I have several friends who, in the run-up to this very stressful election (where the stakes are truly high), have become obsessed with the polls. They wander the web every day trying to reassure themselves, trying hard to stay optimistic when Trump gains a point or two in some crucial states (Arizona, Georgia, North Carolina). Conversely, the slightest sign of a Kamala Harris comeback is greeted with the nervous relief of someone who has just had a scan and been told that their cancer is in remission.
The subtext being: will we succeed, as in 2020, in eliminating the malignant tumor that is Trump? Or this man, described as “potential dictator » by his former chief of staff (former soldier, as conservative as one can imagine), will he succeed in repeating his surprise victory of 2016?
A Trump victory “will raise fundamental and strategic questions in Europe”
I vividly remember that day, eight years ago, when no one but me at the election night I was invited to believed that Trump could do the unthinkable and win. The trauma of his victory was all the more trying because we did not expect it, Americans from progressive and cultured circles having been largely mistaken about the political temperature of the country.
This time, we all know what kind of president Trump would be if re-elected – especially with a vice president (JD Vance) whose misogyny and fundamentalist Catholicism make him a force for social regression. And Trump's growing instability – not to mention his threats to punish his enemies, and even his recently expressed admiration for a certain Adolf Hitler – makes this election even more terrifying.
But if Trump were to win, he would be a regularly elected despot, unlike Hitler who lost the German presidential election in April 1932 to outgoing President Paul von Hindenburg. After the legislative elections the following November, the latter was forced to appoint him chancellor, after which Hitler hastened to consolidate his power and transform himself into an absolute dictator, notably using the fire of the Reichstag the following year as a pretext. .
Are we going to witness the return to power of a “democratically elected” tyrant this Tuesday? Could it be that a criminal, convicted of 34 counts, plus rape, and rightly accused (without ever being impeached) of encouraging a near-coup when his supporters took storming the Capitol on January 6, 2021 (our “ moment Reichstag» , as a journalist friend calls it), manages to win back the White House?
The answer to this question is: alas, yes. Having assiduously followed (both out of professional interest and personal concern) everything related to this election, from polls to expert analyses, I have the terrible impression that Trump, in this last week of the campaign, is starting to loosen up.
United States: trip to Trumpland
Believe me, I would rather not have to write it, and share the cautious optimism of James Carville, the brilliant Democratic strategist who was the mastermind of Bill Clinton's two presidential campaigns in 1992 and 1996, considered one of the the most insightful and skillful political analysts there is. In a recent article published by the New York TimesCarville outlined three reasons why he believes Kamala Harris should win: because Trump is an election-losing machine, and this one will be no exception; because money is the sinews of war and Harris has collected tons of it; and because that is what he senses.
This last argument is revealing. Even if Carville observes that all politicians, from the left (for example Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) to the right (former Vice-President Dick Cheney and his daughter Liz, a former representative from Wyoming who lost her seat in the House after having been the target of Trump because she had voted for his impeachment), argue Kamala Harris, and that therefore the country is not crazy enough to re-elect a potential Führer, her analysis ultimately rests on a simple intuition. Carville is extremely intelligent and a true progressive. But the fact that he ultimately relies on his instinct reminds us, a few days before the election, that the suspense remains as the race is so close.
Take the man nicknamed the “Nostradamus of elections”, the historian Allan Lichtman, who predicted the exact results of nine of the last ten American presidential elections: as I write these lines, he maintains his prediction of month of September, namely a victory for Kamala Harris – which triggered a “torrent of hatred» against him as he had never witnessed during an election, as he confided ten days ago to Chris Cuomo on the News Nation channel.
But there is also Nate Silver, today one of the most respected statisticians in the United States (whose website FiveThirtyEight – a name that evokes the 538 electors of the American electoral college – became essential during this dizzying campaign). He delivered his predictions toNew York Timeslast week:If you want to know, my gut tells me Donald Trump. And I think that's the case among a lot of concerned Democrats. But I don't believe in trusting anyone's instincts, including my own. Rather, we must come to terms with the fact that a 50-50 forecast really means 50-50. And accept the possibility that those predictions could be wrong, whether in favor of Mr. Trump or Ms. Harris.»
Trump, mirror of our demagogies
But, as he also points out in his op-ed, pollsters often interview people who don't want to admit that they are going to vote for Trump. It could therefore be that voting intentions concerning him are underestimated.
More importantly, all indicators are currently showing momentum on Trump's side, to the point where the majority of polls, which for weeks gave Harris a 3% lead over Trump nationally, now have them tied – some polls even giving a slight advantage to Trump -, with a very strong participation of Republicans in early voting operations.
Finally, there are those professional punters who bet on anything and everything, from football matches to greyhound racing to elections. According to an article inDaily Beastall well-informed specialists on the online betting market are now betting on Trump.
The shock of 2016 came from the fact that very few people had appreciated the extent to which Trump spoke to deep America, a phenomenon that completely escaped the progressive elites on both coasts. However, the truth is cruel: almost half of American voters are willing to offer their vote to such an abominable man, a criminal whose personality borders on madness. And to the extent that, during his first term, he granted evangelicals everything they asked for (mainly the revocation of the federal right to abortion), this important bloc will continue to vote for him, despite his connections with porn actresses, his conviction for rape and the fact that he sorely lacks one of the essential components of the Christian faith: empathy.
For all moderates, and many conservatives who can no longer stand what Trump represents, the hope nevertheless remains that, with a margin of error in the thickness of the line, Harris can still get there. That would assume she wins at least Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, which remains possible.
CHRONICLE THE WORLD RIGHT UP – In the United States, between blues and reds, the demon of the splits
A reader recently asked me if I was a pessimist. “On the contrary, I replied. I am an optimist, but lucid, who refuses to approach politics with sentimentality.» It is this lucidity – including for potential bad news – which, in 2016, made me repeat to anyone who would listen that the monster was going to win.
This year, I will hope until the end for a defeat for Trump on Tuesday evening (at least if the results are known on Tuesday: let's not forget that in 2020 it took five days to finish counting all the postal votes and declare Biden the winner). But hope and reality are two different planets. Without being particularly inclined to melodrama, I will still end on a dark note: my instinct tells me that the monster will win again. And, this time, it could well spell the end of American constitutional democracy.
Translation Julie Sibony
