As someone who seldom engages in poker games these days, I find myself increasingly drawn to instructional videos about the strategy and nuances involved in the game. These sessions captivate me because they paint a fascinating picture of the evolutions the game has seen over the past two decades, much like a music lover keenly following the latest hits. Back in the day, the early 2000s to be precise, poker was more of an instinctive game with players strongly advised to remain ‘tight and aggressive’ yet being provided with no explicit guidance to execute that strategy.
The modern era, though, ushered in the concept of ‘game-theory optimal’ play or G.T.O. This theory, although still complex, brought a quantifying element into the mix. For instance, with a strong starting hand like an ace and queen, a player should raise a certain percentage of the time and merely call in others. The magic of this theory lies in its balance; over time, regardless of whether one raises or calls, there is a sense of correctness in both strategies when viewed through the lens of the grand scheme of percentages.
The 2024 elections are not far away, less than a month to be precise, and they are akin to a high-stakes poker game mired in ambiguity. Every word spoken carries far-reaching implications that are defended from multiple perspectives. Kamala Harris, who likely adopts the hit-and-miss approach, sometimes takes the floor with an authoritative opinion on pressing issues such as the escalating conflict in the Middle East. At other times, she seems content taking a backseat, letting Joe Biden take the lead.
Meanwhile, her ambiguous responses during recent interviews, particularly in a ’60 Minutes’ episode, have done little to clarify her stance on sensitive affairs. Asked about her plans to quell the growing tensions brewing in Gaza, Harris spoke of how the unfolding crisis was a tragedy and added diplomatically that Israel has the right to self-defend. However, she failed to present tangible solutions.
In the ongoing dance of diplomacy with Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Harris continued treading the path of vagueness, simply mentioning the pursuit of clear principles. Although running a successful election campaign demands picking the most optimal choices, it becomes a daunting challenge when the variables are many and the outcomes unpredictable. When looking to garner support from Arab American and Muslim voters, for instance, a tougher stance on Netanyahu may yield positive results in Michigan, although this could lead to fallout in other demographics.
An argument can be made for the principle of consistency in a campaign, and repeating the same refrains could solidify a candidate’s position in the voters’ minds. This strategy could pay off particularly for those voters disillusioned by the prospect of another Trump presidency. However, unlike in poker where uncertainty serves a larger plan, the upcoming election seems to be characterized by a lack of clear strategic direction.
We are witnessing an election campaign beset by a multitude of crises, the rise and fall of Democratic candidates, the comeback of the indomitable Republican candidate who has been in the race for a decade, and the looming threat of natural disasters and wars all vying for attention. Despite these dramatic circumstances, this election may not be as extraordinary as it seems, but the conditions surrounding it have certainly illuminated some stark truths about the inherent nature of presidential elections.
Accurate predictions about voting behavior and election outcomes are near impossible. Varied influencing factors, like recollections of the mishandling of relief efforts during Hurricane Helene or a false sense of buoyancy from questionable polling data, make the job of understanding voting patterns a guessing game. We are left staring down a rabbit hole of uncertainties, grappling with the vague allure of undecided voters, the mercurial nature of polls, and Harris’s post-Convention agenda.
Once the dust of the November 5 election settles, we will inevitably see a scramble to decipher the reasons behind the victory or defeat of the candidates. The narratives crafted will either vanish in a few days or ultimately shape our understanding of political dynamics, regardless of their veracity. For example, should Harris fail in Pennsylvania, critics may argue she should have addressed the border issue more substantially instead of harping on the bipartisan bill repeatedly.
Trump’s potential loss, on the other hand, could point towards his missed opportunities to expose Harris’s inadequacies as a leader, her evasive strategies in dealing with questions, and her avoidance of facing probing queries on camera. This could be viewed as a tactical error given the vulnerability of his opponent. However, this could also signify the electorate’s absolute rejection of Trump’s brand of leadership.
Political commentary often gets stuck in a cycle of repetition, grappling with the same questions. Despite the pressing issues at home and abroad, the narrative remains fixated on the negligible changes in Harris’s interview frequency or Trump’s contentious comments. If this election discourse centered only around the prognosis and suggestions of political commentators, the importance attached to it would be much lower.
However, the uncertainty permeating this election has not spared the electorate. The sense of confusion and hesitancy following the Democratic National Convention has resulted in a palpable icy impasse. This frozen state is stifling firm stances, reducing ostensibly crucial election talks to half-hearted mutterings.
While in previous iterations of the electoral process, mass mobilization efforts would be underway to encourage voters, this election seems largely devoid of that fervor. Even the reports of enthusiastic crowds flocking to Harris rallies seem like distant memories now. This stagnant situation, while frustrating, isn’t entirely Harris’s fault. She appears to be targeting the persuasion of Republican voters, a strategy that could be deemed reasonable under the circumstances.
In a recent interaction with Stephen Colbert, she was quizzed about her viewpoints differing from Biden’s. She highlighted her unique stance, implicitly linking her campaign’s potency to her being a fresh face and certainly not Trump. This distinctive trait, even in the absence of clearly delineated policy prospects or any suggestions of change, might just be what piques voter interest.
All said, the current political polarization seems to have reached its saturation point, beyond which endorsement or censure of any occurrence will barely move the needle in public opinion. Be it Trump’s court convictions, his pattern of misleading and prejudiced rants, or the debate outcomes, the influence of such events seems minimal if at all.