhile, Trump has strengthened his standing, particularly among white male voters, positioning himself as the candidate most capable of handling economic challenges, especially inflation. Recent surveys indicate that no less than 95 per cent of voters express significant concern over controlling rising prices, identifying it as the primary issue for the American electorate. 

For example, in the current campaign, Trump is courting demographics he has not traditionally targeted, such as young voters. Just a few days ago, he appeared with a popular podcast host in Texas, discussing the possibility of abolishing the federal income tax and replacing it with a tariff on imports—a throwback to early 20th-century conservative policies, specifically those of president William McKinley.  

On the other hand, the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, a non-partisan organisation focused on reducing the federal budget deficit, has warned that Trump’s proposals could add $15 trillion to the national debt over a decade—double the amount projected under Harris’ plans if implemented.

Despite this, a group of campaign experts believes that Harris has recently managed to narrow the gap with Trump on economic issues, particularly in the crucial swing states that are seen as the keys to the White House. According to a recent Bloomberg poll, her campaign has made significant progress in these pivotal states, which are now central to the outcome of the race.

GROWING DOUBT

This growing doubt among Democrats about Harris’ ability to defeat Trump raises fears of a repeat of the 2016 election scenario. 

Back then, Democratic candidate Hillary Clinton was leading comfortably in most polls, only to be overtaken by the Republican candidate who capitalised on his critiques of the Democrats’ handling of economic issues, leading to a surprising upset. Today, Trump appears to have a deeper grasp of economic matters, drawing on his four-year tenure as president—a period that saw solid economic performance until the onset of the Covid-19 pandemic, which led to a decline in economic growth and performance.

Harris has positioned herself to the American electorate as the candidate most capable of helping the nation “turn the page” and move forward on a new path after a period of political polarisation under Trump’s presidency. However, three months after securing the Democratic nomination, she is struggling to clearly define how her leadership would be different, especially amid a noticeable decline in the popularity of the current administration. Polls indicate that a majority of voters are convinced that Harris’ policies would be a continuation of Biden’s rather than the beginning of a new direction for the country.

American commentators criticise the Democratic political establishment for prioritising style over substance, refusing to admit any errors, and dismissing Trump supporters as extremists, misguided individuals, cult members, or simply uninformed. In contrast, high inflation has led to stark challenges for millions of Americans: struggling to afford rent, the dream of homeownership slipping away, dwindling savings, and the delay of retirement plans. These are concrete, everyday difficulties that individuals and families must navigate.

Republicans contend that under Trump’s leadership, the economic landscape was far more stable with inflation low, housing affordable, and real household incomes on the rise.

Social demographics indicate that this election is also becoming a decisive gender contest. Women, particularly younger voters, are strongly backing Harris due to concerns over Trump’s perceived sexist attitudes and policies. In contrast, men are more inclined to support Trump, drawn to his assertive and unapologetic demeanor—a trait that finds favour among a diverse range, including young men, Black men, and Hispanic men.

Female presidential candidates still grapple with persistent stereotypes among male voters, questioning their ability to lead a large nation and handle international relations without emotional bias. Commentator Maureen Dowd, writing for the New York Times, observes that Harris’ appeal among both white and Black men falls well short of Biden’s popularity with these groups in 2020. She warns that Harris may struggle to win if Black men withhold their support for the first Black female presidential candidate, noting the strong backing that Black women gave Clinton during the 2016 election.

Overall, Trump holds a significant advantage over Harris among broad segments of voters when asked about the “candidate of change.” In a Wall Street Journal poll conducted last week, 49 per cent identified Trump as the candidate of change, and 45 per cent believed he had a clear vision for the future. In comparison, Harris received support from 40 per cent and 43 per cent for those same questions, respectively.

The electoral landscape remains uncertain, with razor-thin margins between the candidates, particularly among undecided voters—a crucial group that both candidates are eager to sway in the final days leading up to election day. This uncertainty is amplified by polling numbers, both nationally and in key swing states, that fall within the margin of error, making it nearly impossible to determine a clear front-runner due to the extremely tight race.

SWING STATES

There are seven states, out of a total of 50, that will determine the outcome of this year’s presidential race. 

These seven states hold critical electoral votes within the Electoral College, which consists of 538 votes distributed across the states based on the most recent national census. The Electoral College system is designed to ensure that all states, regardless of size, play a significant role in the electoral process, preventing smaller states from being overshadowed by larger ones like California, Texas, and New York. A candidate needs the vote of at least 270 electors—more than half of all electors—to win the presidential election.

In this system, American voters cast their ballots to elect state electors, who then convene on 17 December in the Electoral College meeting to cast their votes for the next president. Each state’s representation in the Electoral College is equal to its total number of Senators and Representatives in Congress, ensuring that both population and federal structure are taken into account in the presidential election.

In the swing states, a dead heat battle is underway for votes in micro-communities and neighbourhoods, transforming the contest into a house-to-house campaign within these small districts. 

There are numerous reasons for the intense competition, especially in swing states, over the votes of diverse ethnic, social, and age groups. Generation Z, in particular, is a generation that expresses itself in varied ways, with diverse allegiances, making it difficult to assume that they will uniformly support the Democratic Party based on issues like equality, justice, and climate change. 

There are also issues where segments of young voters align with the Republican Party, such as on unemployment, housing, and illegal immigration. Furthermore, racial minorities, such as African-Americans, Latinos, and Asian-Americans, no longer vote uniformly for the Democratic Party as they did in past decades. Voter preferences are now shaped by a multitude of factors, including employment opportunities, education, healthcare, inflation, and the cost of living. These shifting priorities have allowed Trump to make inroads among ethnic minorities, who are increasingly voting based on their own specific interests.

Pennsylvania is considered the most critical of the swing states, holding 19 electoral votes, the largest share among the seven decisive states in the Electoral College. It is widely believed among election experts that whoever wins Pennsylvania will secure the presidency.

Historically, the state has voted for the winning candidate 49 times out of 59 elections and has been a focal point for both Parties’ campaigns since 1952. Although Pennsylvania has traditionally leaned Republican, Democrats have made significant gains in recent decades. Each candidate has spent over $200 million on advertising in Pennsylvania alone, double the average spending in other states. Additionally, tech magnate Elon Musk has focused his support for Trump heavily on Pennsylvania, more than any other state. Abortion and labour issues are at the forefront of the election debate, with fierce competition for the votes of women and workers.

In the context of evolving attitudes among racial minorities, Michigan serves as a key indicator of how specific demographic groups can sway the election’s outcome. In 2020, Democrats secured Michigan by a narrow margin of 154,000 votes. Today, however, the state’s significance has heightened, particularly due to the influence of the Arab-American community. Their votes could prove decisive in derailing Harris’ chances if they abstain from supporting the Democrats, protesting against the White House’s stance on the conflicts in Gaza and Lebanon.

Harris’ campaign is making strenuous efforts to win over Arab-American leaders, hoping to stave off an electoral setback that could see Trump return to office. Despite these efforts, the threat of a boycott looms large, jeopardising Harris’ chances in a battleground state where the contest is on the brink of a statistical dead heat.

According to a Washington Post report on Saturday, a sizeable portion of this crucial voter base (the Arab and Muslim community in Michigan) has already “fled the Democratic Party into the waiting arms of the Green Party or former president Donald Trump. Harris’ failure to secure the trust of these communities might or might not end up costing her the election, but based on the conversations I’ve had with Muslim and Arab community leaders in recent days, it seems the damage is done.”

In the end, it is impossible to definitively predict a winner in the US presidential race due to a variety of factors. One key reason is the lack of complete credibility of American public opinion polls, as evidenced by the significant loss of trust after the 2020 election. Additionally, a substantial segment of undecided voters could tip the balance on election day if they choose to support one candidate over the other. 

Another unpredictable factor is the psychological component—the willingness of certain voter groups to cast their ballots for a woman, especially one of Indian and Black heritage. On the other hand, doubts among other segments about either candidate—due to Trump’s divisive rhetoric or Harris’ perceived lack of experience—could lead some to wait until the last moment to decide or to abstain altogether.

The most crucial element remains economic issues, which will ultimately determine the voting decisions of the largest voter bloc. While it is tempting to assume Trump has a lead due to his perceived economic competence, the gap between him and Harris remains narrow in general polls. 

Although Trump’s supporters have considerable confidence in his ability to navigate economic challenges, there are also positive indicators for Harris’ economic performance that give her campaign hope of securing a victory. However, there remains concern about how independent and undecided voters will lean, with some expressing uncertainty due to their “lack of familiarity with the Democratic candidate.”

Amidst all these complexities and uncertainties, Americans will be glued to their screens next Tuesday night to learn the outcome of one of the most heated and expensive elections in history. The winner will not only shape the future of the United States but also have far-reaching implications for the world at large.

* A version of this article appears in print in the 31 October, 2024 edition of Al-Ahram Weekly