U.S. Elections

On Sunday, Nov. 10, 2024, the Al Habtoor Research Centre hosted a pivotal panel discussion titled “A New U.S. President... A New Middle East”. The session delved into the anticipated effects of President Donald Trump’s return to office on the Middle East, a region undergoing significant transformation amid shifting global dynamics. Mr. Islam Ghoneim, CEO of the Al Habtoor Research Centre, opened the event, underscoring the critical need to examine the U.S. presidential election's repercussions on the Middle East, especially given the substantial shifts in international policies impacting the region. Dr. Azza Hashem, Research Director of the Al Habtoor Research Centre, introduced the esteemed speakers and outlined the themes of the panel discussion, which focused on the characteristics of U.S. policy in the Middle East and key perspectives on the future under Trump’s leadership.

Winning a U.S. presidential election hinges on a complex interplay of factors, among which campaign strategies, candidate credentials, media influence, public accessibility, socioeconomic contexts, and voter sentiment are key. Yet, the fundraising and resource allocation process is central to these dynamics—the driving force that propels these elements toward a more significant impact. Fundraising serves as both the lifeblood of the campaign machinery and a catalyst for enhancing the effectiveness of other campaign components. Consequently, extensive research has studied the correlation between financial backing in U.S. presidential campaigns and candidates' success. Although findings vary widely, a consensus has emerged around the essential role of funding in mounting a viable campaign. Divergences among studies, however, suggest that the sheer volume of funds raised does not consistently predict electoral success. This nuance became particularly evident in the 2016 and 2020 presidential campaigns, where the connection between campaign financing and the likelihood of victory appeared less direct, signalling a shift in campaign financing dynamics and evolving voter priorities.   On the other hand, the scale and nature of campaign funding reveal insights into voters’ preliminary preferences, political leanings, and a potential president's anticipated priorities and agenda. Campaign funding reflects the candidate's backing base and hints at the strategic tools and priorities the next administration might emphasise. This analysis thus examines the funding sources behind the Democratic and Republican presidential campaigns—the largest and most competitive contenders for the White House.

As the U.S. election looms, former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris are both working to mobilise their supporters, ensuring strong voter engagement by Election Day on November 5. While both campaigns employ similar tactics, the Harris campaign has followed recent Democratic strategy by leveraging celebrity endorsements to inspire younger voters, who historically have lower turnout rates but tend to lean Democratic. This challenge with young voters, contrasts with the Trump campaign’s stronger base among White Evangelicals, who, despite not making up a majority of the population, reliably vote in large numbers across the United States (U.S.). The Harris campaign’s reliance on Hollywood celebrities highlights the industry’s alignment with liberal causes and the need to mobilise young voters, compared to the consistent support Trump receives from conservative religious groups, who form a reliable voter base. The divide between Harris’s Hollywood and Trump’s Evangelicals is another representation of another dividing line in the U.S. and raises questions.

It has been an extremely eventful month for the United States. In the span of just one month, we have seen a disastrous debate performance by President Joseph Biden, the attempted assassination of former President Donald Trump, a coup fomenting among Democrats against Biden, Biden contracting COVID-19, and finally, Biden dropping out only 107 days before Election Day and endorsing Vice President (VP) Kamala Harris as the Democratic Party candidate.   All accounts of Biden’s decision suggest that what finally convinced the 81-year-old was not pressure from fellow Democrats to drop out — despite Biden insisting he would stay in the race a day before his announcement — but rather polling conducted by his campaign in key battleground states, which essentially showed that he had no path to the Oval Office and would additionally have to spend significantly in Virginia and New Mexico, states that were considered safely Democratic.   This isn’t the first time an incumbent president has decided to bow out of a presidential election. In 1968, President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) did the same, leading to an open Democratic Convention that, coupled with the anti-war movement, resulted in rioting in the streets of Chicago. Similarly, following Biden’s decision, the Democratic Party will be having an open convention in August at a time of high political polarisation. When LBJ announced he would not seek reelection, he gave the Democratic Party 219 days to assemble and organise; they failed to do so and lost the election. Biden has only given the Democratic Party and their chosen candidate — almost certainly VP Kamala Harris — 107 days to run a campaign against Donald Trump, whom Biden has consistently described as the greatest threat to American democracy in the country’s history.   Biden’s decision raises significant questions, the most significant being does Kamala Harris have enough time to mount a serious campaign in less than four months?

The assassination attempt on Former President Donald Trump is the closest a president or presidential candidate has come to being assassinated since the shooting of President Ronald Regan by John Hinckley Jr. in 1981. President Jospeh Biden was quick to condemn the attempt saying “There is no place in America for this kind of violence — for any violence. Ever. Period. No exception. We can’t allow this violence to be normalized.”   Despite his call for unity and a cooling of tempers, Biden's assertion that this particular violence has no place in the U.S. overlooks a significant historical context. Political violence has been central to the formation of the U.S., with guns being one of the many instruments used to shape the nation and its trajectory.   Every U.S. president that has been assassinated or targeted was through the use of a gun. Presidents Abraham Lincoln, James A. Garfield, William McKinley, and John F. Kennedy were all shot and killed. This violence was not restricted to presidents alone; civil rights leaders such as Medgar Evers, Malcolm X, Martin Luther King Jr., and Fred Hampton were all shot and killed in less than a decade.   The attempt on Trump’s life is a stark reminder of the polarization and political violence that has always been at the heart of the U.S., and which has increased in recent years, largely due to the politics of Trump himself. He now finds himself a victim of the very forces that he has been inflaming, and this attempt on his life will have significant implications for the upcoming presidential election and beyond.