the US election is wild, but does any of it matter?
- Written by Jared Mondschein, Director of Research, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney
It has not yet been a week since the debate between Kamala Harris and Donald Trump – in which the Democrat was widely held to have bested the Republican – and the US presidential election has been dominated by whether Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, eat dogs and cats; pop superstar Taylor Swift endorsing Harris and Walz followed by Trump posting “I HATE TAYLOR SWIFT!” on his social media site; and now a second assassination attempt on Trump.
While there is plenty of heat and noise around, will any of it matter on election day on November 5?
A second assassination attempt
For the second time in only two months, it appears Trump has survived an attempt on his life, this time by a suspect armed with[1] an “AK-47-style rifle”.
Though details are still emerging, 58-year-old Ryan Wesley Routh was reportedly[2] within a few hundred yards of the former president while he was playing golf in Florida. However, unlike the July 13 assassination attempt on Trump, the alleged assailant was identified and pursued by secret service officers before he could even fire a shot. Trump was uninjured.
Unfortunately, assassination are not rare occurrences[3] in US politics. After all, every US president in modern history – including Joe Biden – has faced assassination attempts of various kinds. The more rare instance is when attempted assassins come as close to being successful as the July 2024 assailant did.
Dogs, cats and wild claims
Perhaps the line that received the most traction from the presidential debate was Trump’s unfounded claim that in Springfield, Ohio, Haitian immigrants were “eating” dogs and cats, after his running mate JD Vance first made the claims.
Despite officials in the town repeatedly denying it was happening, Vance later doubled down[4] on the claims. There have since been reports of threats against Haitian members of the community.
It should be noted that in 2014, leaders of the Ohio city declared “an emergency” and announced it was a “welcoming city” to immigrants, due to labour shortages at the time. The 59,000-person town’s subsequent economic revival not only coincided[5] with a rapid influx of an estimated 12,000–15,000 migrants fleeing political instability and violence in Haiti, but also strained city resources and increased tensions.
The Trump–Vance campaign’s refusal to distance themselves from the unproven claims about Springfield’s Haitian community is a clear effort to keep the attention on immigration, a policy area in which the majority[6] of Americans would prefer the Republican’s approach. We can expect to hear more anti-immigration rhetoric if the US unemployment rate increases in the next two months.
Does any of it matter?
Back in July, the combination of Biden’s poor debate performance, a series of legal wins for Trump, poor approval ratings[7] of the Biden–Harris administration and then the image of a bloodied Trump raising his fist after surviving the July 2024 assassination attempt led some to believe Trump was all but guaranteed[8] to be the next US president. In many ways, it would be hard to imagine a series of events that could have benefited his campaign more.
Then, on July 21, Biden dropped out and Harris assumed the top of the presidential ticket, giving the Democrats what many called a political “reset[9]”.
Yet despite unprecedented events in the election – the last time the incumbent president decided to not run for re-election, in 1968, occurred before the primary races began in earnest – perhaps the most important takeaway from these events may be how little has changed.
Before Biden dropped out of the 2024 ticket, multiple[10] national[11] polls[12] had the president trailing Trump (who had recently survived an assassination attempt) by only 1 or 2 percentage points. And before Harris’ successful debate last week, the race was even closer, with various polls showing Harris closely behind[13] Trump, tied[14] with Trump, or even slightly ahead[15] of the former president.
In the same way the July 13 assassination attempt saw Trump’s approval rating increasing by less than 2 percentage points, the polls after Harris’ debate performance appear to have on average only shifted in her favour by less than a single percentange point[16].
Half a year ago – and many political lifetimes before any of these events occurred – Trump averaged an approval rating of 47%[17]. Today, that number is exactly the same. His approval has yet to go below 44% or above 49% over the past half year – essentially remaining within the margin of error. In other words, regardless of events, views of Trump – much like views of Harris and Biden – will likely remain largely unchanged.
A once-in-a-century pandemic, an insurrection, criminal convictions and even an assassination attempt may feel seismic to Americans – and those outside looking in – but the calcification[18] of US political polarisation remains.
However, given the slimmest of margins for the last two presidential elections – a total of 0.03%[19] of Americans decided the 2020 election – even the most seemingly inconsequential events may prove decisive.
References
- ^ a suspect armed with (www.nytimes.com)
- ^ reportedly (edition.cnn.com)
- ^ are not rare occurrences (www.abc.net.au)
- ^ doubled down (www.bbc.com)
- ^ coincided (www.nytimes.com)
- ^ majority (www.pewresearch.org)
- ^ poor approval ratings (news.gallup.com)
- ^ guaranteed (www.theguardian.com)
- ^ reset (www.cbsnews.com)
- ^ multiple (www.ipsos.com)
- ^ national (d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net)
- ^ polls (pro.morningconsult.com)
- ^ behind (www.nytimes.com)
- ^ tied (d3nkl3psvxxpe9.cloudfront.net)
- ^ ahead (www.reuters.com)
- ^ single percentange point (www.realclearpolling.com)
- ^ 47% (www.realclearpolling.com)
- ^ calcification (www.washingtonpost.com)
- ^ 0.03% (www.theguardian.com)
Authors: Jared Mondschein, Director of Research, US Studies Centre, University of Sydney
