In 2024, Americans don't face circumstances as dire as those back in 1932, though some rightfully argue that solving the issues before the candidates are of paramount importance. Americans have suffered through nearly four years of crushing inflation, overseas military proxy conflicts, illegal immigration at crisis levels, high levels homelessness and housing unaffordability, and an unstable economy operating under record levels of government debt and deficits.
The race for the White House, especially in battleground states, is extraordinarily tight if one is to believe the polls, and any advantage one candidate may have over the other is razor-thin.
In this article, the main issues will be examined and scrutinized, along with potential wild card scenarios both during the campaigns and afterwards.
Immigration
By most accounts, illegal immigration across the U.S. southern border is the most prominent issue before the candidates. Former president Trump has rested his laurels upon his record from 2016-2020, when border-crossings were significantly reduced due to policies he put in place and the rapid construction of parts of a wall between the Mexican and U.S. borders.
The bill was full of loopholes and exemptions, actually allowing illegal immigration to continue. Republicans shot it down, mostly because it was useless and too late.
On this issue, Trump clearly has the upper hand, as do most Republican Senatorial and House candidates.
All of the inflation in the U.S. and abroad has occurred while Kamala Harris was Vice President - and still is. She's done nothing to curb rising prices yet, though she promises an "anti-gouging" law, price controls, $25,000 down payment assistance to first-time home buyers, building three million new homes, increasing the child tax credit from $2,000 to $6,000 and ending taxation of tips.
Trump has not been in office for four years, but he's watched the economic boom he created, along with lower gas prices, low inflation, and high employment, utterly gutted by the Biden-Harris administration. Trump claims to have engineered the greatest economy the world has ever seen during his tenure from 2017-2020, and, while it may not be "the greatest", most would agree the economy was solid under Trump and got worse under the next administration.
Trump plans to double down on the tariffs imposed during his term, and correctly states that Biden-Harris has kept his tariffs in place because they produce huge revenues for the government. He also is in favor of extending the tax cut for the middle class he enacted in 2017 (which is about to expire) and is bullish on drilling for more oil and gas by American companies. He's also in favor of not taxing tip income and has proposed to make Social Security benefits untaxed. He's even hinted at doing away with the individual income tax and replacing that revenue with tariffs.
Raising the child tax credit from $2,000 to $5,000 was originally proposed by his running mate, J.D.Vance. Harris just took the idea and added another $1,000 on top of it.
From an economic standpoint, Trump is clearly ahead of Harris in terms of cogent ideas and plans.
Neither candidate has openly called for a cessation of the violence in the Middle East, though Trump claims that he could put a stop to it, without being specific. Both are in the grip of the Israeli lobby group, APAIC, to continue supporting Israel with arms and money and possibly manpower, which is why the issue is largely avoided.
Kamala Harris has a peculiar problem within her own party, in that supporting Israel translates into ignoring the plight of the Palestinians in Gaza and elsewhere. Neither candidate has offered any concrete solutions, much less given lip-service to the issues in the Middle East.
As far as Ukraine is concerned, Harris has been VP since January 20, 2021. The conflict in Ukraine started under her watch, and, as far as one can tell, she still supports Ukraine in its fight against Russia.
Trump hasn't taken sides on the issue, only citing that he wants the hostilities to end, in order to save lives on both sides. He's said openly that both the Middle East and Ukraine conflicts would not have happened were he still president and he has said that he could and would put a stop to both if elected.
It's easy to believe that Trump would engage in more constructive foreign policy than Harris. During Trump's term, now new wars were initiated and he laid the plan for withdrawal from Afghanistan, which was completely bungled by Biden. Harris can claim that she was out of the loop for that particular fiasco, but she's also been behind the scenes in terms of Ukraine, Middle East, Taiwan, and relations with Europe and the U.S. continuing role within NATO.
From all evidence, she's not had a hand in any significant foreign relations since taking office in 2021.
Trump, on the other hand, was quite active on the international front, forging good, constructive relations with countries as diverse as Saudi Arabia, Brazil, Vietnam, North Korea, China, and many others.
That covers the main issues, but there are more, like crime, transgenderism, education, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), abortion, wealth inequality, drugs, corruption, the deep state, and more, but they are either largely Democrat talking points, minor issues related to and supplanted by major ones, or abstractions and theories. By and large, these minor issues, except possibly for crime and education, will not determine voter preference in a significant manner.
Wild Cards
As with any major election, there always exists the possibility for something to emerge, either by accident or on purpose, to tilt the election one way or another. Such "October Surprise" events usually come from out of the blue, or left field, and can boost one candidate over the other, affecting polls and sometimes, turning the tide.
Ukraine
Of potential surprise turns of events, probably the biggest would concern U.S. involvement in Ukraine, which is heating up to a fever pitch in the final days of September. Ukraine leader Zelensky recently visited the U.S., touting a "victory plan" which turned out to be little more than another plea for more guns and money, and was largely ignored by leaders in the West, including whoever is representing the Biden-Harris administration presently.
Americans have grown weary of Ukraine and war in general. Most would prefer to see an end to conflict in Ukraine and negotiations with Russia toward a sustainable peace. Kamala Harris has said nary a word about the military situation in Ukraine, but, in terms of a wild card, it could be a huge one if somehow, the administration and the media decide it's time for negotiations before the election or, somehow, Ukraine reverses the course of the war and routs the Russians (very unlikely).
If the administration hacks like Jake Sullivan and Antony Blinken decide it's time to give up on "project Ukraine" once and for all, Harris could be put in a position of advantage with media backing the idea that she was instrumental in ending the it. Ditto for Israel, though America's control over that situation is tenuous, at best.
If the conflict in Ukraine ends before the election, Harris can take credit, leaving Trump with one less plank upon which to campaign.
In what some characterize as political pandering, the Federal Reserve cut the federal funds rate by half a percent at its most recent FOMC meeting. On September 18, the Fed cut rates for the first time since 2020, to which the stock market reacted mostly positively. That's good for Harris, as she can tout a strong economy while she's VP and promise a better one should she win in November.
On the flip side, the stock market is considered wildly overvalued by more than a few analysts, and a slump or even a crash would hurt Harris and help Trump. It's not like economic crises don't happen in October all the time - they traditionally do - and whether it's engineered or happens because the economy stinks doesn't matter in the political sphere. The mere idea that Americans will suffer economically could be enough to turn the election on its heels, and that would favor Trump in a big way.
From October 20 through 23, the BRICS nations will hold its 16th Annual summit in Kazan, Russia. Rumors that a currency, or at least a trading currency, possibly backed partially by gold, will be unveiled, have been circulating for more than a year. Notably, the same rumors were circulating before the last summit, last year in South Africa, but nothing major was announced.
Clearly, the BRICS is an expanding amalgamation of countries wishing to at least supplant the dominance of the U.S. and its trade sanction madness with peer-to-peer trade among friendly nations without using the U.S. currency as a medium of exchange. Russia, China, India, Saudi Arabia, Iran, and others have already begun cross-border transfers settled in native currencies, and, recently, in gold.
What happens at the BRICS Summit could have a profound effect on U.S. politics. To some degree, BRICS is already an effective counter to U.S. hegemony and likely will continue to be such. How either candidate responds to anything substantive coming out of the summit could tip the scales for some voters.
America's love-hate relationship with China involves more than products produced overseas at lower cost and the bad diplomacy demonstrated by Janet Yellen, Antony Blinken, and Biden himself.
Currently close to recession, China recently announced a massive stimulus plan to shore up an ailing housing market and keep its stock markets from further deterioration. On top of their economic issues, there's Taiwan, a flashpoint for military escalation should President Xi decide to invade or otherwise threaten the island. With America already weakened militarily and stretched thin, any U.S. response might appear to be erroneous or too soft. Trump would surely pounce upon the situation, with an, "I told you so," kind of reaction. Kamala Harris would likely have little to say or do under such conditions.
China doing something rash in terms of Taiwan is a long shot. Xi and party leaders would rather take a wait and see approach to that tinderbox.
Naturally, there are clandestine operations underway on both sides. Americans are somewhat gun-shy of politics following the mess of 2020, January 6, and the associated back-and-forth over stolen elections and underhanded operations.
A good many people believe the 2020 election was stolen. Even more believe there's little to nothing Americans can do about it. If there is in fact a plot to change votes, add ballots at the last moment, shut down counting in the middle of the night or employ other devious methodologies - like assassination, for instance - the entire tone and tenor of the 2024 election season could change in a heartbeat.
Nobody can reasonably discount interference, though it's unlikely to come from China or Russia or Iran, as the mainstream media would likely report. There are so many possible false flags, deep fakes, and misinformation possibilities that nothing can be ruled out, especially if Harris continues to languish in the polls, which, as of this writing in the final days of September, seems to be a trend.
If one is to believe the polls, the presidential race is extremely tight. Should one employ logic, it would appear that Trump should win the election handily. Most of the issues favor him, his policies, and his track record. Harris has resorted to blaming the current conditions on Trump, though honestly, she was in office when most of them began to fester. Americans can see through false claims, regardless of how heavily the media is biased against Trump. The electoral college map is another boondoggle of polls, drop boxes, early voting, late counting and political back-stabbing.
If the media weren't so one-sided, Trump would easily be the choice and the election and all its accoutrements would be well over and done with by the middle of October, and maybe it will come down to that. However, the media's appetite for propaganda and drama seems unquenchable, so Americans will likely be treated to more suspense, fiction, and wild speculation than it desires.
When it's all over, America will have a new president, hopefully. Half the people will be disappointed. The other half, overjoyed. We'll still be a split nation, but, maybe not as severely detached as before.
Upcoming on November 5 - actually, with early voting in most states either already or about to get underway - is perhaps the most consequential election since the Great Depression, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt defeated Herbert Hoover in a landslide victory, ushering in the "New Deal" reforms that helped Americans survive an economic cataclysm.
To believe that one man - Donald J. Trump - or one woman - Kamala Harris - can solve all of the problems confronting the American people would require a suspension of credulity along with a heady dose of cognitive dissonance. The presidential race, already heated, is going to become a non-stop media circus through October and into the few first days of November. The resulting winner - after all the votes are counted, likely a week after the polls have closed - will probably not be able to claim a mandate from the people, but rather a close decision that will be argued in courts, in congress, and in public up to and probably after the official inauguration on January 20, 2025.
Kamala Harris, as Vice President under Joe Biden since January 2021, has done little to stem the flow of illegals, which has swelled greatly over the past three-and-a-half years. Harris' position on immigration is notoriously mute. For the most part, she rails against Trump for having encouraged congressional Republicans to vote down a bill from earlier this year, that the Biden administration claimed would solve the border problems.
Inflation and the Economy
Support for Ukraine and Israel
Foreign Relations
The Economy, Stupid
BRICS Summit
China
The Media and Deep State
Final Analysis
|
|||
| search engine by freefind |
Your ad could be in the next issue of idleguy.com for as little as $6 per month. Contact Fearless Rick using the form on page 12 for more information.
Senate Races
From the looks of things, the Republican party is likely to gain control of the U.S. Senate when all the flurry of the election season is over.
According to information at Real Clear Politics, Republicans hold 47 seats that are in the so-called "safe or not up for election" category, with Ted Cruz in Texas and Tim Sheehy leading incumbent Democrat John Tester in Montana in the "leans GOP" and Josh Haley in Missouri in the "likely GOP" category, which, if all goes according to plan would give them 50 seats outright.
The only Republican in the "toss-up" category is Rick Scott in Florida, though he's leading in late September by an average of 4.3%, a margin that would by most standards be considered safe. If Scott wins and the Democrats take all of the other five races considered toss-ups (Arizona, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin), Republicans would have a 51-49 advantage. Should the Dems lose any of those races, the Republican majority would grow.
Of particular interest and intensity is the Arizona race between Republican Kari Lake and Ruben Gallego, for the seat being vacated by Democrat-turned-Independent Kyrsten Sinema. At last look, Lake was behind by about 4 percent.
In Michigan, the race is between Republican Mike Rogers and Democrat Elissa Slotkin, for the seat formerly held by Democrat Debbie Stabenow, who won by large margins in 2012 and 2018. Much has changed in Michigan since 2018, and governor Gretchen Whitman is highly unpopular, especially in rural areas. Slotkin leads by up to six percentage points, but it's still early.
The House is a raucous caucus, to put it mildly. Republicans have held a slim majority for the past two years, which is why, with Democrats controlling the Senate, not much meaningful legislation has been passed recently other than the usual "MIC money for Ukraine and Israel" slosh-fests.
According to the best guesses and projections, Republicans look to maintain their majority and even expand upon it, especially if the vote is strong for President Trump, who would likely have long coattails. In late September, Republicans have roughly 204 seats in safe districts, while Democrats only have 196. Republicans have 20 seats that are either likely or leaning their way, while Democrats have 25. In what are considered races too close to call - including five in California, four in New York, three in Pennsylvania, and two each in Washington and Michigan - are 32 seats, 19 of which are currently held by Democrats and only 13 under Republican rule.
Democrats, in order to get their numbers up to a 218 majority, would need to take the bulk of those toss-ups, 22 or thereabout. Republicans need to pick off just 14 and hold their likely and leaning districts.
The House vote may go either way, and the best result for either party would be a clean sweep of the president, senate, and house, though many consider that to be a long shot.
Perhaps what's best for the American people would be some kind of split, especially between the Senate and House, so that the political forces at work in Washington couldn't muck up the situation any more than it already is. Without legislation working through, the country would be run on a series of presidential executive orders, which don't carry the weight of law, but are an effective means of implementing policy.
The "democracy" that is so hailed around the world and preached to voters every few years, has begun to look more like a monarchy, with edicts and fiats issued from the White House and everybody bowing in fealty. It's not the way it's supposed to work, but, if the congressional occupants can't agree on anything, it's the best we've got.
Look for results and updates in the November issue of idleguy.com.
The Duran: Putin prepares BRICS Kazan payment system
House of Representatives