Tag: United States

With only hours left before election day in the United States, analysts and citizens are analyzing public opinion polls for hints of the outcome.

After months of campaigning and hundreds of polls conducted, the only clear takeaway has become the frustrating refrain echoed by election experts worldwide: “it’s too close to call.”

What’s driving this uncertainty? And how should we interpret the polls?

The Predictive Nature of Polling

Throughout the campaign, both parties have showcased various – and often conflicting – polling results. The issue is that it seems no one can agree on which polls are reliable.

Recently, the Des Moines Register released a poll led by well-regarded pollster Ann Selzer, indicating that Kamala Harris holds a surprising three-point lead over Donald Trump in Iowa, giving her campaign a much-needed boost.

However, shortly after, a “confidential” memo from the Trump campaign dismissed these findings, and Trump himself tweeted about favorable results from AtlasIntel, claiming leads across all seven swing states.

In recent elections, although there have been inaccuracies in key states – especially Wisconsin in 2016 and 2020 – polling averages have generally provided fairly accurate reflections of public sentiment.

Nevertheless, the current swing state margins, all within the margin of error, offer little insight that is not already known: the American electorate remains deeply divided over their options.

This brings us to an important point: polls are not inherently predictive. They reflect the public’s feelings at the moment the poll was conducted, which can offer educated guesses about potential election outcomes.

However, the margins of error (which are often greater than most realize), paired with closely contested final vote tallies in critical states and the winner-takes-all structure of the Electoral College, significantly curtail their predictive power.

The variability and direction of polling inaccuracies are unpredictable, especially since errors do not uniformly affect all regions and historically do not consistently favor one party over another.

The Impact of Small Errors

Accurate election polling in the U.S. is complicated by high non-response rates and the voluntary nature of voting (which necessitates adjustments based on projected voter turnout).

Misjudgments in these evaluations contributed to polling inaccuracies in both 2016 and 2020.

In 2016, polls notably underestimated Trump’s backing by neglecting to account for educational background in their sampling.

This oversight led to missing out on support from white, non-college-educated voters, who played a crucial role in turning the Midwest red.

While 2016 is often recalled as a disastrous failure of polling – for seemingly not anticipating a Trump win – the polling averages leading up to election day were, in fact, fairly accurate.

National polls were among the most precise in 80 years, only slightly overshooting Clinton’s popular vote margin by about one percentage point.

In the ten closest states of the 2016 election, Trump was underestimated by just 1.4% on average.

Significant misses in certain battleground states, such as Wisconsin, had a disproportionately large effect on the final outcome.

The polling inaccuracies were such that even a slight variation could swing traditionally Democratic states and lead to what many analysts deemed an unimaginable win for Trump.

Yet, it was the polling data – not analytical shortcomings or sensational media coverage – that received the brunt of the blame for failing to indicate that an unexpected result was, in fact, plausible, despite the clear margins of error suggesting otherwise.

Polling in 2020 was further off but faced less public criticism as it correctly predicted (though narrowly) a Biden win.

Are Pollsters Addressing Former Flaws?

In examining polling averages for 2024, a uniform error favoring Trump of less than 0.8% across seven pivotal swing states could result in a decisive 312–226 Electoral College outcome for him.

Conversely, a similar shift of fewer than three percentage points in Harris’ favor could yield a solid 319–219 victory for the Democrats.

The pressing issue is whether pollsters have sufficiently corrected the flawed methodologies that previously underestimated Trump’s backing in 2016 and 2020.

Some polls have introduced changes such as increasing hybrid sampling techniques (blending both phone and online surveys) and better weightings based on prior voting behavior.

However, these adjustments might be overcompensating for earlier errors, potentially leading to an underrepresentation of Harris’ support due to ineffective sampling.

Until the ballots are counted and a winner is determined, certainty is elusive.

The Limitations of Polls

Polling can still be quite accurate, considering the challenge of capturing the views of millions. Yet, it is a mistake to view polling as inherently predictive or decisive.

The unpredictable nature of polling – and the corresponding complexities of the U.S. electoral system – makes it impractical to seek deeper insights beyond the general public sentiments that polling reflects.

Ultimately, the results could hinge on just a few votes or lead to a sizable Electoral College victory.

Regardless, remember not to hold the polls responsible.

We’re facing severe challenges from climate-related disasters such as floods, wildfires, hurricanes, and extreme heat.

On top of that, we are bombarded with a constant stream of distressing news: tragic accidents, harrowing images from brutal wars, random acts of violence in our neighborhoods, fears about a potential World War III, and chilling alarms about the rising threat of authoritarianism right before the U.S. presidential election, which may see the return of climate-change skeptic Donald Trump.

---

Read more:
‘Each carries their own ghosts’: How the classics resonate with our current times of fear, anger, and political uncertainty

---

When we add personal reminders of our own mortality—like finding a grey hair, receiving an unexpected health diagnosis, or witnessing the COVID-19 fatalities among friends and colleagues—we struggle with a sense of fear that can be both surprising and unwelcome.

Attempting to navigate life as mostly responsible adults while being paralyzed by the inevitability of death isn’t a healthy or sustainable approach. Fortunately, our brains have an inherent coping mechanism that is explained by what is known as “terror management theory.”

Coping Mechanisms

Research in terror management reveals that we all have predictable ways to shield ourselves from the awareness of death. Unfortunately, these defenses can also contribute to harmful social dynamics.

Understanding how these defenses operate is crucial to mitigating their negative effects. They often depend on our established identities and whether our awareness of death is conscious or operates in the background.

When we are overtly conscious of death, our defenses may involve denial, rationalization, distraction, and bolstering self-esteem—often through consumption. We may try to uplift ourselves by accumulating resources, negotiating better salaries, or even avoiding taxes, while also shopping to ensure our families are safe.

---

Read more:
Joe Biden’s refusal to step down highlights the political dangers of ‘death denial’

---

Fears about death can also lead to conspicuous consumption, as we seek to project social status and enhance our self-esteem. In the context of terror management theory, wealth is pursued because it can provide safety, and safety translates to a temporary avoidance of death.

When the fear of death is more of an unconscious or “background noise,” the situation grows more intricate and problematic. Some individuals may harden their identities and beliefs about what is just or fair, what they deserve, and whom they will share resources with—often excluding others.

In such cases, we may find ourselves directing greater hostility towards those who appear different from us: immigrants, religious minorities, or even international students. As these defenses take shape, we often blame “others” for the myriad challenges, large or small, that we face or perceive.

This results in heightened social division and polarization, which undermines the potential for leveraging the diverse ideas, perspectives, and experiences of our communities.

The Authoritarian Agenda

When society is permeated by the awareness of mortality—be it during a deadly pandemic or climate catastrophes—authoritarian figures can exploit these fears to gain power, as seen with potential authoritarian leaders like Trump.

Individuals may become more susceptible to the appeals of charismatic leaders who promise safety, order, and a return to “better times.”

Research by German psychologist Immo Fritsche and his colleagues illustrates that climate change has been linked to increasing authoritarian attitudes and support for authoritarian leadership.

---

Read more:
Is it time to panic? How the existential dread of hurricanes can fuel denial about climate change

---

Additional studies indicated that individuals who did not previously exhibit authoritarian behaviors—after considering their political views—showed increased support for authoritarian leadership when confronted with thoughts of mortality.

In another study, Fritsche found an alarming link: increased awareness of death can foster “prejudice, stereotypes, aggression, and racism, which could lead to greater intergroup violence, escalating into conflicts and even wars.”

While this outcome isn’t predetermined, dismissing the impact of mortality-related defenses on societal dynamics is shortsighted and unwise.

Be a Force for Good

So, what steps can we take to counteract the negative outcomes of societal polarization, hostility towards marginalized communities, the rise of authoritarianism, and possible violence?

Here’s some hopeful news: firstly, positive worldviews and identities can be reinforced even in the face of death threats. Those who view the world as a collective community, who are open to others, and who strive to maintain civil society may find their efforts strengthen when reminded of their own mortality. These individuals deserve our encouragement and recognition.

Secondly, one of the ultimate defenses against the fear of death is to foster our self-esteem through positive “hero projects.” In engaging in these endeavors—whether through philanthropy, parenting, creating art or literature, teaching, or advocating for social change—we dedicate ourselves to actions that may not serve our immediate interests but benefit the greater good, persistently overcoming challenges and adversity.

---

Read more:
The altruistic nature revealed in responses to far-right riots highlights the innate goodness within humanity.

---

In our hero endeavors, we may choose to take less and give more, channeling our energy toward outcomes that ideally benefit our communities long after we are gone.

Those who lean into authoritarianism are already skilled at manipulating our fears of mortality for their gain. We have a choice: we can either accept their path to power, or we can acknowledge the effect of mortality fears and forge alternative paths in the days, weeks, months, and years ahead.

Amid the whirlwind of current U.S. political events, the 40th anniversary of Ronald Reagan’s massive re-election in 1984 might easily slip from our minds.

However, Donald Trump and his backers appear determined to keep Reagan’s legacy front and center, looking to build upon his ideals. The Project 2025 document—an extensive 920-page outline for a potential second term for Trump created by the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation—makes reference to Reagan a notable 71 times. These mentions highlight individuals who served in Reagan’s administration and contributed to the report, as well as showcasing the think tank’s successful influence during Reagan’s presidency.

The Heritage Foundation boasts that 60% of its policy recommendations were adopted by Reagan in the 1980s, and it aims to achieve similar success under a Trump administration with what it describes as a “bold and courageous plan.”

Known for his hands-off management approach, Reagan allowed others to shape policy. Trump may also prefer to let others fill in the gaps in his declaration to “Make America Great Again.”

---

Read more:
US election: how control of Congress will matter for the new president

---

During the 2024 campaign, parallels have been drawn between “the Gipper” (as Reagan was affectionately known) and Trump, specifically in terms of their leadership styles and the overlap of politics and celebrity status.

Reagan’s Landslide Victory

What aspects of Reaganism are Trump supporters eager to resurrect? The 1984 election marked a pivotal moment for the Republican party, with Reagan becoming just the sixth Republican president to secure consecutive electoral wins. Trump has adopted Reagan’s 1980 slogan of wanting to “Make America Great Again.”

From 1984 to 2016, the Republican party largely identified with Reagan, whose supporters argued that he had revived the U.S. economy, restored international respect, won the Cold War, and prioritized family values in American political life. His advocacy for small government and lower taxes left an enduring mark on his successors, including George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush, as well as Republican Congress members. In fact, the Democrats had to transform into “New Democrats” to regain political power in the wake of Reaganism.

Cultural Conflicts Resurface

There are clear parallels between Reagan and Trump, such as their appeal to blue-collar voters, tax reduction strategies, strong national defense, and what is now recognized as “culture war” rhetoric. Project 2025 revisits these themes: “In 1979, the challenges we faced included the Soviet Union, the liberal socialism of the 1970s, and the cultural elite’s predatory behaviors. Reagan conquered these threats by focusing on their core issues rather than their superficial manifestations.”

Both Reagan and Trump had established careers in show business before entering politics. Reagan was notably the first president with roots in entertainment, particularly his Hollywood experience, earning him the title of “The Great Communicator.”

Yet, significant differences exist between the two leaders in terms of style and policy. Reagan came across as pragmatic and maintained civility when dealing with both Democratic and Republican adversaries. His experience as chair of the Screen Actors Guild provided him with negotiation skills, which he wielded against unions during his presidency. He was a determined negotiator, as seen in how he handled the air traffic controllers’ strike. In contrast to Trump, Reagan typically infused his campaigns with optimism, likely influenced by his Midwestern upbringing and Hollywood years.

Trump’s rise, fueled by reality television fame and his business ventures, allowed him to circumvent conventional political routes to the White House. He knows how to leverage media to engage audiences effectively. However, his approach often tends to be more combative and divisive compared to Reagan.

Reaganism vs. Trumpism

Two key public policy areas showcase the differences between Reagan and Trump. Reagan signed the 1986 Immigration Reform and Control Act, which provided amnesty to approximately three million undocumented immigrants, allowing them to legally remain in what he branded the “shining city on a hill.”

In stark contrast, from the outset of his campaign, Trump has redefined the Republican party to advocate for the deportation of millions of immigrants. On cultural issues, Reagan publicly supported prayer in schools and opposed abortion, yet he never pursued any significant legislative changes regarding either issue.

---

Read more:
Project 2025: what is it and why does Trump say he knows nothing about it?

---

Trump enjoys backing from the religious right and readily claims credit for his judicial appointments, which culminated in the overturning of Roe v. Wade in 2022, consequently limiting access to abortion for many women across the country.

Transforming Government

Trump’s previous presidency and his ongoing conservative rhetoric inspired the launch of Project 2025 by the Heritage Foundation. This plan advocates for a significant overhaul of the federal government and U.S. public policy based on conservative values, including a push for expanded presidential power and radical reforms of federal agencies such as the civil service and even the FBI.

Trump and his allies aim to replicate the dramatic shifts in domestic policy that characterized Reagan’s initial term. In his first year, Reagan enacted $39 billion (equivalent to about £30 billion) in budget cuts, slashing social welfare funding and instituting a substantial 25% tax reduction. His administration strongly championed free-market principles and sought to lessen federal regulation.

After restrictions and advice curbed Trump’s initiatives during his first term, a potential second term might see a more emboldened Trump administration, ready to embrace a bolder agenda.

Reagan reshaped the Republican party so profoundly that his vice president, George H.W. Bush, essentially won the presidency promising a third term of Reaganism. The future of Trumpism could hinge on whether the Grand Old Party, as the Republicans are often called, has truly transformed into the Trump party.

The Cuyahoga River, winding through downtown Cleveland, Ohio, was notorious for bursting into flames roughly every ten years. These fiery incidents began in the 1860s, largely due to the river becoming clogged with industrial pollutants, and continued until the 1960s—a decade when environmental conservation surged to the forefront of public consciousness in America.

Today, Americans often take their clean water, fresh air, and thriving parks for granted. When these essentials are compromised—like during the crisis where Flint, Michigan, residents were barred from drinking their tap water—public outcry is swift and justified. Yet, now more than ever, the assurance of a safe and healthy environment in the U.S. is at risk, reminiscent of the pre-1969 era when the Cuyahoga River last ignited.

Donald Trump’s policy outlined by his campaign advisors aims to dismantle foundational environmental laws that were established during the presidency of John F. Kennedy, Lyndon B. Johnson, and Richard Nixon in the 1960s and 1970s.

The ambitious Project 2025 platform proposes an extensive rollback of the nation’s environmental protections, asserting that the Environmental Protection Agency’s “framework and objectives should be significantly limited.”

---

Read more:
Project 2025: what is it and why does Trump say he knows nothing about it?

---

Environmental conservation should ideally transcend politics, yet it has become deeply intertwined with partisan divisions due to climate change debates. Much of this division is fueled by powerful lobbying efforts from entrenched interests, particularly fossil fuel companies that feel threatened by the transition to cleaner energy.

This struggle is not new to American politics. Throughout the 20th century, timber and mining industries devastated vast stretches of forests, contaminated rivers, and endangered cherished ecosystems. In the late 1960s, plans were even in the works to construct two massive hydroelectric dams that would have submerged the Grand Canyon’s Colorado River.

By the end of that decade, these assaults on public natural resources diminished, thanks to regulations that weighed the private gains of development against the public costs. While industries often faced set-backs, the protection of public lands, health, and natural heritage prevailed.

Most Americans would now agree on the importance of halting the exploitation of old-growth forests, refraining from damming wild rivers, and addressing air pollution in cities. However, they now confront an unprecedented movement aiming to reverse these hard-won advancements, alongside efforts to undermine President Joe Biden’s key climate and green manufacturing accomplishments.

Trump has committed to firing experts within the government and replacing them with loyal followers, endorsing a “drill, baby, drill” mentality. Unlike past decades, the stakes of deregulation are heightened by the formidable challenges posed by climate change and an alarming trend of misinformation surrounding ecology and earth science.

Threatening the Future

Actions such as dismantling regulatory capacities, undermining public support for emergency preparedness (for instance, by privatizing FEMA), and exiting the Paris climate agreement expose a worrisome disregard for historic environmental tragedies, framing them as relics of the past.

Yet, in 2023 alone, the U.S. faced a staggering record of 28 climate-related disasters, surpassing the previous year’s total of 22. Each incident resulted in damages exceeding $1 billion, culminating in overall costs upwards of $90 billion.

This data is sourced from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which Project 2025 proposes should be “dismantled, with many functions either privatized or transferred to states and localities.”

While America’s environmental regulations have their flaws—often hampered by inadequate funding that leads to significant delays for developers—bipartisan strategies to address these challenges are actively being debated in Congress.

The fate of America’s agricultural lands, infrastructure, residential areas, coastal communities, and forests hinges on upcoming elections. As we approach a pivotal decade for climate action, Americans must reflect on history to avoid taking a healthy environment for granted and ensure a secure climate for both current and future generations.

During the signing of the historic 1964 Wilderness Act, which safeguarded extensive areas of U.S. public land, President Lyndon B. Johnson referred to environmental regulations as “the highest tradition of our heritage as conservators and users of America’s abundant natural resources.” The preservation of this heritage and our shared global future relies on voters actively defending this ethos of stewardship.

---

Don’t have enough time to keep up with climate change news? Subscribe to our weekly newsletter. Every Wednesday, The Conversation’s environment editor delivers “Imagine,” a brief email exploring a single climate topic in depth. Join over 35,000 readers who have subscribed already.

---

The United Nations has declared that 2024 will be “the biggest election year in human history,” with approximately 3.7 billion people across 72 countries eligible to vote. However, not all elections hold the same weight; currently, the world is focused on the upcoming U.S. elections due to their significant global implications.

The United States boasts the title of the world’s largest economy and possesses the most formidable military. Its role extends beyond economics and defense; it serves as a foundational element of numerous international alliances and organizations that promote liberal values worldwide.

This election cycle represents a crucial juncture in U.S. history with the potential to reshape domestic governance and influence the future of the post-World War II world order that the U.S. has largely shaped.

For the first time since 1945, the fundamental principles guiding U.S. relations with other nations are being openly debated. Voters will have a choice between Donald Trump’s Republican platform, which may signal a complete departure from traditional international engagement, and Kamala Harris’s Democratic agenda, which leans toward maintaining strong global ties. Under a Harris administration, it’s expected that the U.S. would continue to uphold commitments to NATO and other alliances.

Tariffs Against China

One of the most striking departures from established U.S. foreign policy is Trump’s proposal to implement a blanket 20% tariff on all imports, with even steeper tariffs on Chinese goods that could reach as high as 60% to 200%, should he take office again. Such actions could lead to inflationary pressures and harm the U.S. economy, while also triggering retaliatory tariffs and destabilizing global trade relations. By restricting access to the largest consumer market, these measures would hinder worldwide efforts to transition to a zero-carbon economy.

Trump appears unconcerned about these ramifications; he intends to withdraw from the Paris Agreement on climate initiatives, dismantle Biden’s environmental regulations, and promote the unrestricted extraction of U.S. oil and gas through deregulated fracking. Executing these plans could potentially add billions of tons of carbon emissions to the atmosphere, undermining global climate change efforts.

---

Read more:
How Harris and Trump’s economic plans compare

---

Another significant aspect of the 2024 elections involves the U.S. commitment to defend its allies from hostile nations. As a NATO member, the U.S. is obligated under Article 5 to assist fellow members in the event of an attack, having similar commitments to Japan and South Korea. The Biden administration has rallied NATO support for Ukraine, providing military and financial aid to resist Russian advancements.

In sharp contrast, Trump has signaled a desire to discontinue this support, urging Ukraine to broker peace on Russia’s terms. He perceives alliances as more of a liability than an asset, advocating for a more isolationist approach.

Support for Allies

Former officials, including ex-national security advisor John Bolton, express concerns that Trump could either withdraw the U.S. from NATO during a second term or diminish its effectiveness through minimal support. Trump’s recent remarks about Taiwan—asserting that “Taiwan should pay us for defense. You know, we’re no different than an insurance company”—indicate a waning commitment to U.S. protection of the island.

This election also carries weighty implications for the health of U.S. democracy itself. The integrity of elections and the peaceful transition of power have come under scrutiny. Since entering the Republican primary race in 2016, Trump has rejected every election defeat as illegitimate.

Astoundingly, he has managed to persuade many Republican voters that the 2020 election was rigged, with only one-third of the party persuaded of its legitimacy. When trust in the electoral process erodes, the nation’s ability to unify under a legitimate government becomes precarious.

The Trump camp has outlined its vision for governance should he be re-elected. Project 2025—crafted by a conservative think tank—proposes replacing a significant portion of federal employees with approximately 50,000 officials loyal to him rather than the Constitution. Further, it suggests dismantling several federal agencies, including the Departments of Justice, Energy, and Education, as well as the FBI and the Federal Reserve, to facilitate his policy initiatives.

These proposed changes could open the door to a series of policies viewed by many as authoritarian, such as a potential mass deportation of millions of “illegal immigrants” using the National Guard or military forces if deemed necessary.

The U.S. experiment in democracy has inspired and intrigued people globally since its founding in 1776. Nevertheless, it has never seemed as vulnerable as it does now. The nation faces profound divisions on core issues like taxation, immigration, abortion, trade, energy, and its global role.

For the first time, these divisions appear to overshadow the respect for democratic norms and institutions among many voters. Broadly speaking, it seems that a significant portion of the U.S. population is struggling to accept the outcomes of democratic processes and the legitimacy of their elected leaders. Therefore, the stakes of this election are higher than ever, with greater implications for governance and unity in the U.S.