The Kamala-Trump-Walz-Vance Equation

By José Ramón Cabañas Rodríguez on August 8, 2024 from Havana

While Walz exhibits concrete results at all levels, Vance appears to most voters as a question mark…

After the presidential debate on June 27 in Atlanta, Georgia, between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, two potential scenarios opened up: the Democrats would march disciplinedly to the gallows, or they would introduce changes in their electoral formula, in order to be able to count on certain possibilities of success in November.

In the few days that have elapsed since then, a series of unique events have taken place in the United States, changing the routine of the processes leading up to the presidential election of 2024.

The first occurred on July 13, during a relatively insignificant Donald Trump campaign rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, in which an alleged attacker fired an assault rifle at the former president. The 20-year-old, who had no military training whatsoever, was shot down within seconds, preventing any background information that would shed light on the incident.

Trump exhibited an alleged blood stain on his ear, but that allowed to elaborate the theory about a “divine intervention” in his favor and to add another fact to his biography of the”exceptional” candidate.

Weeks later the Secret Service and other federal agencies were still contradicting themselves by telling a story of alleged mistakes and shortcomings that never occur and were promptly forgotten.

So many arguments were being woven then about the unbeatability of the businessman-politician, who seemed at the time the only competitor with real chances of winning in November.

Just 48 hours after the events in Butler, Trump chose as his running mate for the elections James David Vance, senator for Ohio since 2022. The sights were then set on adjacent states, considered among those that can tip the balance, beyond the 270 Electoral College votes needed….

On July 17, Vance was already confirmed by his party’s National Convention. He succinctly explained the essence of his credentials for being chosen over other prospects: “In small towns like mine in Ohio, or next door in Pennsylvania, or in Michigan, in states all over the country, jobs were sent overseas and children were sent to war.

On July 24, however, Joe Biden’s long-awaited and much-discussed announcement that he would relent in his intention to become the Democratic Party’s nominee again took place. At that moment, the president pronounced a phrase that could have been assumed as early as 2020: “We must hand over to a new generation”.

Strategists call these events a “fundamental change in circumstances”. At another juncture, this decision would have led to the celebration of an “open” national convention of his party, which would serve as a space for a real debate between the different tendencies that make up the organization, from which the candidate and his or her running mate would be chosen, as a vice-presidential candidate.

But this did not happen. Instead, Biden gave his unequivocal support to his vice-presidential running mate, Kamala Harris, and, despite some initial discomfort, the main Democratic figures began to give their orderly backing to the former senator, until there was no doubt that no other candidate would appear to challenge the will of those who manage these decisions, including, first and foremost, the wealthiest donors.

Even without articulating any message or proposal of her own, Ms. Harris began “raising” substantial sums of money to support her candidacy. When even all the paper records of political action committees and other legal means of managing Democratic finances were still identified with the Biden-Harris label, contributions began to flow in and be recorded that were actually for Harris-someone else. Within 48 hours, the press was announcing the inflow of $200 million in fresh money into Democratic accounts for the presidential election alone.

Almost as quickly as these funds appeared, the list of possible alternative pre-candidates, which had been made up of names such as: Gretchen Whitmer, Governor of Michigan; Gavin Newsom, Governor of California; Pete Buttigieg, current Secretary of Transportation; John Shapiro, Governor of Pennsylvania; Jay Robert Pritzker, Governor of Illinois; Andy Beshear, Governor of Kentucky, was silenced. There was even the name of Michelle Obama, a charismatic and prepared woman, who eight years after the end of her husband’s administration still retains high levels of acceptance in the country.

What could have explained the promptness with which these rearrangements were achieved without strident dissent? How was the possibility of a public, open and bloody process to consider the formula of greater choices avoided?

For those who hold in their hands the levers that move U.S. federal policy, a new juncture had been created, which was somewhat different from the disaster-hecatomb scenario of the Biden-Trump dilemma.

Perhaps there was a possibility of building a more predictable future with a candidate who did not seem to have the necessary conditions, but who could surround herself with a team that was better prepared for the task. This new reality would have to be created in a narrow time frame, and to do so, a false or real sense of unity would have to be built. At the very least, a new packaging and brand name had to be attempted.

In the few hours in which the political readjustment took place, the concept of Kamalanomics came to be fabricated in the specialized press, based on alleged actions that the still vice-president could take with respect to various sectors of the U.S. economy, should she reach the throne.

But perhaps one of the keys to what was going on under the surface was given by the megabank JPMorgan in a communication addressed to its clients:

“Markets don’t like uncertainty, and some of the strength in risk assets over the summer was likely due to the increased likelihood of a Republican victory. We would not be surprised to see more turbulence as the presidential race evolves.” Lapidary.

What was a mere probability at the time was chillingly confirmed by the record drop in the major stock markets on August 5.

For the U.S. financial world, the opposite of uncertainty is predictability. In the new circumstances, this condition seems more likely among the Democrat party, which could not only offer a sense of continuity as of 2028 to the team that could be elected this November, but also exhibits a list of probable “leaders” for the future that are not present in the Republican party.

A question that is growing these days in the United States is the following: if Trump is elected, what will happen after the end of his term?

Trump answered that question badly, by making the mistake of choosing a pre-candidate for vice-president (Vance) thinking more about who would guarantee his personal freedom and the possibility of ungoverning at will, than presenting a sense of continuity, a projection towards the future. Vance is the product of a juncture, he is not the nucleus of a team, or a trend in formation.

With Kamala at the bow (not the helm) of the Democratic ship, another interesting trend began to emerge: the mainstream U.S. corporate press massively ran op-eds favorable to the Afro-Asian former prosecutor and claimed that the results in supposed last-minute polls were much more favorable to Trump than Biden’s record.

Instead, this supposed polling data did not exist, which allows us to affirm that another U.S. publicity campaign had begun in which truth was not the main requirement. The objective was to recycle the deteriorated image of an old product that would have a new “application”.

Of course, the actual statistics are very even in the states that will define this election. These are Georgia, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Michigan, Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina.

However, the Democratic team announced a few hours ago the decision to nominate the governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, as vice-presidential candidate along with Kamala.

The political credentials of Walz and Vance are incomparable.

While Walz exhibits concrete results at all levels, Vance appears to most voters as a question mark. In terms of possible endorsement of the former figure, Walz is a file and Vance an empty drawer. What’s worse: Trump is now the age he criticized in Biden during the 2020 campaign. He is also not a healthy man and in the event of incapacity or absence, it seems unlikely that most would consider Vance a true commander-in-chief.

The effect of Walz’s election on the Republican imagination could be immediately seen on the social media platforms of their top operatives. They went from calling Kamala Harris a socialist to saying that the Harris-Walz ticket was simply communist.

Between August 19 and 22, the Democratic National Convention will take place in the city of Chicago, Illinois. Something similar to what has been defined by their Republican peers will take place: the task has already been done and there will be no debate on the possible candidates. Nor will there be any substantive or thoughtful discussion of policies or priorities. The main effort will be aimed at disqualifying the enemy and demonstrating that in a world full of uncertainties the Democrats might be in a position to go a longer way.

To all that is happening in the domestic dynamics of the country, and which are of interest to only 50% of the electorate, one should add the real possibility that between now and the first week of November there could be developments related to the volatile situation in the Middle East, or around the war in Ukraine, that will impact the U.S. domestic political map.

Scenario analysis on US elections is also conducted from Tel Aviv or Kiev and the component of US support (or lack thereof) is key in both capitals.

José Ramón Cabañas Rodríguez is the former Cuban Ambassador to the United States and current Director of the International Policy Research Center (CIPI) in Havana, Cuba.

Source: Cubahora, translation Resumen Latinoamericano – English