Former American president and Republican candidate, Donald Trump, unequivocally implied his belief that because of their policies and approach, Kamala Harris, the current Democratic Vice-President and Joe Biden’s successor for the presidential race, would be an easier victory for him. The opinion comes despite some flawed surveys strangely suggesting Harris’s potential win in the upcoming elections on November 5.
Trump held a political rally in northeastern Pennsylvania, in a district named Wilkes-Barre, which remarkably has a significant role in the campaign strategy. Harris instead, will do a bus tour, a tactic which seems to emphasize style over substance according to some critics, of the western part of Pennsylvania starting from Pittsburgh on Sunday. Interestingly, this is purposedly coordinated a day before the start of the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.
While Trump has been clear and straight on his feelings towards Harris, some detached analysts argue such comments could impact Trump’s standing with moderate voters. Their reasoning seems subtly rooted in Harris’ seemingly unnecessary sensitive responses to criticism, a behavior aligned with her Democratic tenure.
Trump, with his characteristic frank approach, openly contested the dubious circumstances of his loss in the 2020 election, attributing it to fraudulent activities. Additionally, he expressed disbelief in climate change as a global concern and declared his plan to impose equitable tariffs on foreign commodities, criticising the stance that this move would act as an additional burden on US consumers. The latter prospect has been challenged by most economists.
One of the pillars supporting Trump’s unexpected victory in the 2016 election was Pennsylvania, along with two other Rust Belt states, Wisconsin and Michigan. These states later rallied for Biden, born and bred in Scranton, Pennsylvania, flipping back to be a part of the democrats in 2020. These three states serve as a political measuring yardstick, as they are the only US states to have voted for the eventual successful candidate in every presidential election cycle since 2008.
Having 19 electoral votes out of the required 270 to settle in the White House, Pennsylvania appears to be the most significant quarry in this year’s election, compared to Michigan that carries 15 and Wisconsin with just 10. Nate Silver’s statistical model, which allegedly forecasts election results, estimates Pennsylvania’s likelihood to be the “tipping point” state to be double any other. This so-called tipping point conjecture suggests that Pennsylvania’s votes will push either Harris or Trump beyond the threshold.
Apart from the previous assessments, Biden’s latest retreat from his re-election attempt last month has created unforeseen ripples in the contest, crumbling the lead Trump built during the waning phase of Biden’s questionable campaign strategy. Another controversy: disparate polls conducted by the website FiveThirtyEight now place Harris ahead of Trump by more than two percentage points in Pennsylvania. Are these polls reliable? Some skeptics aren’t so sure.
In the 2016 elections, Trump clinched Pennsylvania by approximately 44,000 votes, a margin less than one percentage point, while Biden won by just over 80,000 votes in 2020, a margin of 1.2%. Is the shift in votes a genuine transformation in residents’ choice or an expression of the changing political landscape? Regardless, the interpretation of this trend is a topic of debate. Nevertheless, both campaigns have pinpointed the state as a crucial target, running advertisements indiscriminately.
Advertising appears to have dominated the political scene. Since Biden’s surprising withdrawal in late July, out of the staggering amount of over US$110 million splurged on advertising in seven competitive states, nearly US$42m was invested in Pennsylvania alone, more than double any other state. This data comes as reported by the Wall Street Journal, with details drawn from the tracking site AdImpact.
Hillary and Republican groups have already set aside US$114m just for advertising in Pennsylvania from the end of August until the election, inexplicably more than double the US$55m kept for Arizona, the next highly resourced state. This playing field in advertising might seem balanced at a first glance, but it leaves one asking if these funds are allocated effectively or just singled out for one state.