The State of the Race

Events of the past month have turned the most boring Presidential race since 1956 into a historic one. Former President Donald J. Trump (R) was nearly assassinated and a major pressure campaign has been launched to convince President Joseph R. Biden (D), who gave the worst televised General Election Debate performance in history, to end his campaign in favor of a (hopefully) more electable replacement. Rumors are that President Biden, while recovering this weekend from Covid-19, is seriously contemplating ending his campaign. Time will tell the validity of such.

Prior to these events, I believed that this election would be as close as in the year 2000, when Vice President Al Gore (D) beat Governor George W. Bush (R) in the popular vote by 0.5%, but lost the Electoral College 271 – 266 – 1. Biden was likely to win the popular vote again, but flipping a coin to guess who would win the Electoral College would have been appropriate, as everything would come down to turnout. The only difference I envisioned between the elections of 2024 and 2000 is that former would be much more litigious than the latter.

The dynamics are different now. The Democrats have completely ceded the narrative to the Republicans. For the former, the narrative should have been whether or not a convicted felon, who a jury practically found guilty of sexual assault, who encouraged and allowed a violent mob to terrorize Congress to overturn the results of a free and fair election, and who has publicly called for the termination of the U.S. Constitution, is fit to serve as President. Instead, this person has ascended to God-like status due to a failed assassination attempt and it is not his fitness for office, but his opponent’s, which is the narrative.

Unless the momentum changes, Trump is not only likely to win, but his Party will likely control all branches of the Federal Government. While not nearly as decisive as either Bill Clinton’s (D) or Barack Obama’s (D) victories, polling shows that Trump is handedly winning in the “sun belt” swing states of Arizona, Georgia, and North Carolina (43 electoral votes in total). He is pulling ahead in Pennsylvania (19) and is competitive in the other “rust belt” swing states of Michigan (15) and Wisconsin (10). States which were not initially considered swing states now are, including Minnesota (10), Nevada (6), New Hampshire (4), and Virginia (13). Altogether, Trump is looking at winning over 320 electoral votes (270 are needed to win).

In 1956, if either President Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) or Governor Adlai E. Stevenson (D) had the type of personal record as Trump, they would not even be in the electoral history books as anything more than an asterisk. Yet, Trump is handedly leading. Why?

As odd as it is, one of the reasons is because the Republicans have a message that is both clear and consistently inconsistent, which appeals to the advance level of disintegrated epistemology permeating throughout United States culture. Republicans are consistent in its message that Trump has replaced Jesus Christ as God among the evangelicals and he is the now the standard of good and evil in their moral code (without being outspokenly blasphemous on this matter).

Yet, Trump’s practices (whether personal or public) are perfectly at odds with most of the principles espoused by conservatives. Law and order? Trump is a convicted felon. Traditional family values? Practically found guilty by a jury of sexual assault, had multiple paramours, and has been married three times. A constitutional republic? Trump has publicly called for the Constitution’s termination and his actions (and inactions) surrounding January 6 say otherwise. The list goes on.

This type of message appeals to an electorate with an advanced level of disintegration in their epistemology. It gives them credence in supporting or rejecting principles based on their “feelings”, without taking the effort to logically justify them. For example, they are for “law and order” when it should apply to groups they dislike (e.g., Black Lives Matter, immigrants, etc.), but are either outright against it when it can be applied to their God (e.g., President Trump has absolute immunity) or pervert to by accepting “alternative facts” with nothing more than circumstantial evidence (e.g. “we need to enforce the laws against illegal immigrants, but not against Trump, because he is somehow being railroaded by the Deep State and a corrupt judicial system”).

Contrast this with the Democrats, whose message is also inconsistent, but which does not have an underlying consistency to support such inconsistency. For example, the Democrats pointedly (and justifiably) observe that the Republican Party is against democracy and against the peaceful transfer of power. Yet the so-called “democratic socialists” were quick to rush to the defense of Hamas and Palestine after the former’s terrorist attacks against Israel this past October. Hamas in particular is completely anti-democratic (e.g., no elections in nearly twenty years), Palestine (at best) has a very weak proposed Constitution which would support democratic institutions, and both have a record of suppressing rights which “democratic socialists” allegedly support (e.g., the right of women to . . . well, actually live as a human).

Unlike the Republicans, who could support such hypocrisy with something reprehensible and consistent (e.g., Hamas is helping to dismantle the globalist, financial elites), the Democrats have absolutely nothing. Support Palestine/Hamas to protect civilians? Hamas is the one discouraging its citizens from finding “safe havens” (what few there are), demanding that they sacrifice themselves as human shields for Hamas’ cause. Protecting minority groups? Ask anyone who is LGBTQ+ in Gaza how that is working out for them in an Islamist state.

Biden’s record is also not a selling point. While the economy is good statistically (e.g., unemployment is historically low, the stock market and wages are historically high, inflation is near the Fed’s “sweet spot” of 2 – 3%), it is not translating into personal experiences. The withdrawal from Afghanistan was a disaster (partly because the previous President only gave the new administration a few months to plan for such withdrawal). Biden is unjustifiably bearing the blame for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and Hamas’ attack against Israel (he was as responsible as FDR was for Nazism and Japanese Imperialism). Altogether, while Biden should be able to run on a  fairly solid record, few outside the Democratic Party are buying it.

Altogether, the current situation is that the Republicans have fully embraced a brand of collectivism which can appeal to a wide swath of the American populace who embrace authoritarianism, because it gives this swath enough of a consistent base to be inconsistent in its application. The Democrats are still not sure who they are and can only run on a platform of “we’re not the other guy.” The Republicans control the narrative and the momentum; the Democrats are in complete disarray.

Silver Lining for Democrats

Not all is “doom and gloom” for the Democrats, if they can formulate a consistent message and can rally behind a standard bearer, quickly. With only one exception, the Republican Presidential nominee has not won more than 48% of the popular vote in every Presidential Election from 1996 (the one exception was 2004). Conversely, the Democratic Presidential nominee has not won less than 48% of the popular vote over that same period. This is even taking into consideration several third-party candidates who ran moderately successful campaigns (H. Ross Perot [R], 8% in 1996; Ralph Nader [G], 3% in 2000; Gov. Gary Johnson [L], 3% in 2016), which is a distinct possibility this year with Robert F. Kennedy (I). The Democrats have also won the popular vote in every one of these elections, except 2004 (five out of six).

According to current polls, anywhere between 15 – 20% of the electorate are still undecided. Considering the historical trends, it is likely that most of these will eventually decide in favor of the Democrats; they are just not currently sold on either the Democrats messaging or on its standard-bearer (or both).

If the Democrats can present a consistent message, starkly contrasting themselves against the New Right and presenting a vision of the future with a consistent basis, they still have a great chance of winning this year. This author would suggest that Democrats go back to their classical roots and adopt individualism as its consistent basis, as this would provide the starkest contrast with the New Right and on which the Democrats have already had some success. The “Red Wave” expected during the 2022 mid-term election was mooted not by the Democrats adopting a position on abortion rights for the “common good” (there would have been a “Red Tidal Wave” if they had), but adopting one based on the principle that each individual has a right to govern their own bodies and lives.

Democrats may find their position on the issues more appealing by doing the same for others. Climate change? Do not frame the issue as “saving the planet” or being for the “common good”; frame it as protecting property rights. Gun control? See my article on this topic. LGBTQ+ and racial justice? Do not frame it in terms of tribalism (e.g., protecting “minority groups” from an “oppressive majority”); frame it as letting each individual live the life they choose to live. Palestine? For the love of all things, do not provide unconditional support to Hamas because they are a “persecuted minority”; provide conditional support based on the condition that Palestine and/or Gaza can only be their own separate states, if they protect the rights of its individual citizens (e.g., freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of women, etc.).

This type of messaging would truly appeal to demographics which Democrats need to win, such as suburban women and “Never Trump” Republicans, who are not sold on the more collectivist elements of the Democratic platform.

What about Biden?

Regarding Biden and whether or not he should be the Democratic Party nominee, there are pros and cons with few historical precedents, which is why it is taking too long for Democratic leaders to decide. In his favor, he is a known quantity, his campaign infrastructure is established, and he does have a history of seizing victory from the jaws of defeat (e.g., he cleaned up nicely after placing fourth in Iowa and fifth in New Hampshire in 2020). On the other hand, his debate performance has drastically changed the narrative against his Party, as outlined earlier in this article.

If Biden were to drop out, this issue would either dissipate or it would be flipped onto the Republicans, whose own nominee is only three years younger than Biden, is in worse health, and is definitely showing signs of cognitive decline (coupled with being a narcissist and a psychopath). However, replacing Biden could backfire spectacularly if the replacement candidate is not properly vetted (and a major scandal breaks) and/or is not a good Presidential candidate.

As such, this makes Vice President Kamala Harris (D) the best replacement candidate “on paper.” She has been thoroughly vetted and is not likely to have any scandals other than those which are already publicly known. She has run for President before and, initially, showed promise, though here campaign became a victim of the well-known “too many head chefs in the kitchen” paradox. She can appeal to minorities, women, and Westerners (helping to retain Arizona and Nevada). She can also stay in “attack dog” mode and sell the Biden Administration’s major accomplishments without taking personal responsibility for its liabilities.

As for a runningmate, Harris would have options. She could go the traditional rout and try to balance the ticket with a white, moderate male with a blue-collar background from the Midwest or East (e.g., Secretary Pete Buttigieg [IN]). She could also “double-down” by picking a Latina from the West (e.g., Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto [NV] or Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham [NM]), to help shore-up support with Latinos and make a stronger play for suburban women. Something in between these two (e.g., Gov. Gretchen Whitmer [MI]) is also a possibility. It really depends on whether she wants to go with the Dukakis – Bentsen Balanced Approach (Northeast liberal, middle-aged Governor / Southern center-right, seasoned Senator) or Clinton – Gore Unbalanced Approach (both young, Southeastern moderates).

Of course, running an all-female ticket will be a complete turnoff to sexist voters . . . but these voters are already likely in the Trump camp. In this author’s opinion, there would be very little downside in running an all female ticket, especially since it lends itself to the issues on which the Republicans are most vulnerable.

Going with another candidate as standard-bearer (e.g., Gov. Whitmer, Gov. Gavin Newsom [CA], etc.) is risky in the sense that none of the names floated have any experience running a Presidential campaign. This is not necessarily fatal (just ask Obama), but candidates have a bad tendency of running their first Presidential campaign as if they are running re-election to their current seat, which is on a State-level. What works in California or Michigan is not going to work nationwide and, considering the compressed timeframe in which they have to campaign, there’s little time for them to learn this lesson.

There is also the fact that none of these candidates have been vetted at the level of a Presidential candidate, so there is also the possibility that a scandal can emerge. Considering Trump makes Richard Nixon look like an Eagle Scout in comparison, this would not be considered a major concern. However, the Republicans will “milk” the scandal for all its worth (as hypocritical as it would be) and, thus, retain control of the narrative.

The Democrats also cannot afford to waste another month or so figuring out who should be their nominee (and all the negative publicity that can come with it). Making and testing ads, setting up campaign schedules, hiring the right staff, debate preparation, etc. takes vast amounts of time. They need to resolve this as quickly and decisively as possible.

In short, the imperative for the Democrats right now is to obtain control of the narrative and keep the Republicans in a defensive position. If they are unable to do so, Trump will likely be the next President (and possibly the last one of the what was formerly the constitutional republic of the United States of America).