GLOBAL CRISIS AND USA 2024 ELECTIONS, what can we expect?
There is a widely recognized theory that foreign policy has had relatively little influence on American voters in the presidential elections. This is not entirely true, since the Founding States granted the exclusivity of foreign policy to the president, so that he would not interfere in domestic decisions. It is very possible that nuances do not matter, but when it comes to serious threats and war conflicts, the history of the last hundred years shows us that foreign policy has always influenced presidential elections.
North American elections since 1948 have been decided with margins of less than 5%, except when there were powerful third candidates such as Wallace in 1968 and Perot in 1992. If we analyze the times of war between the awareness of the threat of war, military development and perception of the end or defeat. We can say that when there is fear of conflict, the American voter votes for continuity. This happened in 1948 with Truman, 1964 with Johnson, with the highest percentage of the popular vote in history, with Nixon in 1972 in the face of the conflict in the Middle East and Bush in 2004. It also happened when the United States was at war with the expectation of a victory. It happened with Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Bush. When conflicts entered their declining phase: Korea in 1952; Vietnam in 1968, Iraq and Afghanistan war in 2008, they voted for change.
In other words, history shows us that given the uncertainties of the war in Ukraine and the Iranian threat after the attack, we should expect more continuity avoiding adventures, especially when those that are announced turn out to be tremendously aggressive against allies and tenuous with enemies.
The American foreign policy elite is debating the merits and failures of the war in Gaza after the Hamas attack and this debate, which is of little interest to the big public. Trump has joined to this intellectual debate, but he does not miss the opportunity to screw up and create more enemies, which does not help his presidential image.
Trump's statements with an absolute lack of political vision and contradicting what has been the bipartisan tradition in the United States, seek short-term political gain without evaluating the consequences of the next day. Faced with an action or decision that he can make profitable that day, he is capable of calling Putin a "genius", criticizing the Israeli army and the prime minister and at the same time praising the terrorist operational action of Hamas last October. The next day he tries to fix it with another statement in the completely opposite direction. Trump still does not understand that in the foreign policy of the United States there can be no opportunism but principles and what the American people want is not to have to think about what is happening abroad, and to focus on domestic aspects, but they are not willing to question his global leadership role.
The repeated argument that "that would not have happened with me" remains very weak since it does not provide any information to explain that opinion, beyond the fact that he met with the North Korean leader whom he called a statesman but who continued with his ballistic essays and that has sought to fraternize with the enemies of the West to seek understandings that should be unacceptable.
There is no doubt that the war in Gaza and the attack by Iran impact the Jewish voter in the United States, traditionally Democratic. Although Trump was the one who decided to move the embassy to Jerusalem, he has always complained that American Jews have not recognized him, which shows that he does not understand that the dynamics of the diaspora, particularly in the United States, differ from what happens In Israel.
All the assets that the Republican could have reaped in Gaza have been lost due to Biden's decisive and explicit support for Israel and the military intervention against the Iranian attack. It is true that there is a part of young Democratic voters who watch the images of Gaza with horror, but given the threat of Trump's arrival, it does not seem that they are going to deviate from supporting Biden, although it is an element that the president does not can ignore.
The other hot potato is Ukraine and Europe's position. Here the differences between the two candidates are absolute. Trump, who even aired Biden's son's ties in Ukraine in court, has always declared himself an admirer of Putin and his way of understanding politics. This mix of religious nationalism from the Russian leader dazzles Trump who has become a Bibles seller. However, the majority of the American population sees Russia as a threat like when Stalin was there and does not understand political sympathies or closeness. It's much simpler, Russia attacks a democracy and it's time to defend it.
Polls in the United States already show a trend of Democratic recovery and a slight decline in Trump, that could be accelerated by an explosive statement in a trial, a conviction or news that could affect his reputation. Seven months before the elections, everything is open and the events that occur in Israel and Ukraine will support this slight trend of recovery for Biden.
But we cannot forget that in the United States it is not the one who wins the most votes but the one who obtains the most electors for the electoral college, which have a correction to benefit less populated states in which the Republicans always win. Once again, the key states will be Pennsylvania, Michigan, Georgia, Arizona, Minnesota, Wisconsin and North Carolina, which have 97 electoral votes and are still very open. Trump needs to win Pennsylvania, where he is trailing, or Georgia, where he is clearly ahead, to be president, assuming he wins Nevada, Arizona, Wisconsin, and North Carolina. Biden winning Georgia, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Minnesota would be president. The point is that these states do not ignore foreign policy at all because of the industries and military facilities that exist in their territories ,and this is an advantage that Biden has.
The president has seven months to reinforce the United States' position in the Middle East and regain leadership of the war against Russia with the upcoming approval of the enormous aid package that many moderate Republicans are going to support, in another kick in the ass of Trump. This, meanwhile, has three challenges: not to screw up, to emerge successfully from the trials and this first is the one that can cause the most damage among the ultra-religious voter, and that the events damage the reputation of the president, too many factors.
In April 2016, Hillary Clinton led Trump by ten points and lost, and Biden had a lead of 5.5 points and maintained it in November. This shows that the elections have only just begun and that any factor with such small differences can dynamite one of the two campaigns.
The truth is that in January 2024, Trump's average advantage over Biden was 4.3 points and today it is 0.2 points with agencies like Reuters that already gave Biden a 3-point advantage yesterday, but it is still small samples.
Attacks, international threats and insecurity are factors that, managed correctly from the White House, can lead to victory. But for these same reasons, a terrorist attack, cyber-attacks on the electoral system, the success of a new Iranian attack, would greatly question the current tenant of 1600 Pennsylvania Av.
Biden has three objectives for this summer: avoid a strong escalation in the Middle East with a new Iranian attack or a response from Israel; achieve a ceasefire in Gaza, once Israel's strategic objectives have been achieved before the summer and the "trap package" of financial aid to Ukraine, Israel and for the border with Mexico is approved, Trump's biggest electoral argument. If Biden gets support for this package in Congress, he will have greatly strengthened his chances of victory; if he does not get it, then events could turn against him.
