Donald Trump’s Choice

Donald Trump is confused. Kamala Harris’s emergence as the Democratic presidential nominee was a blow the former president has yet to recover from.

Even the most optimistic Democrats did not realize the magnitude of the impact their new candidate would have. The sitting vice president of the United States unified the disparate factions of the party in just a few days.

He succeeded on social networks with equal speed in dispelling doubts about his charisma or his rhetorical abilities. But most importantly, Harris succeeded in eliciting two fundamental emotions in the election that Democrats haven’t felt since Barack Obama’s first campaign: joy and hope.

These phenomena are reflected in the most relevant national and local surveys. Nationally, Joe Biden was on a negative trend until he dropped out of the race, which put him 4 points behind Donald Trump.

What’s more, Biden performed poorly in every so-called “swing state” — that is, the states that will decide this year’s presidential election.

It’s worth remembering that in the US electoral system, whoever gets at least 270 votes in the Electoral College becomes president. Each state contributes a fixed number of votes to the college – Michigan contributes 15, Texas 40, for example. The party that wins the popular vote in a state gets all the votes that go to the Electoral College.

Polls show Kamala Harris catching up to or surpassing Donald Trump in both the popular vote and in a sufficient number of key states. However, there is really no way of knowing whether that is enough.

In principle, Harris’s advantage in the popular vote is around 3 percentage points, while Democrats need a 3-4 percentage point advantage in the total electorate to get enough votes in the college.

That’s not all. The states where Harris surpassed or tied Trump were all within the margin of error of the relevant polls. This means that even though the results of the polling companies were released, the gaps were assumed to be so small that natural errors in the process could have falsified the results.

The above is described in the prediction models of more serious media, e.g. The Economist o New StatesmanThe first option gives Harris a 60 percent chance of winning, while the second option gives him a 52 percent chance of winning.

The trend favors Kamala Harris. Her presence has fundamentally changed the campaign landscape and confounded Donald Trump. But the US presidential election is clearly still an unpredictable situation.

Given this situation, with just over two months until that day arrives, Donald Trump has two main options on the table: one is nuclear weapons, and the other is moderate.

The nuclear option involves doubling down on its commitment to mobilizing its base through its characteristically aggressive, racist, sexist, and distinctly pessimistic rhetoric; that is, further loosening the reins on the evil characters that make the MAGA movement so attractive but, outside of the United States, are so conspicuously disowned.

The moderate option involves moving closer to the center to win votes from undecided people or independent voters who may lean toward either side. Taking this option means stepping away from the above roles and presenting oneself as a more institutionalized and disciplined candidate.

Trump’s apparent indecision in the face of this dilemma is reflected in the conflict between two pressure groups within the Republican Party.

In recent days, far-right groups and leaders have publicly pressured the managers of the Republican presidential campaign. According to these groups, Trump’s advisers confused or deceived him, causing him to abandon the far-right banner.

Perhaps the most obvious example is Trump’s public demarcation from the so-called “Project 2025”; a nearly 1,000-page disastrous document designed to serve as a kind of guidebook or government program for the Republican president.

The “2025 Plan” is no small matter; if implemented, it will keep the United States in the dark.

The document includes perversities hailed by ultraconservative groups, such as the elimination of federal public education, increasing presidential control over the Justice Department, replacing career-serving public officials with MAGA movement loyalists, rolling back environmental regulations, criminalizing pornography and overall control over women and their bodies.

Trump has publicly stated that Project 2025 would be his guiding light if he returns to the White House. Dozens of his closest collaborators were involved in the organization that designed and published the book. However, in recent weeks, when Trump was questioned and criticized about his relationship with the project, he distanced himself.

On the other hand, Republican campaign managers, consultants and even the party’s lawmakers have publicly urged Trump to avoid mentioning aggression and activism in his speech and instead focus on public policies that appeal to moderate voters.

Time and again, for example, he has been asked not to comment on Kamala Harris’s race or gender, to stop embracing ultraconservative leaders, and to avoid improvising or engaging in his famous speeches, in which he typically spits out a series of irrelevant comments. More recently, Trump has seemed obsessed with Hannibal Lecter, suggesting that his campaign is bigger than Harris’s and that he’s smarter or prettier than she is.

The successful strategy implemented by Harris amplifies the fact that Trump seems confused about these two positions. His speeches talk about the danger posed by his opponent, but portray him as “not serious”, ridiculous, strange or outdated. For a politician, there is nothing worse than being laughed at. To this we must add that this year’s elections mean an existential risk for the Republican candidate: if he does not enter the White House, he may well end up in prison.

None of the above means that Donald Trump is condemned or defeated. There is precedent for chaos in his campaigns, but he has emerged safely from them. In 2016, after a few weeks of crisis, the candidate decided to reorganize his team, surround himself with wiser advisors and take a more disciplined approach. Moreover, with more time and exposure, the Harris Effect may eventually fade or reach a ceiling that has yet to be discovered.

Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party will try to save America by building a broad coalition. They will do this by contrasting their own humanity, joy, and hope with a candidate who seems to have found his Achilles’ heel.

However, the real US presidential campaign will begin in September. Faced with this dilemma, it remains to be seen whether Donald Trump will take the nuclear option or the moderate option.

*Associate Professor of Philosophy, University of Nottingham, UK.