Opinion | America’s 2% Undecided Voters And the Fate of Donald Trump And Kamala Harris
In the no-holds-barred arena of the US presidential race, the fence-sitters, whether real or imagined, prove that at least some are not swayed by calumny
With the US Presidential race in the final lap, pundits have been saying that it is all down to the wire. The latest polls show them locked in a dead heat, 48 per cent each. That means that the 2 per cent undecided voters, especially in the seven “battleground states", will probably decide the fate of Kamala Harris and Donald Trump. But how have they managed to remain unconvinced given the deafening decibels of information—especially about Trump—coming their way for months?
But a word about the implication of this “down to the wire" narrative first. It may be recalled that the same US media predicting an alarmingly (for them) tight race this time, had forecast a landslide for Hillary Clinton against Trump in 2016. She won more of the popular vote (48 per cent to Trump’s 46 per cent) but not the electoral college. Post facto wisdom was that “assumptions, not data" had led to that “shock" result. But the great western media was not pulled up for depending on assumption?
related stories
In 2020, Biden won 51 per cent of the vote to Trump’s 47 per cent. Post poll analysis revealed both had managed to attract “new" voters in 2020—those who had never voted or not in the previous few elections—who are really the key to pulling ahead in a polarised political atmosphere. And that vacillating 2 per cent this time probably falls into that slot. Why these people have refused to be swayed by either side in such a high voltage, dramatic campaign so far is definitely worth examining.
The Harris campaign has collected a record $1 billion in donations. That is enough moolah for Democratic Party workers to fan out to every fence-sitter in the US and acquaint them with all the adjectives Trump has been bestowed with, the latest being Fascist. Practically every “star campaigner" (to use a term from Indian elections) has added to that diss list, from unhinged, misogynistic and depraved to dangerous, unstable and unfit. Yet that 2 per cent isn’t moving.
The Trump campaign, with considerably less money to splash around, has also formed its own list of descriptive prefixes for Harris—lying, laughing, crazy and even comrade. These adjectives find resonance among Trump’s loyal MAGA (Make America Great Again) votebank but are clearly not alarming enough or so outrageously insulting that the dilly-dallying 2 per cent will jump off their fences and march off indignantly to either Democrat camp or the Republican one.
Some might ascribe the syllabic difference in name-calling to the superior vocabulary of Democrat politicians and voters; the MAGA camp are presumed to comprehend only simpler words. Then again old, white rich men, especially in public life, also know that anyone can get away with calling them pretty much anything, but strict norms of political correctness protect non-white, middle class women, especially in public life, from many words in the barb dictionary.
His names for her have therefore mostly been milder than her names for him, although New York Times did carry a story recently alleging that Trump had been using the word b***h for Harris “in private". But as that “revelation" was obviously unverifiable, it did not move that obdurate 2 per cent. And, of course, there are no stories in the media about what Harris may be calling Trump behind closed doors to send the nonaligned 2 per cent hurtling towards the Republicans either.
Trump has been attracting inkhorn adjectives from the Democrats ever since he jumped into the Presidential race in 2015 and pulled off that shock victory over Clinton in 2016 despite the US media rallying behind her. Among other things, she called him “dangerously incoherent", “temperamentally unfit to hold office", and said he had a “bizarre fascination for dictators". Sounds familiar? Harris is now saying exactly that again. No wonder the 2 per cent are not moved.
Clinton memorably had also called Trump’s supporters “a basket of deplorables" and he adroitly used that last word against her—as evidence of Democratic derision of a certain class of Americans. Many political analysts now aver that her use of that phrase was one of the main reasons for her failure, though she had tried to give a different explanation later. And the Trump camp gleefully rubbed it in by even naming one of his inauguration parties “Deplora-ball".
But given the now-evident “liberal" bias of the US media, academic institutions and, indeed, even some polling agencies, it is also not inconceivable that the 2 per cent determinedly undecided are being propped up as the “hope factor" to keep the camp that thinks it is losing from giving up. If voters think the game is over either way—their candidate is a sure-shot winner or loser— they are likely to stay home too, as is said to have happened in India during the 2024 elections.
Many would be justifiably surprised that the 2 per cent have not shifted position towards the Democrats despite the litany of criticism about Trump including that he is a felon, a serial rapist and groper of women, that he is a megalomaniacal dictator-in-waiting etc. Nor are they moved by the thousands of reels and videos of Harris’ hilarious word salads or her public promises to do just about everything that she and Biden have not done in the past four years, to vote Republican.
In reality more Americans may well be undecided about either candidate but that 2 per cent refers only to “likely" voters who may be inclined to stay home on Election Day. Not all Americans vote anyway: in 2020, some 66 per cent of those eligible voted (155 million), the highest turnout since 1900. In 2024, just over 244 million Americans will be eligible to vote, but an even higher turnout is expected as polls have been showing that 72 per cent are “likely" to vote on November 5.
For those watching the US election from afar, it is a curious combination of high rhetoric and low attacks. If Indian candidates called each other crazy or alleged they are rapists, criminals or worse in campaign speeches, the Election Commission would probably restrain them from making personal slurs. But in the no-holds-barred arena of the US presidential race, the fence-sitters, whether real or imagined, prove that at least some are not swayed by calumny!
The author is a freelance writer. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18’s views.
- Location :
- First Published: