why nothing is decided between the two candidates in the presidential election

Four weeks ago, the church seemed to have been said. Kamala Harris triumphed in August at the Democratic convention in Chicago, overcoming a diminished Joe Biden, and dominated Donald Trump in the only debate of the campaign, on September 10. His election on November 5 seemed certain, except that four weeks before the election, nothing seems certain. Just asking the question confirms that Donald Trump did not lose.

The surveys aggregated by the New York Times give Kamala Harris a victory provided she wins Pennsylvania, which has 19 major voters. Donald Trump’s delay in this key state is only one point. M^me Harris has a lead of one to two points in Nevada, Michigan and Wisconsin, while Mr. Trump leads by one to two points in North Carolina, Georgia and Arizona, other swing states. The fog is complete.

According to statistician Nate Silver, one of the few who warned of the possibility of Donald Trump’s victory in 2016, Kamala Harris’ chances of winning are 54.7% while he was still counting on a Trump victory in mid -september. But he considers this advance very weak. Punters on the online site Polymarket give Donald Trump a 52.7% chance of winning. In short, the advance of M^me Harris remains insufficient to guarantee a victory.

Small grains of sand

Beyond the polls, small grains of sand have accumulated in recent weeks in Kamala Harris’ campaign. First, Donald Trump, who had become inaudible during the summer, once again dominates the agenda. The Republican took charge during Hurricane Helene on September 27, which, with more than 200 deaths, proved to be the deadliest since Katrina, which drowned New Orleans under water in 2005. Absent from the field the first days , Joe Biden and Kamala Harris gave a feeling of indifference to the victims of the Appalachian mountains. The Republican camp seized on this failure and spread the fear that Americans would not be able to count on the Democrats in the event of misfortune.

This same resource was used by the Republicans when they relayed the rumor accusing Haitians of eating the cats of the inhabitants of the small town of Springfield in Ohio. The reproach is false, flushed out by the press, but the Trumpist objective has been achieved: to put on the map a city of 50,000 inhabitants which has seen 20,000 Haitians arrive in a few years and to panic the rest of America, worried about suffer the same fate.

You have 57.25% of this article left to read. The rest is reserved for subscribers.