The upcoming U.S. presidential elections will be different from all erstwhile ones, due to the fact that political confrontation in the U.S. is increasingly a war of civilization, and not only the competition of the political programs of the 2 parties, which were erstwhile very similar, or at least made the impression that the goal was one, and only the ways to scope it were somewhat different.
Now these are 2 different worlds, and their collision is simply a full war, where the game is about everything and there will be no taking prisoners. For this reason, there is besides a strong interest in the outside planet in these elections.
Also in Poland, sympathy, on the side of any already 2 participants of this race, are powerfully scratched. We have opposition on Donald Trump's side, and Kamala's side is left-wing Harris and the liberal honour of the ruling coalition.
In Poland, specified a harsh polarization of sympathy is understandable, as the result of these elections in the US will have, as expected, a direct translation into the political agreement in our country. If Trump wins, the current ruling coalition in Poland will be in an uncomfortable position, as the main opposition party, or PiS, and the president have traditionally good, long-standing relations with Trump.
Assessing the candidates' chances only on the basis of the polls, it is impossible to find who presently has a importantly better chance of winning in future elections. Although polls show that Kamala Harris has a general advantage in voters' preferences, the peculiar circumstances of the U.S. electoral strategy make winning in the overall number of winning votes not a choice of president. This is decided by the Electoral College's votes, whose members are elected in individual states on a majority basis, which means that in order to get all the electors from a given state, 50 percent of the votes plus 1 must be obtained, with 2 candidates.
In the utmost case, 1 can imagine that this candidate, who will win half the states, providing the majority of electors, a small above half the vote, and in the others he will not win a single vote, may win the election, although in the full number of votes it will mean that he won only a small more than 25%, while the remaining almost 75% won the lost competitor.
Of course, it is only a hypothetical possibility, but its more likely executions happen more frequently and it is not uncommon for a candidate to win in the U.S., who won little votes in the general bill of voters than his competitor, but obtained more electorative votes.
This peculiarity of the U.S. strategy results in a way of analysing electoral opportunities by distinguishing respective alleged key states, in which triumph determines the superiority in the Elector College and the actual win.
Currently, according to most analyses, these 7 key states have a balance and it is impossible to clearly identify a candidate with a decisive advantage.
The large drama of these struggles across the ocean added an effort to assassinate Trump, who not only came out of it without much damage, was still, by his behavior, creating an iconic image of a warrior, a actual American fighter. Immediately, after being shot, he breaks his legs and with his fist raised manifests the will to fight.
This image has large influence, and the fact that it miraculously avoided death in American society is inactive of large importance in most Protestant, because, according to the Protestant doctrine of predisposition, this means that God is on his side.
The election of J.D. Vance, who is an authentic Catholic, as a starting associate of Trump's presidential candidate, should supply Trump with a large proportion of Catholic voters. Kamala Harris is simply a individual deprived of charisma, and her unusual statements circulate online. However, given the power of the corporations behind it and most of the media, it cannot be underestimated.
It is besides crucial to note a certain property of the American presidential election, which may besides matter. Well, considering the erstwhile elections, practically from the beginning of the US, 1 can point to the existence of 1 rule that applies there.
The point is that a candidate, especially 1 who fights for re-election, who loses in the presidential election, is incapable to win them always again, and usually does not even effort to run again. You could say this: erstwhile a loser – always a loser.
This is, perhaps, besides a consequence of this rule of predestination, which pointed out to Protestant voters that since a candidate erstwhile lost, it means that he has no support from God, and so there is nothing to bet on him.
This could seem to besides apply to Trump, who lost in 2020, but that is not the case, as Trump did not recognise this defeat and claims to have been stripped of his victories as a consequence of election machinations and frauds. And this claim is most likely shared by most of his supporters.
It is 1 thing, and the another is that, from the above rule, regarding the deficiency of a second chance after the losing presidential election, it has been noted so far, in 236 years of the U.S. presidential election, only 1 exception, and it afraid president Grover Cleveland, who, elected president in 1884, lost the election for his second word in 1888 and, in 1992, was re-elected defeating Banjamin Harrison.
Trump is in a akin situation present facing Kamala Harris. Will the situation of more than 130 years ago be repeated and Trump will be the second president of the United States in past to return to the White home after a four-year break?
I think there's a good chance of that, and I would bet on that, even though Kamala Harris was openly supportive of president Putin, who, as many people seriously believe, could have a decisive impact on the U.S. election outcome.
Trump has already eliminated 1 competitor, incumbent president Joe Biden, who, after losing the debate with Trump and very weak polls, resigned from running. Kamala Harris has the support of the alleged "deep state" and the vast majority of corporations, mainly media, as well as various celebrities and powerful lobbyists and force groups, especially those promoting abortion, combating climate, sex ideology and the revolution of the woke.
And there are average people on Trump's side, who Hillary Clinton called "the tramp," and Elon Musk. This may seem to be a duel between David and Goliath, but possibly that is why winning the more powerful side is not certain. For now, polls are promoting Harris, but 1 must remember that in 2016, erstwhile Donald Trump won with Hillary Clinton, then almost all polls were giving Hillary a decisive victory, and reality turned out to be different.
Stanisław Lewicki
