The State of the Race for POTUS on Election Eve

Angela Weiss/AFP via Getty Images. Pictures were taken on October 30th (Harris) and October 29th (Trump).

Over the last six days, my colleague Dr. Yohanes Sulaiman and I have discussed the state of the race for the U.S. presidency. Below is that conversation. For the sake of clarity and conciseness, parts of the discussion have been lightly edited.

Brad Nelson: We’re a week out from the election. What's the state of the Harris-Trump race for the presidency? And what's driving the race? How do you see it?

Yohanes Sulaiman: It really depends on who you are talking to. Trump's supporters think this is the fight for identity of the U.S. –law and order against disorder and cancel culture (illegal immigration, crime wave, DEI and wokeism running amok). On the other side is the fight against authoritarianism, toxic racism, and the America’s place in the world.

So far I think Trump is winning.

BN: Trump seems to have some momentum. He is up a few ticks in national polls since the fever pitch of Harris’s entry into the race this past summer. But overall, the race is neck-and-neck. Harris will win the popular vote by a few million, and the electoral vote will be closer than 2020 or 2016, Trump's last two presidential runs. I expect Harris to win the election.

What's driving the race in Trump's favor is the perception that the U.S. economy is in dire straits, that crime and violence and immigration--and the nexus between them--is an existential problem for the U.S., and that Harris is too liberal on a wide range of social and cultural issues. By contrast, in Harris's favor, Trump is notorious for his treatment of women, he routinely uses racist and xenophobic language and in his campaign rallies, interviews, and social media posts, constantly outright lies, even about trivial matters, and, of course, his role in the January 6^th insurrection. As you suggested, what's most troubling is that a sizable contingent of both Harris and Trump supporters view the election as a battle for the heart and soul and future of the U.S., with each side viewing a loss as the end of America as they've known it. That's why no matter who wins the prospect of violence and instability is there, which makes the election quite ominous.  

YS: Well, the problem is that people already know Trump, know all his women and legal problems, and they still vote for him because they think the other side is worse! Really, Harris has a major image problem thanks to the far left. When people weigh Trump's craziness versus the other side that wants to allow biological men in female restrooms and sports, transitioning their children without their consent, and forcing people to use "preferred pronouns" lest they get ostracized, they pick Trump. Even Latinos are irked at this extreme political correctness, to the point that academics have observed a backlash against the Democratic Party! And I still remember like ten years ago that Republicans were worried that Latinos were going to vote for Democratic candidates en masse, turning the GOP in a perpetual political minority party.

BN: I think Harris faces another problem. And that's the fact she's either changed or massaged a significant number of her policy positions. Is she a far left liberal who wants to have the state pay for transgender surgeries for prison inmates, as one pro-Trump ad claims? Or is she a centrist or a center-left candidate who packs heat and is a friend to gun owners, favors getting tough on the border, is pro-fracking, and wants to protect Israeli security? The issue isn't even so much that she could be a closet radical than that her shifting positions makes her mysterious and unknown. I suspect many independent voters are hesitant to vote for her because they don't know who they would be voting for. What kind of administration would Americans get? And for some of these folks, they'd probably rather vote for the screwball wannabe dictator they know than the shapeshifter they don't know.

One other issue that we haven't covered: Democrats have hurt themselves by crying wolf too often over the last 20 years. George W. Bush, John McCain, and Mitt Romney, we were told, would destroy America—weaken it and make it less democratic. Yes, each of these three Republicans were problematic to varying degrees and in their own ways, but none of them posed an existential threat to America's political system. They all were willing to play by the rules of the game, and were small-d democrats.

When GOPers and independents hear critiques from the left and Never Trump right that Trump is a threat to America—after roughly the same language was used in the past and after seeing Trump already serve a term in which the U.S. survived—they tune it out. It's just the Democratic Party playbook to delegitimize the GOP candidate for president, or so they believe. Of course, the problem here is that Trump does present a qualitatively different, more serious, problem for the U.S. than his Republican predecessors. Sure, the U.S. made it through Trump's term as POTUS in one piece, but barely. And there are lots of ways in which a 2nd Trump term could really damage American politics. After all, Trump has even greater control over the Republican Party than he did during his time in office, his team is better prepared to maneuver around domestic constraints and impose its will on the U.S., and Trump's policy vision is increasingly dark and authoritarian and exclusionary. But it's difficult to convince center-right and independents of these realities after years of warnings that either didn't come to pass or in retrospect look exceedingly foolish.  

YS: At this point, people vote for Harris more due to their fear of Trump than her policy positions or political accomplishments. It seems to me that most people are not convinced that Trump is controllable even after seeing his first term, and I can see why, with so many of the moderates getting kicked out (e.g. Pence) and crazies welcomed into the inner circle (see Kennedy Jr.). 

But in any case, I agree with you that the Democrats cried wolf once too many times. Regardless how terrible Romney is as a human being, there is no way in hell he was going to pull a "Handmaid's Tale," which to me is a liberal's dream on what a conservative-led United States would look like. By painting virtually all moderate republicans as crazed authoritarians, they have effectively normalized Trump.

I think for the United States to move forward, both Democrats and Republicans need to look themselves in the mirror and tone down all this stupid rhetoric. Put the Handmaid's Tale in its proper place: a circular bin, and start taking Republicans and the concerns of their constituents seriously. 

BN: A new development is that, in the closing three days before the election, the race is now swinging in Harris’s direction. Harris saw a spike in betting markets favoring her to win over the weekend. And they've been doing so in part because of a recent Des Moines Register poll that has Harris up three in solidly red Iowa. I'd also add that Trump's loud complaints of cheating in Pennsylvania probably are signs of frustration that his internal polling is telling him bad news about the race in that state. What do you make of all this?

YS: Yeah, I am surprised that the poll is tightening up. I really wonder what has happened in Iowa. The Des Moines Register stated that the issue of abortion drove the movement, but abortion is old news and we should have seen the movement months ago, not so close to the end of the race. So I suspect either pollster Ann Selzer got it wrong, which is still a possibility, or depending on the date of the poll, it is highly possible that the Madison Square Garden fiasco finally caught up with Trump. Considering how the pollsters got things wrong in 2016 and how close this race is, I think things can still go either way.  

BN: Yes, the poll could be an outlier. But the notion that abortion was important to the DMR poll isn't too strange. What probably happened is that late deciders who are highly motivated by the abortion issue broke in favor of Harris. One of the things I've read about the DMR poll is that women—particularly independent and older women--are driving the shift toward Harris. Selzer said, "Age and gender are the two most dynamic factors that are explaining these numbers." Interestingly, women older than 65 favor Harris 63% to 28%, over a 2-1 margin. I get it. Mothers and grandmothers are worried about their children and grandchildren living in a U.S. with restrictive reproductive rights and access to emergency health care when pregnant. 

Lastly, there are a few things I will be looking for in the results, once the data starts rolling in Tuesday evening. Certainly, I’m watching Pennsylvania, as that state will likely determine the election. I’m also looking at states in which Harris is trending in a good direction, like North Carolina and Georgia. Positive news for Harris in either state probably bodes well for her. Additionally, I’m curious to see how Latinos and Women vote in light of various incendiary, violent statements made by the Trump campaign (including Trump himself), particularly over the two to three few weeks.

I fully expect Trump to declare victory Tuesday night/Wednesday morning, regardless of how he performs at the polls. And that will rile up his base. But even if the election goes relatively smoothly over the next few days—the vote and then the vote count—that doesn’t mean the U.S. is out the woods just yet. There will be plenty of time for Trump to file all sorts of law suits, pressure national and state officials, and to gin up parts of his base who are looking to start trouble on Trump’s behalf. I do hope that if Trump loses the election, members of the GOP, sensing that they just might be done with him once and for all and not have not worry so much about his political wrath, will finally have the guts to stand up to him and call for peace and stability and sanity. I’m skeptical, but hopeful that will indeed happen.