The presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and current Vice President Kamala Harris has overwhelmed everything that has happened in the race to the White House over the past week.
The debate in Philadelphia, "the cradle of liberty," had been highly anticipated. The Democratic candidate appeared before the Americans in this capacity for the first time since President Joe Biden withdrew from the race and chose her as his replacement. As is well known, Biden withdrew after the disaster of the first and last debate of his campaign.
The vast majority of Trump supporters hoped he would finish what he started during that first debate, while everyone else could be split into Democrats hoping for a new dynamic that effaces the "nightmare" of the first debate and undecided voters who claim to be "undecided" because they "don't know enough" about Harris.
Personally, I believe that claiming to be "undecided" is a pretense in most cases, and many analysts are not deceived by this claim in the slightest.
It is true that very broad segments of the American public are not ideologically committed. However, it is also true that the chasm between Trump and Harris is so massive that hesitation is rendered untenable. Even if this or that voter does not have a full picture of the candidates' backgrounds and programs, the vast differences between them in terms of their principles, priorities, and policy ideas should compel any sensible voter to cast their vote "against" one of the candidates... if in not favor of the other.
In Western democracies, this phenomenon is known as "tactical voting:" voters cast their ballot "preemptively," against the candidate they dislike or reject even if they do not fully support the positions of the rival. In other words, it is voting "against" rather than voting "for."
Most Western European countries are parliamentary democracies where executive power is held by the government and the prime minister rather than the president, "tactical voting" is a familiar phenomenon. Even in France, which has a presidential system similar to the US, the president must receive more than half of the vote. That has been the case for all the presidential elections held under the "Fifth Republic" founded by Charles de Gaulle in the 1950s, which were decided after a "second round" between the two candidates who received the most votes in the first round. As for the parliamentary elections of Western democracies with no single districts, tactical voting is seen in "proportional representation" or "second rounds.”
This year’s American elections pits two candidates with unmistakably different positions against one another; their divergences are clear and definitive, and even stark. Accordingly, I make two claims:
First, Trump's base, which has absolute faith in his "message" or "divine mission," is robust and cohesive enough to brush off any blunder. Among his diehard supporters, he is "infallible" and God has tasked him with saving their country and "making America great again."
Second, the Democratic base is more diverse and skeptical, and it is less committed to the candidate, making it more vulnerable to internal and external shifts, be it in demands or policy.
Accordingly, even though the polls favor Harris over Trump following the Philadelphia debate, the gap either falls within the margin of statistical error or does not accurately account for the electoral college. Moreover, many demographic groups, such as women, pro-choice advocates, Black people, Muslims, Jews, Catholics, and others, may have conflicting priorities within the same political camp that unites them... such as the case between Catholics and pro-choice advocates.
This time, Muslims constitute a "sensitive" - and perhaps "influential" - bloc that analysts are monitoring closely, especially against the backdrop of the "war on Gaza." Muslim voters’ significance is undoubtedly bolstered by their electoral concertation in swing or pivotal states. Michigan, for instance, has been home to Muslim and Arab presence since the state's industrial boom. Similarly, the Muslim vote is significant in cities across Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Virginia (including the suburbs of Washington, D.C.).
In several of these states, the battle could be decided by very small margins, a few thousand votes. In the past few days, an Islamic organization, the Council on American-Islamic Relations "proudly announced" its endorsement of the leftist independent candidate Jill Stein. If their position is not shocking enough, recent polls suggest that more Muslim voters will be voting for Jill Stein, the Democratic candidate. Of course, there is no need to remind you that Stein has no chance of winning. Thus, supporting her would be a futile protest vote that undermines the influence of Muslims on the two major parties.
On top of that, this naive and harmful negativity contrasts starkly with the smart moves of the "Israeli lobbies" everywhere, which have shrewdly seized every opportunity to make significant inroads, not only within the ruling party in the United States but also every major political party in the Western world.
Thus, while Muslims and Arabs are doing a great job of marginalizing themselves and preoccupying themselves with childish statements, their opponents are quietly working to consolidate their presence and expand their investments in every political movement, whether right-wing or left-wing, that can be of use... if not today, then tomorrow.
We have been following American politics closely for over a century and a half... and we have not learned. We have known Israel for three-quarters of a century... and again we have not learned.
We have understood the nature of the American-Israeli relationship since 1967... and yet we have not developed a strategy for dealing with it, even to defend ourselves!
