[ad_1]
(From Donald Trump’s speech to a conference
the Republican Party)
“The current president has plunged America into a protracted era of darkness … and if you entrust me with the presidency, I will support the light, not the darkness.”
(From Joe Biden’s speech to a conference
Democratic party)
It seems that the restoration of American “greatness” is at stake, after the policy of “America first”, for four years, became “Trump first.” The Corona epidemic and the heavy repercussions it had on the US economy poisoned the Corona epidemic, an election year that was supposed to be a happy ending for a president who believed that an easy victory was within his grasp. However, the balance, numbers and indicators of the battle stabilized for months on the other side in favor of Joe Biden, and even strengthened further when the latter decided to adopt a strategy based on turning the battle into a referendum on Trump’s poor performance in the face of the epidemic crisis, which is why the current president faces a greater opponent. His name is “Corona”. Trump has gradually switched to the policy of attack in parallel with the warning of the impending “socialist tide” and chaos, while the absence of clear electoral programs for the campaigns of the two candidates, and his complete separation from the traditions of the American politics, indicates an exceptional battle that began earlier this year, and some describe it as the “most important” election in American history, because it takes place on the basis of “or he or she is killed.”
No surprises for this year
Democratic candidate Joe Biden managed to maintain a comfortable lead in polls that gave him preference, whether at the national level or even in swing states whose voters hold the keys to the White House. The signs follow, along with expectations, the possibility of a surprise that would tip the balance in favor of the current president, Donald Trump, the weight of the “October surprise” of 2016, when the FBI, a few days before the day election, reopened an investigation into the use of Hillary. Clinton, his personal email on diplomatic deliberations during his term (2009-2013). The timing of the announcement, along with Americans’ “enthusiasm” for an unconventional speech that Trump guaranteed to deliver, is believed to have contributed to increasing the chances of the Republican candidate, right up to the moment of his victory. A moment that generated -and it is the case- a shock among the voting institutions, as among the Democrats, to the extent that everyone prefers to keep all the possibilities present, especially since the unbalanced difference between the two candidates, as well as the “precedent” does not allow the outcome to be decided in advance, even though a large-scale surprise remains unlikely on the eve of the elections.
An electoral epidemic
Four years ago, Trump’s proposals, coming from outside the political club, found great resonance with a balanced mass of voters, represented by white American workers who voted en masse at the time, and in a way that voting institutions did not expect. . Their rush came in the context of the economic policies adopted during the era of former President Barack Obama. Policies that benefited small social groups, while causing more harm to the white worker group in particular, after it was in good shape during the period of capital growth in the United States as a result of the industry, until it began to collapse with the decline of the industry during the Ronald Reagan era (1981-1989). This explains the great popularity that two candidates like Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have enjoyed among this category, although one of them is moving it to the left and the other to the right. Sanders promised a moment of change, and so did Trump. The latter managed to take advantage of the anger of some social groups at the policies of Obama, the establishment man who bet on cumulative change. However, turmoil and volatility, linked to unprecedented polarization within the United States due to Trump administration policies that collapsed in the face of the first major crisis facing the country, may change conditions. The status quo and the state of affairs make the comparison between what happened before and what is to come futile. Because Trump failed to contain the epidemic crisis and its exhausting repercussions at all levels, and demanded, on a daily basis, a return to normal life instead of following the policy of closure, despite the injury of eight and a half million Americans and the death of more than 225 thousand in addition to the deterioration of the economy. With high unemployment rates and low income levels, it confirms that it has managed to contain the “Crown”, and that the crisis is receding.
The current situation and the state of affairs make the comparison between what has happened and what is to come useless
The 2016 elections were not about two competing ideologies, as Obama said in 2016, but they did represent “a fundamental choice about our identity as a people.” The Obama administration admitted early on that it was leaving after eight years, leaving behind achievements that “would keep the United States as the preeminent power in the world for decades to come,” as the former vice president put it. And if the previous bet fails, then Biden’s confidence is limited, at this point, not to a program or plan of action that will lift the country out of its crises or change policies, but to the fact that his opponent has failed miserably in Managing the most dangerous challenge facing the country, and that must go, because Americans have been tired for a while. A presidential term for Trump, and now they aspire to some stability under the “state of the institutions.”
Jobs
It is true that employment has improved under Trump, but income has remained the same. Although unemployment rates fell to historical levels (3.5%) in its first three years (before the outbreak of the epidemic), this is due to the stage of economic stability that followed the two Obama states (the latter assumed the position at the height of the global economic crisis in 2008), and not to the president’s plans. In this case, employment becomes evident in the light of economic growth and real “achievement” becomes an improvement in wages and salaries. Tax breaks – a transfer of wealth to the 1% class and large corporations – have come to increase debt, at a time when Trump has focused on healthcare, healthcare, and legal protections for unions and workers. His bid to ease these burdens, in exchange for reviving traditional industries at the expense of the environment and public health, such as mines and oil exploration, failed, even before the epidemic wave that left 40 million unemployed.
Biden, as he reached for the middle stick, openly supported raising the minimum wage to $ 15 an hour. And he had a real showdown in the last debate with Trump, who refused to set a mandatory national minimum wage for hitting small businesses. The politics of the two candidates are based on two different points of view within the capitalist economy. The first says that lower wages necessarily lead to higher employment rates, while the second indicates that rising wages in consumption-based capitalist societies increase consumption capacity and consumption stimulates the economy and thus Therefore, employment increases.
numbers
Neither candidate will win yet. Although Biden maintains the lead in opinion polls, there is a possibility that Trump will stay in the White House, if he manages to win key terms that already reflect fierce competition between the two candidates. This is evident in states like Florida, Arizona, and North Carolina. But the question revolves around whether the Democratic candidate can reproduce the “Great Democratic Alliance”, because the potential loss of Trump necessarily means that a broad electoral coalition rallied against him. And if this coalition was formed, which will be seen later with the distribution of votes, the reason is Trump, not Biden’s popularity, of course. For his part, Trump trusts uneducated white voters, while he is ahead of his opponent in the approval ratings he enjoys among white men (57% versus 36%). The chances of you winning remain if you can preserve the “rust belt,” specifically the states of Florida. And Arizona, in addition to the need to win in North Carolina, and one of the main states in the so-called “Blue Wall” Democrat (which won in 2016), that is, Pennsylvania, Michigan or Wisconsin. But Biden’s path to the White House seems easier. He needs to win Florida just to settle the race in his favor, and his chances will be greatly increased if he takes over North Carolina, Arizona or Georgia, as well as Ohio and Iowa, which the Democrats lost in 2016. Biden can beat your opponent, even if you lose these six states and win Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. Based on these numbers, Trump’s options appear limited and the likelihood of narrowing the gap between him and his opponent appears slim. In order for you to achieve victory in this election, all the states in which you won in the 2016 election must give you your vote, as long as at least one of them is from the top three states, that is, Wisconsin, Michigan, or Pennsylvania.
There are those who say that what the United States will witness in a few days will be the most important elections in its history. Is it because its outcome will determine, for example, a “new course” for American behavior, either internally or externally? Or was it because the institutions’ bet on Trump failed? Or perhaps because Americans have come to prefer someone who “advocates light over darkness”? Whatever the outcome of next Tuesday, it will take another four years for the battle to conclude.
Subscribe to «News» on YouTube here
